A needlestick injury is the penetration of the skin by a hypodermic needle or other sharp object that has been in contact with blood, tissue or other body fluids before the exposure.

In healthcare and laboratory settings globally, there are over 25 distinct types of blood-borne diseases that can potentially be transmitted through needlestick injuries to workers.

[1][3] Various other occupations are also at increased risk of needlestick injury, including law enforcement, laborers, tattoo artists, food preparers, and agricultural workers.

A minority of people affected by needlestick injuries may have lasting psychological effects, including post-traumatic stress disorder.

[13] In cases where an injury was sustained with a clean needle (i.e. exposure to body fluids had not occurred), the likelihood of infection is generally minimal.

When drawing blood, administering an intramuscular or intravenous drug, or performing any procedure involving sharps, accidents can occur and facilitate the transmission of blood-borne diseases.

Injuries also commonly occur during needle recapping or via improper disposal of devices into an overfilled or poorly located sharps container.

During surgery, a surgical needle or other sharp instrument may inadvertently penetrate the glove and skin of operating room personnel;[7] scalpel injuries tend to be larger than a needlestick.

The first one is the use of tools that have been changed so that they are less likely to lead to a sharps injury such as blunt or taper-point surgery needles and safety engineered scalpels.

[7] Needleless connectors (NCs) were introduced in the 1990s to reduce the risk of health care worker needlestick injuries.

Some studies have found that safer needles attached to syringes reduce injuries, but others have shown mixed results or no benefit.

[2] The adherence to "no-touch" protocols that eliminate direct contact with needles during use and disposal greatly reduces the risk of needlestick injuries.

[17] A Cochrane review found low quality evidence showing that safety devices on IV start kits and venipuncture equipment reduce the frequency of needlestick injuries.

[25][21] The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has a campaign (Stop Sticks) to educate at-risk healthcare workers.

[27] Unless the source is known to be negative for HBV, HCV, and HIV, post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) should be initiated, ideally within one hour of the injury.

[20] The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates more than 600,000 needlestick injuries occur among healthcare workers in the US annually.

The American Hospital Association found that a case of infection by blood-borne pathogens could cost $1 million for testing, follow-up, and disability payments.

An estimated $1 billion annually is saved by preventing needlestick injuries among healthcare workers in the US, including fees associated with testing, laboratory work, counseling, and follow-up costs.

[37] In the United States, the Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act of 2000 and the subsequent Bloodborne Pathogens Standard of 2001 require safer needle devices, employee input, and records of all sharps injuries in healthcare settings.

[3][7][26] The Coalition for Safe Community Needle Disposal estimates there are over 7.5 billion syringes used for home medical care in the United States.

[42] Many professions are at risk of needlestick injury including law enforcement, waste collectors, laborers, and agricultural workers.

There is no standard system for collecting and tracking needlestick injuries in the community, which makes it difficult to measure the full impact of this problem.

[41] Housekeeping and janitorial workers in public sites, including hotels, airports, indoor and outdoor recreational venues, theaters, retails stores, and schools are at daily risk of exposure to contaminated syringes.

[41] A small study of sanitation workers in Mexico City found that 34% reported needlestick injuries while working in the past year.

Studies in Canada have reported 274 injuries from needlesticks in children with the majority being boys (64.2%) and occurring from needles discarded in streets and/or parks (53.3%).

The study proposed the implementation of a vaccination effort to give children a routine prophylaxis against hepatitis B to prevent the development of the illness in the event that a child encounters an improperly disposed needle.

[31] Spurred to urgency by the introduction of HIV/AIDS, needle syringe programs quickly became an integral component of public health across the developed world.

These programs remove contaminated syringes from the street, reducing the risk of inadvertent transmission of blood-borne infections to the surrounding community and to law enforcement.

[39] Data almost universally confirm the value of needle exchange programs, which substantially decrease the risk of HIV among injectable drug users and do not carry unintended negative consequences.

[55] Nevertheless, the US government has explicitly prohibited federal funding for needle exchange programs since 1988, as part of the zero tolerance drug policy in that country.