title: A Model-Based Product Evaluation Protocol for Comparison of Safety-Engineered Protection Mechanisms of Winged Blood Collection Needles.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To evaluate differences in product characteristics and user preferences of safety-engineered protection mechanisms of winged blood collection needles.
  
  
  METHODS
  Randomized model-based simulation study.
  
  
  METHODS
  University medical center.
  
  
  METHODS
  A total of 33 third-year medical students.
  
  
  METHODS
  Venipuncture was performed using winged blood collection needles with 4 different safety mechanisms: (a) Venofix Safety, (b) BD Vacutainer Push Button, (c) Safety-Multifly, and (d) Surshield Surflo. Each needle type was used in 3 consecutive tries: there was an uninstructed first handling, then instructions were given according to the operating manual; subsequently, a first trial and second trial were conducted. Study end points included successful activation, activation time, single-handed activation, correct activation, possible risk of needlestick injury, possibility of deactivation, and preferred safety mechanism.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The overall successful activation rate during the second trial was equal for all 4 devices (94%-100%). Median activation time was (a) 7 s, (b) 2 s, (c) 9 s, and (d) 7 s. Single-handed activation during the second trial was (a) 18%, (b) 82%, (c) 15%, and (d) 45%. Correct activation during the second trial was (a) 3%, (b) 64%, (c) 15%, and (d) 39%. Possible risk of needlestick injury during the second trial was highest with (d). Possibility of deactivation was (a) 0%, (b) 12%, (c) 9%, and (d) 18%. Individual preferences for each system were (a) 11, (b) 17, (c) 5, and (d) 0. The main reason for preference was the comprehensive safety mechanism.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Significant differences exist between safety mechanisms of winged blood collection needles.
authors: 1Occupational Medical Service,University Medical Center Freiburg,Freiburg,Germany.
authors: C
authors: C
authors: Haupt
authors: 2Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine,University Medical Center Freiburg,Freiburg,Germany.
authors: J
authors: J
authors: Spaeth
authors: 2Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine,University Medical Center Freiburg,Freiburg,Germany.
authors: T
authors: T
authors: Ahne
authors: 2Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine,University Medical Center Freiburg,Freiburg,Germany.
authors: U
authors: U
authors: Goebel
authors: 1Occupational Medical Service,University Medical Center Freiburg,Freiburg,Germany.
authors: D
authors: D
authors: Steinmann
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D004867:Equipment Design; D005260:Female; D005858:Germany; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D009339:Needles / Q000145:classification*; D016602:Needlestick Injuries / Q000517:prevention & control*; D018962:Phlebotomy / Q000295:instrumentation*; D011482:Protective Devices; D011897:Random Allocation; D013334:Students; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires