Health and safety


injuries being commuted to the individual to follow procedures when devices exist to remove the risk; buying lower cost, non-safety- engineered devices that require risk reduction procedures to use them; the risks of sharps injuries extending far beyond the procedural use of the sharps device; the manpower needed to write, maintain and report the procedures for risk management. So, what is needed to drive change and


remove the risk at source by using SEDs? Hospital boards need to accept that protection from workplace injury is a human right and not words on an annual report. It is as important as paying the employees every month, giving them facilities and training them to do their work. It is as basic as a telephone, a desk, and a lunch break.


Hospital management also need to recognise


that they own the responsibility in law to remove the sharps injury risk if a safety engineered device exists. This tenet demands reviews of available SEDs and will drive suppliers to develop more SEDs. Higher take-up could lower prices. Implementation of those devices will almost certainly be cheaper overall, when start-to- finish processes are examined. This will be in real terms of reduced time to carry out clinical procedures, fewer administrative procedures to reduce risk, and fewer to maintain. Stronger government legislation mandating the use of SEDs must be evaluated and implemented. Today, UK hospitals cannot truly say that a safe and healthy working environment is one of their fundamental principles, as demonstrated by employees’ lack of protection against sharps injuries. Occupational safety and health appears to be considered an optional extra. Sadly, the right of all hospital workers to safe and healthy working conditions remains far more a privilege


Hospital management need to recognise that they own the responsibility in law to remove the sharps injury risk if a safety engineered device exists.


than a universal human right and this will only improve when respect for the individual is placed ahead of budgets.


References 1. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. https://www.un.org/en/udhrbook/pdf/ udhr_booklet_en_web.pdf


2. International Labour Organisation (ILO) (https://www.ilo.org/about-ilo).


3. UK RIDDOR Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations. https://www.hse.gov.uk/riddor/key- definitions.htm


4. The Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH)


https://iosh.com/about/what-we-do/osh- fundamental-right


5. The 2023 NHS Constitution for England - Staff: your rights and NHS pledges to you. https://www.gov.uk/government/ publications/the-nhs-constitution- for-england/the-nhs-constitution-for- england#staff-your-rights-and-nhs-pledges- to-you


6. Managing Sharps Injury Risks. https:// resolution.nhs.uk/learning-resources/ preventing-needlestick-injuries/


7. Health & Safety Executive-Health & Safety (Sharp Instruments in Healthcare) Regulations, 2013. https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/hsis7.htm


8. Adverse Incident Reporting. General Medical Council. https://www.gmc-uk.org/-/media/


About the author


David Laffar is the Business Development Director for Merah Medical, a Malaysian- registered medical devices company, with offices also in Australia and the UK. He has a background in acquisitions of medical companies, sales of medical devices and equipment in blood banking, and paediatric stress and anxiety solutions using diversionary therapy devices to the UK NHS and European healthcare authorities. Merah Medical was founded in 2013, its


mission being to transform the landscape of medical device safety with pioneering Engineered Passive Safety devices, designed from the outset with safety and process efficiency as the founding principles. With a steadfast commitment to eliminating needlestick injuries, its lighthouse products are Sentinal Max, a universal blood tube holder for all types of vacutainers and culture bottles, with the luer needle always shielded from the practitioner, and Samplar Max, a blood products transfer device providing the same safety principles.


60 www.clinicalservicesjournal.com I October 2025 CSJ


documents/Raising_and_acting_on_concerns_ about_patient_safety___English_0617. pdf_48902813.pdf


9. Barriers to staff reporting adverse incidents in NHS hospitals. https//pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ articles/PMC6502564/pdf/futurehealth-5-2-117. pdf


10. Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act. 11/06/2000 Became Public Law No: 106-430. (All actions). https://www.congress.gov/bill/106th- congress/house-bill/5178


Igorzvencom - stock.adobe.com


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68