# Identifying individual and organizational predictors of accidental exposure to blood (AEB) among hospital healthcare workers: A longitudinal study

René Sosata Bun, Karim Aït Bouziad, Oumou Salama Daouda, Katiuska Miliani, Anastasia Eworo, Florence Espinasse, Delphine Seytre, Anne Casetta, Simone Nérome, Laura Temime, et al.

► To cite this version:

René Sosata Bun, Karim Aït Bouziad, Oumou Salama Daouda, Katiuska Miliani, Anastasia Eworo, et al.. Identifying individual and organizational predictors of accidental exposure to blood (AEB) among hospital healthcare workers: A longitudinal study. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, 2023, pp.1-10. 10.1017/ice.2023.248. hal-04419952

HAL Id: hal-04419952

https://hal.science/hal-04419952v1

Submitted on 26 Jan 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Original Article

# Identifying individual and organizational predictors of accidental exposure to blood (AEB) among hospital healthcare workers: A longitudinal study

René Sosata Bun MS¹,² ID, Karim Aït Bouziad MS³, Oumou Salama Daouda³ ID, Katiuska Miliani PhD⁴ ID,
Anastasia Eworo MD⁴, Florence Espinasse MD⁵, Delphine Seytre MD⁶, Anne Casetta MD⁷, Simone Nérome MD⁸,
Laura Temime PhD³,⁹ ID, Mounia N. Hocine PhD³ ID and Pascal Astagneau MD, PhD¹,⁴ ID

¹PLESP, INSERM, Sorbonne University, Paris, France, ²INSERM CIC1410, CHU Réunion, Saint-Pierre, France, ³MESuRS Laboratory, Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers, Paris, France, ⁴CPIAS Ile de France, Paris, France, ⁵Hôpital Ambroise Paré, Boulogne, France, ⁶Hôpital Avicenne, Bobigny, France, ⁷Hôpital Cochin, Paris, France, ⁸Hôpital Beaujon, Clichy, France and ⁹PACRI Unit, Institut Pasteur, Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers, Paris, France

Abstract

Background: Accidental exposure to blood (AEB) poses a risk of bloodborne infections for healthcare workers (HCWs) during hospital activities. In this study, we identified individual behavioral and organizational predictors of AEB among HCWs.

Methods: The study was a prospective, 1-year follow-up cohort study conducted in university hospitals in Paris, France. Data were collected from the Stress at Work and Infectious Risk in Patients and Caregivers (STRIPPS) study. Eligible participants included nurses, nursing assistants, midwives, and physicians from 32 randomly selected wards in 4 hospitals. AEB occurrences were reported at baseline, 4 months, 8 months, and 12 months, and descriptive statistical and multilevel risk-factor analyses were performed.

Results: The study included 730 HCWs from 32 wards, predominantly nurses (52.6%), nursing assistants (41.1%), physicians (4.8%), and midwives (1.5%). The incidence rate of AEB remained stable across the 4 visits. The multilevel longitudinal analysis identified several significant predictors of AEB occurrence. Individual-level predictors included younger age, occupation as nurses or midwives, irregular work schedule, rotating shifts, and lack of support from supervisors. The use of external nurses was the most significant ward-level predictor associated with AEB occurrence.

Conclusions: AEBs among HCWs are strongly associated with organizational predictors, highlighting the importance of complementing infection control policies with improved staff management and targeted training. This approach can help reduce AEB occurrences and enhance workplace safety for HCWs.

Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03532321

(Received 27 May 2023; accepted 11 October 2023)

Accidental exposure to blood (AEB) poses a potential risk for bloodborne pathogen infections in healthcare workers (HCWs) and subsequently in patients during care. The most common pathogens transmitted through AEB include human immuno-deficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B and C, and certain bacteria.¹ AEBs can occur in various ways, such as percutaneous needlestick injuries, cuts, scrapes, or splashes to the mucous membranes like the eyes, nose, or mouth. Needlestick injuries are the most common cause of AEB during care tasks.² High-risk care tasks for AEBs typically involve handling sharp objects, administering medications, managing bodily fluids, and working with

contaminated equipment. However, AEB can also occur during other nursing tasks and environmental activities, such as cleaning contaminated surfaces or disposing of hazardous waste. To mitigate AEBs, it is vital to adhere to standard precautions and to utilize personal protective equipment, including gloves, masks, and eye protection, during high-risk care. Proper disposal of needles and other sharp objects is also essential.³ AEB serves as a marker for risk, quality, and safety of care among HCWs because the accident rate might reflect the performance of healthcare facilities in terms of cost and economic impact.⁴ AEB risk increases during nursing care or environmental activities, particularly for HCWs regularly exposed to invasive procedures with significant blood contact.⁵ Activities like wound care, equipment handling, and waste disposal can raise the likelihood of AEB, which contributes to stress and has physical and psychological consequences for HCWs. However, understanding the impact of

Corresponding author: René Sosata Bun; Email: rene.sosata@gmail.com

Cite this article: Bun RS, Aït Bouziad K, Daouda OS, et al. Identifying individual and organizational predictors of accidental exposure to blood (AEB) among hospital healthcare workers: A longitudinal study. *Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol* 2023. doi: 10.1017/ice.2023.248

© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
various healthcare-related factors on AEB risk remains challenging. Although behavioral and management factors influence the risk of healthcare-associated infections in patients,⁶ research identifying these factors for HCWs has been limited. Studies highlight the importance of teamwork, leadership, and proper equipment,⁷ as well as the need for a strong safety culture among HCWs.⁸ Considering this evidence, a French cross-sectional study⁹ examined the impact of various factors on HCW stress and fatigue in intensive care units (ICUs). These researchers found that employment and organizational factors were significantly associated with stress and fatigue outcomes, even after controlling for demographic factors. Addressing factors at both individual and organizational levels is crucial for improving HCWs health. With this background in mind, we sought to identify both individual behavioral and organizational factors that could influence the occurrence of AEB in HCWs and to better elucidate the role of various potential risk factors.

## Methods

### Study design and participants

The STRIPPS study (no. NCT03532321) was a 1-year follow-up multicenter, prospective study investigating the individual and organizational factors that predict occupational exposure to blood among 730 HCWs in Paris university hospitals.¹⁰ The study was carried out in 4 general-care hospitals between February 2018 and July 2019 and included nurses, nursing assistants, midwives, and physicians as participants. We included both permanent and fixed-term contract HCWs with work contracts lasting at least 1 year, matching the survey duration. We excluded those with contracts <1 year, as well as external personnel (eg, nursing float pool). The sample size was a convenience sample based on a previous study.⁹ Data were collected from these HCWs by randomly selecting 8 wards per participating hospital from those that employed at least 30 HCWs.

### Data collection

Data were collected in all participating individuals, every 4 months for a total follow-up period of 1 year, by 2 different interviewers. The collection times were designated as t0, t1, t2, and t3, corresponding to the first collection during the inclusion visit and follow-up visits at 4, 8, and 12 months, respectively. For the first collection (t0), dates and times of visits were randomly assigned for each ward. For subsequent collections, individual appointments were made considering different work shifts (day and night) to ensure a comprehensive representation of HCW schedules.

Data were collected through questionnaire-based interviews at both the ward and individual levels. Potential participants were informed of the study through an information letter and gave verbal consent at the beginning of each interview. Participants were guaranteed confidentiality and anonymity of responses.

### Ward-level variables

The hospital health executives (nurse managers) were interviewed at t0 to collect data for each of the 32 wards. The data collected pertained to the medical specialty of the ward, the number of beds per ward, the proportion of double rooms, the frequency of tasks performed outside the ward, the ratio of HCW to patients, and the use of external staff. Further inclusion and exclusion criteria were previously reported.¹¹

### Individual-level variables

Interviewers collected a range of information about the HCWs including demographics and details about their work organization. Validated questionnaires, such as the Effort-Reward Imbalance (ERI),¹² the Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ),¹³ the Perceived Stress Scale-10 (PSS-10),¹⁴,¹⁵ and the Pichot fatigue scale,¹⁶ were used to standardize measures of overcommitment, social support, and stress and fatigue levels, respectively. This information was collected at 4 different times (ie, t0, t1, t2, and t3) to track changes over time.

### Outcome

The outcome variable was the self-reported occupational exposure to blood among HCWs. An AEB is defined as any unintended contact with blood or blood-containing body fluids, which can occur through percutaneous injuries, cuts, scrapes, or splashes to the skin or mucous membranes. At each visit, HCWs were asked about the number of AEBs they had experienced within the previous 4 months. Only declared AEBs were considered. The accidents were further described in terms of their context, cause, and nature of injury. Notably, this information was obtained through self-reporting by the HCWs during the study visits.

### Missing data

To handle missing data, we utilized multiple imputation on validated questionnaire items (JCQ, PSS-10, Pichot, and ERI questionnaires) with the R mice package.¹⁷ The imputation was performed on both continuous and categorical variables in longitudinal data. Missing data for all questionnaire items in the imputation model were assumed to be missing at random.

### Statistical analyses

First, we conducted a descriptive analysis to summarize the data collected at the individual and ward levels. We assessed changes in individual-level variables over time using 2-sided student tests for continuous variables and $\chi^2$ tests for categorical variables. Next, we identified factors associated with AEBs in participating HCWs. Bivariate analyses were conducted on all individual-level variables to determine which variables were relevant for inclusion in the multivariate analysis. Variables with $P \le .20$ were considered for inclusion in the model. Based on these results, we performed a multivariate analysis with longitudinal data to investigate the association between risk factors and the outcome variable. We used a linear mixed-effects model, including the hospital as a random effect to account for the unobserved heterogeneity across hospitals. We used the hospital variable as the random effect because it represents a higher-level grouping in the data hierarchy and demonstrated a significant effect in the bivariate analysis. To select the best model, we used the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and compared it with alternative models to ensure the inclusion of the most suitable random and fixed effects. All data analyses were conducted using R package *lme4* software (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).¹⁸

### Ethical approval

The study protocol obtained both an agreement from the French Committee for the Protection of Persons (CPP) on November 14, 2017, and clearance from the French Data Protection Authority (CNIL) on December 14, 2017 (IDRCB no. 2017-A02939-44).
# Results

## Demographic and work characteristics of the study sample

In this study, a sample of 730 HCWs was analyzed. The sample comprised 384 nurses (52.6%), 300 nursing assistants (41.1%), 35 physicians (4.8%), and 11 midwives (1.5%). The female:male sex ratio was 5:1, with 610 female respondents (83.6%). The majority of HCWs were permanent staff (n = 644, 88.2%) compared to temporary staff (n = 66, 9.0%) and contractual staff (n = 19, 2.6%). The average number of years of experience was 10.5 (±9.7), and 380 respondents (52.1%) had supervising responsibilities. On average, HCWs worked 37.6 hours per week (±5.8 hours), and 614 (84.1%) had advance knowledge of their schedule, but 322 (44.1%) had never participated in creating it. Furthermore, 302 (41.4%) staff did not take their rest immediately after night shifts. In terms of transportation, 365 participants (50.0%) reported a daily car use versus 303 (41.5%) using public transportation and 62 (8.5%) using other options (ie, walking, biking, or motor biking). The daily commute duration was <1 hour for 306 participants (41.9%), between 1 and 2 hours for 321 participants (44.0%), and >2 hours for 103 participants (14.1%).

## Characteristics of participating wards in the study

This study included 32 wards from various medical fields, including surgery and obstetrics (14 wards, 43.8%), medicine (11 wards, 34.4%), and ICUs (7 wards, 21.9%). The average number of beds per ward was 35.5 (±18.5), and ~20% of ward rooms were double rooms. The patient-to-physician ratio and patient-to-paramedic ratio were 2.9 and 0.8, respectively. The scheduling of work varied across participating wards. Most HCWs (80%) organized work in three 8-hour shifts, whereas 16% of wards used two 12-hour shifts. More than 80% of wards required HCWs to leave the ward on occasion, and most wards utilized interim staff.

## Details of accidental exposures to blood

In total, 108 instances of occupational blood exposure were reported among 71 HCWs. Table 1 provides details about AEBs, including the nature of the injury, the mechanism of occurrence, and the task being performed when the accident occurred, grouped by medical specialty and occupation. Of the 108 reported blood accidents, 52 occurred among 29 HCWs in the ICU, 40 among 37 HCWs in surgery and obstetrics, and the remaining 16 among 5 HCWs in other medical specialties. The incidents included 59 splashes, 44 needlestick injuries, and 5 cuts from sharp objects. The main reasons were handling a mounted needle (57%), followed by handling contaminated instruments (17%) and other mechanisms (13%). Most injuries occurred during tasks such as blood sampling (41%), infusion (12%), surgery (12%), nursing and hygiene (11%), and other care (9%). Surgeons and midwives, who carry out procedures involving skin punctures or cuts in surgery and obstetrics departments, had higher rates of occupational blood exposure, at 37.5% and 20%, respectively. ICU nurses had the second-highest rate of blood exposure, at 10.8%.

## Bivariate and multivariate analyses on predictors of AEBs among HCWs

Table 2 shows the results of bivariate analyses conducted on variables associated with AEBs among HCWs. These analyses

helped identify potential individual-level predictors that might be associated with the occurrence of AEBs in HCWs. Table 3 presents the multivariate model selected using Akaike information criterion (AIC), which shows significant association between the occurrence of AEBs and various individual-level predictors. These predictors included younger age (relative risk [RR], 4.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.20–9.94; *P* = .026), occupation as nurses (RR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.25–4.52; *P* = .009) or midwives (RR, 2.90; 95% CI, 1.32–4.45; *P* = .012), irregular work schedules (RR, 3.18; 95% CI, 1.83–5.11; *P* < .001), rotating shifts (RR, 3.11; 95% CI, 1.72–4.83; *P* = .001), and lack of support from supervisors (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.06–1.28; *P* = .001). No significant variation over time was observed. Additionally, the use of external nurses was a significant ward-level predictor associated with the occurrence of AEBs (RR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.19–3.35; *P* = .010).

# Discussion

The main findings of this longitudinal study highlight the importance of considering both individual and organizational factors when addressing AEBs among HCWs. We identified several significant factors, including occupation, age, work schedule consistency, rotating shifts, social support from supervisors, and the frequent use of external nurses. However, there was no evidence of relationship between stress and fatigue and the occurrence of AEBs.

The study revealed that physicians, nurses, and midwives, who have more frequent and direct contact with patients, are more likely to be exposed to AEBs.¹⁹ The increased risk among these occupations could be due to the nature of their work, involving invasive procedures, handling of sharp instruments, and frequent patient interactions.⁵ Additionally, younger HCWs may be at higher risk due to their lack of experience and knowledge of infection control and safety procedures.²⁰ Targeted training and education to especially those who are relatively inexperienced is paramount; education has been shown to be effective in reducing AEBs.²¹

Inconsistent work schedules and rotating shifts can increase the risk of AEBs. Our findings suggest that healthcare facilities should consider the impact of work-shift changes and schedule consistency on the health and patient safety.²² It is essential to allow HCWs sufficient time to rest and recover between shifts as well as appropriate support to cope with schedule changes. Extended work hours and insufficient rest periods are known to increase AEB risk.²³ Additionally, occupational injuries can result from consecutive and cumulative shifts.²⁴ Prolonged work hours can also lead to sleep disruption, negatively affecting HCW performance.²⁵ Thus, healthcare facilities should consider implementing strategies, such as shorter work hours, flexible scheduling, and regular breaks during shifts, to mitigate AEB risks associated with work schedules and shift rotation.

Insufficient support from supervisors can lead to increased stress among HCWs, negatively influencing their health, morale, and productivity.²⁶ Healthcare facilities should promote social support and safety climate among their staff⁸ through regular meetings with supervisors to discuss work-related challenges, constructive feedback, and a positive work environment.²⁷ Factors such as work environment, teamwork, burnout, and personal circumstances can influence the intent of European nurses to leave their job.²⁸ Addressing these factors is essential for staff retention. By fostering a supportive culture and adequate nurse staffing, healthcare organizations can decrease AEB risk and improve
<table><caption>**Table 1.** Incidence Rate of Accidental Exposure to Blood per 1,000 Person Years by Medical Specialty and by Occupation (n=108)</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Characteristics of occupational Exposures to blood</th><th colspan="3">By Medical Specialty</th><th colspan="3">By Occupation</th><th rowspan="2">Total<sup>a</sup></th></tr><tr><th>Intensive Care Unit (n=203)<sup>a</sup></th><th>Surgery Obstetrics (n=314)<sup>a</sup></th><th>Nurses (n=384)<sup>a</sup></th><th>Nursing Assistants (n=300)<sup>a</sup></th><th>Physicians (n=35)<sup>a</sup></th><th>Midwives (n=11)<sup>a</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>No. of visits</td><td>1,128</td><td>755</td><td>1070</td><td>1365</td><td>138</td><td>40</td><td>2,613</td></tr><tr><td>Nature of injury</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Splash</td><td>38.4 (28)</td><td>20.4 (23)</td><td>35.9 (49)</td><td>4.7 (5)</td><td>36.2 (5)</td><td>...</td><td>22.6 (59)</td></tr><tr><td>Needlestick injury</td><td>30.1 (22)</td><td>12.4 (14)</td><td>20.5 (28)</td><td>4.7 (5)</td><td>29 (4)</td><td>175 (7)</td><td>16.8 (44)</td></tr><tr><td>Cut by other sharp object</td><td>2.7 (2)</td><td>2.7 (3)</td><td>1.5 (2)</td><td>1.9 (2)</td><td>...</td><td>25 (1)</td><td>1.9 (5)</td></tr><tr><td>Mechanism of accident occurrence</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>By handling a mounted needle</td><td>35.6 (26)</td><td>22.2 (25)</td><td>35.9 (49)</td><td>1.9 (2)</td><td>29 (4)</td><td>175 (7)</td><td>23.7 (62)</td></tr><tr><td>By handling soiled instruments</td><td>21.9 (16)</td><td>0.9 (1)</td><td>10.3 (14)</td><td>3.7 (4)</td><td>...</td><td>...</td><td>6.9 (18)</td></tr><tr><td>By handling a mounted or unmounted syringe</td><td>4.1 (3)</td><td>1.8 (2)</td><td>4.4 (6)</td><td>...</td><td>...</td><td>...</td><td>2.3 (6)</td></tr><tr><td>By handling samples</td><td>5.5 (4)</td><td>0.9 (1)</td><td>2.9 (4)</td><td>...</td><td>...</td><td>25 (1)</td><td>1.9 (5)</td></tr><tr><td>By intervening on a device</td><td>...</td><td>...</td><td>1.5 (2)</td><td>0.9 (1)</td><td>...</td><td>...</td><td>1.1 (3)</td></tr><tr><td>Other mechanisms at the origin of contact with body fluids or injured skin</td><td>4.1 (3)</td><td>9.8 (11)</td><td>2.9 (4)</td><td>4.7 (5)</td><td>36.2 (5)</td><td>...</td><td>5.4 (14)</td></tr><tr><td>Tasks during which accident occurred</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Blood sampling</td><td>46.6 (34)</td><td>8 (9)</td><td>30 (41)</td><td>0.9 (1)</td><td>...</td><td>50 (2)</td><td>16.8 (44)</td></tr><tr><td>Infusion</td><td>5.5 (4)</td><td>3.5 (4)</td><td>9.5 (13)</td><td>...</td><td>...</td><td>...</td><td>5 (13)</td></tr><tr><td>Surgery</td><td>...</td><td>11.5 (13)</td><td>...</td><td>...</td><td>50.7 (7)</td><td>150 (6)</td><td>5 (13)</td></tr><tr><td>Nursing, hygiene</td><td>5.5 (4)</td><td>4.4 (5)</td><td>5.9 (8)</td><td>3.7 (4)</td><td>...</td><td>...</td><td>4.6 (12)</td></tr><tr><td>Injection</td><td>4.1 (3)</td><td>4.4 (5)</td><td>5.1 (7)</td><td>...</td><td>14.5 (2)</td><td>...</td><td>3.4 (9)</td></tr><tr><td>Other care (eg, hemodialysis, catheter manipulation)</td><td>4.1 (3)</td><td>2.7 (3)</td><td>5.1 (7)</td><td>2.8 (3)</td><td>...</td><td>...</td><td>3.8 (10)</td></tr><tr><td>Other tasks apart from direct contact with the patient (eg, cleaning objects)</td><td>5.5 (4)</td><td>0.9 (1)</td><td>2.2 (3)</td><td>3.7 (4)</td><td>...</td><td>...</td><td>2.7 (7)</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>46.1 (52)</td><td>53.0 (40)</td><td>73.8 (79)</td><td>8.8 (12)</td><td>65.2 (9)</td><td>200 (8)</td><td>41.3 (108)</td></tr></tbody></table>

overall staff safety and quality of care.²⁹ Support from supervisors is essential in reducing AEB risk because it promotes a positive safety culture and HCW adherence to safety protocols.³⁰

Using external staff in healthcare facilities can result in various issues, including increased risk of infection, accidents, and challenging work conditions.³¹ We hypothesize that this utilization of external staff may serve as a marker for unit staffing instability and culture. Staff operating in multiple healthcare facilities may act as a vector for spreading infections between these locations.³² Moreover, HCWs may be more susceptible to accidents given their unfamiliarity with equipment or facility layout, increasing the risk of falls, needle-stick injuries, and other mishaps.³³ The association between care left undone and temporary nursing staff ratios in acute-care settings underscores the need to address staffing for patient safety.³⁴ These staff members might encounter work-related challenges such as job insecurity, dissatisfaction, and burnout. Such challenges arise due to disparities in training and support compared to permanent staff.

Despite these findings, generalizing our results to other hospitals or countries may be limited due to potential variations in organizational practices, prevention policies, cultural contexts, regulations, and available resources in different healthcare

settings.³⁵ Moreover, healthcare systems and staffing models can differ significantly between regions, potentially influencing the dynamics of AEB risks.

Underreporting of AEBs is a crucial concern with significant implications.³⁶ The main causes of underreporting include fear of negative consequences such as stigmatization, legal liability, or disciplinary actions, as well as insufficient awareness, knowledge, and training on reporting procedures.³⁷ Additionally, time constraints and complex reporting systems contribute to staff reluctance to report AEBs.³⁰ The underreporting of AEBs prevents efforts to improve healthcare worker safety and hinders the development of effective interventions to minimize the risk of infection transmission.³⁸ It also perpetuates a culture of secrecy, rather than fostering an open and transparent environment in which learning from incidents is encouraged.

The study has several strengths that enhance its validity and reliability. It was a multicenter study encompassing diverse HCWs and specialties across 4 hospitals. The longitudinal design provided a comprehensive view of the occupational blood exposure effects over time, allowing for trend analyses. Moreover, a combination of diverse metrics, including individual and organizational factors, as well as 2 levels of data (ward level and HCW level), enriched the

<footnote><sup>a</sup>Indicance per 1,000 person years; the number of accidents is specified in brackets, unless otherwise indicated. Note. Other medical specialties: cardiology, geriatrics, gastroenterology, infectious diseases, internal medicine, nephrology, oncology, pulmonology, rheumatology, urology.</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 2.** General and Organizational Characteristics of HCWs on Occupational Exposure to Blood Using Bivariate Analysis (Logistic Regression)</caption><thead><tr><th>Characteristic</th><th>Participants at Inclusion (N=730)</th><th>Overall Incidence Rate of AEBs per 1,000 Person Years</th><th>Overall AEBs, (N=71), No. (%)<sup>a</sup></th><th>P Value</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Time of visit</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>.50</td></tr><tr><td>T0</td><td>730</td><td>103</td><td>25 (35)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>T1 (T0 + 4 mo)</td><td>680</td><td>66</td><td>15 (21)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>T2 (T0 + 8 mo)</td><td>612</td><td>69</td><td>14 (20)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>T3 (T0 + 12 mo)</td><td>591</td><td>86</td><td>17 (24)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Hospital</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>.004*</td></tr><tr><td>A</td><td>159</td><td>11.0</td><td>6 (8.5)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>B</td><td>174</td><td>16.8</td><td>10 (14)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>C</td><td>173</td><td>35.8</td><td>23 (32)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>D</td><td>224</td><td>38.4</td><td>32 (45)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Provider variables</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Age range, y (SD)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>&lt;.001*</td></tr><tr><td>&gt;55</td><td>66</td><td>8.3</td><td>2 (2.8)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>46-55</td><td>132</td><td>10.3</td><td>5 (7.0)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>36-45</td><td>154</td><td>23.0</td><td>13 (18)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>26-35</td><td>253</td><td>27.1</td><td>24 (34)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>≤25</td><td>125</td><td>61.4</td><td>27 (38)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Sex</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>.30</td></tr><tr><td>Male</td><td>120</td><td>20.5</td><td>9 (13)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td>610</td><td>28.5</td><td>62 (87)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Occupation</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>&lt;.001*</td></tr><tr><td>Nursing assistant</td><td>300</td><td>10.3</td><td>11 (15)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Nurses</td><td>384</td><td>35.2</td><td>48 (68)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Physician</td><td>35</td><td>36.2</td><td>5 (7.0)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Midwife</td><td>11</td><td>175.0</td><td>7 (9.9)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Occupational status</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>.018*</td></tr><tr><td>Permanent</td><td>663</td><td>24.8</td><td>59 (83)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Contractual</td><td>66</td><td>51.3</td><td>12 (17)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>ND</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Work variables</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Supervising responsibility</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>&gt;.90</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>330</td><td>27.7</td><td>33 (47)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>380</td><td>27.6</td><td>37 (53)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>ND</td><td>20</td><td></td><td>1</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Schedule known in advance</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>.025*</td></tr><tr><td>Sometimes</td><td>88</td><td>6.8</td><td>2 (3.0)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Always</td><td>614</td><td>29.0</td><td>64 (97)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>ND</td><td>28</td><td></td><td>5</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Involvement in schedule planning</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>.70</td></tr><tr><td>Never</td><td>322</td><td>23.5</td><td>27 (41)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Always</td><td>112</td><td>27.4</td><td>11 (17)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Sometimes</td><td>268</td><td>29.4</td><td>28 (42)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>ND</td><td>28</td><td></td><td>5</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>48-h weekly rest</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>.20</td></tr></tbody></table>

(Continued)
<table><caption>**Table 2.** (Continued)</caption><thead><tr><th>Characteristic</th><th>Participants at Inclusion (N=730)</th><th>Overall Incidence Rate of AEBs per 1,000 Person Years</th><th>Overall AEBs, (N=71), No. (%)<sup>a</sup></th><th>P Value</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>No</td><td>302</td><td>21.5</td><td>23 (35)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>400</td><td>30.0</td><td>43 (65)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>ND</td><td>28</td><td></td><td>5</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Type of work shift</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>&lt;.001*</td></tr><tr><td>Day only</td><td>493</td><td>20.9</td><td>37 (52)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Night only</td><td>199</td><td>27.6</td><td>20 (28)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Rotating shift (night and day)</td><td>38</td><td>116.7</td><td>14 (20)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Schedule allocation frequency</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>&lt;.001*</td></tr><tr><td>Regular</td><td>620</td><td>23.1</td><td>54 (79)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Irregular</td><td>77</td><td>70.7</td><td>14 (21)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>ND</td><td>33</td><td></td><td>3</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>On-call or overnight shift</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>.06</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>566</td><td>22.3</td><td>36 (54)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>130</td><td>34.9</td><td>31 (46)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>ND</td><td>34</td><td></td><td>4</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Modified work hours</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>.20</td></tr><tr><td>Sometimes</td><td>551</td><td>24.7</td><td>48 (73)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Often</td><td>144</td><td>33.9</td><td>18 (27)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>ND</td><td>35</td><td></td><td>5</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Working overtime</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>.003*</td></tr><tr><td>Sometimes</td><td>412</td><td>18.6</td><td>27 (41)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Often</td><td>283</td><td>37.9</td><td>39 (59)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>ND</td><td>35</td><td></td><td>5</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Meal time</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>.008*</td></tr><tr><td>Regular</td><td>103</td><td>7.3</td><td>3 (4.5)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Irregular</td><td>591</td><td>30.5</td><td>63 (95)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Unknown</td><td>36</td><td></td><td>5</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Break cancellation</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>.004*</td></tr><tr><td>Sometimes</td><td>177</td><td>13.3</td><td>11 (17)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Often</td><td>518</td><td>33.3</td><td>55 (83)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Unknown</td><td>35</td><td></td><td>5</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Commuting time to work</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>.004*</td></tr><tr><td>&gt;2 h</td><td>103</td><td>12.7</td><td>4 (5.6)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1–2 h</td><td>321</td><td>19.6</td><td>23 (32)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>&lt;1 h</td><td>306</td><td>39.1</td><td>44 (62)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Mode of transport</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>.007*</td></tr><tr><td>Personal car</td><td>365</td><td>17.0</td><td>22 (31)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Public transportation</td><td>303</td><td>36.6</td><td>40 (56)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Other (walking, bike, motorbike)</td><td>62</td><td>39.5</td><td>9 (13)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Intention to leave job</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>.015*</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>410</td><td>19.6</td><td>27 (39)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>320</td><td>35.0</td><td>43 (61)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>ND</td><td></td><td></td><td>1</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

(Continued)
<table><caption>**Table 2.** (Continued)</caption><thead><tr><th>Characteristic</th><th>Participants at Inclusion (N=730)</th><th>Overall Incidence Rate of AEBs per 1,000 Person Years</th><th>Overall AEBs, (N=71), No. (%)<sup>a</sup></th><th>P Value</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Hospital survey on patient safety culture</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Item 1: "Hospital management provides a work climate that promotes patient safety."</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>.20</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>220</td><td>24.3</td><td>51 (72)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Neutral</td><td>115</td><td>34.8</td><td>4 (5.6)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Do not agree</td><td>395</td><td>40.5</td><td>16 (23)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Item 2: "The actions of hospital management show that patient safety is a top priority."</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>.50</td></tr><tr><td>Neutral</td><td>102</td><td>19.6</td><td>2 (2.8)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>230</td><td>26.0</td><td>55 (77)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Do not agree</td><td>398</td><td>35.2</td><td>14 (20)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Item 8: "Hospital management seems interested in patient safety only after an adverse event happens."</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>.60</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>492</td><td>26.5</td><td>63 (89)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Neutral</td><td>93</td><td>32.3</td><td>3 (4.2)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Do not agree</td><td>145</td><td>34.5</td><td>5 (7.0)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Item 10: "Hospital units work well together to provide the best care for patients."</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>.15</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>431</td><td>25.1</td><td>58 (82)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Neutral</td><td>125</td><td>40.0</td><td>5 (7.0)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Do not agree</td><td>174</td><td>46.0</td><td>8 (11)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>HCW perception (validated scales)</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Social support from supervisor, Karazek subscale (of 16)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>.90</td></tr><tr><td>Good support (score ≥13)</td><td>241</td><td>27.2</td><td>20 (0.8)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Little support (score &lt;13)</td><td>489</td><td>27.1</td><td>51 (2.0)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Social support from colleagues - Karazek subscale (of 16)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>.037*</td></tr><tr><td>Good support (score ≥13)</td><td>337</td><td>34.8</td><td>45 (1.7)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Lack of support (score &lt;13)</td><td>328</td><td>20.8</td><td>26 (1.0)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Overinvestment at work - Siegrist subscale (of 24)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>.003*</td></tr><tr><td>Moderate investment (score &lt;17)</td><td>477</td><td>20.8</td><td>37 (1.4)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>High investment (score ≥17)</td><td>253</td><td>40.8</td><td>34 (1.3)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Stress, PSS-10 scale (of 40)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>.30</td></tr><tr><td>Moderate stress (score &lt;28)</td><td>681</td><td>28.2</td><td>69 (2.6)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>High stress (score ≥28)</td><td>49</td><td>12.0</td><td>2 (0.1)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Fatigue, Pichot scale (of 32)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>.80</td></tr><tr><td>Moderate fatigue (score &lt;23)</td><td>531</td><td>26.5</td><td>48 (0.9)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>High fatigue (score ≥23)</td><td>199</td><td>28.6</td><td>23 (0.9)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Ward variables</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Specialty</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>.20</td></tr><tr><td>Other medical specialties<sup>b</sup></td><td>213</td><td>18.5</td><td>14 (20)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Surgery, obstetrics</td><td>314</td><td>28.4</td><td>32 (45)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>ICU</td><td>203</td><td>34.2</td><td>25 (35)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Use of external personnel, nurses</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>&lt;.001*</td></tr><tr><td>Sometimes</td><td>357</td><td>15.7</td><td>20 (28)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Often</td><td>373</td><td>38.1</td><td>51 (72)</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

(Continued)
<table><caption>**Table 2.** (Continued)</caption><thead><tr><th>Characteristic</th><th>Participants at Inclusion (N=730)</th><th>Overall Incidence Rate of AEBs per 1,000 Person Years</th><th>Overall AEBs, (N=71), No. (%)<sup>a</sup></th><th>P Value</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Use of external personnel, nursing assistant</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>.50</td></tr><tr><td>Sometimes</td><td>446</td><td>24.9</td><td>40 (56)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Often</td><td>284</td><td>30.7</td><td>31 (44)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Use of outsourcing staff, nurses</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>.21</td></tr><tr><td>Sometimes</td><td>552</td><td>23.4</td><td>46 (65)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Often</td><td>178</td><td>38.9</td><td>25 (35)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Time schedule</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>.60</td></tr><tr><td>3×8 h</td><td>577</td><td>26.3</td><td>54 (76)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2×12 h</td><td>153</td><td>30.2</td><td>17 (24)</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

Note. AEB, accidental exposure to blood; HCW, healthcare worker; ICU, intensive care unit; ND, No Data Available; SD, standard deviation.

<sup>a</sup>No. (%) unless otherwise indicated.

<sup>b</sup>Other medical specialties: cardiology, geriatrics, gastroenterology, infectious diseases, internal medicine, nephrology, oncology, pulmonology, rheumatology, urology.

*Indicates statistical significance.

<table><caption>**Table 3.** Multivariate Analysis of Accidental Exposure to Blood Using a Stepwise Linear Mixed-Effects Model Selection Based on Akaike Information Criterion</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Variable</th><th colspan="3">Bivariate Analysis</th><th colspan="3">Multivariate Analysis</th></tr><tr><th>RR</th><th>95% CI<sup>a</sup></th><th>P Value</th><th>RR</th><th>95% CI<sup>a</sup></th><th>P Value</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="7"><strong>Fixed effects</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Time of visit</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>t0</td><td>...</td><td>...</td><td></td><td>...</td><td>...</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>t1</td><td>0.63</td><td>0.33-1.20</td><td>.17</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.39-1.47</td><td>.4</td></tr><tr><td>t2</td><td>0.65</td><td>0.34-1.23</td><td>.18</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.38-1.51</td><td>.4</td></tr><tr><td>t3</td><td>0.81</td><td>0.45-1.49</td><td>.51</td><td>0.80</td><td>0.41-1.55</td><td>.5</td></tr><tr><td colspan="7"><strong>Provider variables</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Occupation</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Nursing assistant</td><td>...</td><td>...</td><td></td><td>...</td><td>...</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Nurse</td><td>3.17</td><td>1.74-5.55</td><td>&lt;.001</td><td>2.43</td><td>1.25-4.52</td><td>.009</td></tr><tr><td>Physician</td><td>3.38</td><td>1.27-8.02</td><td>.016</td><td>2.82</td><td>0.61-10.1</td><td>.2</td></tr><tr><td>Midwife</td><td>4.52</td><td>3.27-5.23</td><td>&lt;.001</td><td>2.90</td><td>1.32-4.45</td><td>.012</td></tr><tr><td>Age range, y</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>&gt;55</td><td>...</td><td>...</td><td></td><td>...</td><td>...</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>46-55</td><td>1.46</td><td>0.29-7.21</td><td>.64</td><td>1.40</td><td>0.27-7.01</td><td>.7</td></tr><tr><td>36-45</td><td>3.24</td><td>0.77-11.5</td><td>.11</td><td>2.69</td><td>0.61-10.2</td><td>.2</td></tr><tr><td>26-35</td><td>3.68</td><td>0.94-11.8</td><td>.06</td><td>2.46</td><td>0.59-8.83</td><td>.2</td></tr><tr><td>≤25</td><td>6.06</td><td>2.00-11.7</td><td>.003</td><td>4.25</td><td>1.20-9.94</td><td>.026</td></tr><tr><td colspan="7"><strong>Work variables</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Work schedule consistency</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Regular</td><td>...</td><td>...</td><td></td><td>...</td><td>...</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Irregular</td><td>2.62</td><td>1.55-4.17</td><td>&lt;.001</td><td>3.18</td><td>1.83-5.11</td><td>&lt;.001</td></tr><tr><td>Type of work shift</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Daily</td><td>...</td><td>...</td><td></td><td>...</td><td>...</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Nightly</td><td>1.31</td><td>0.77-2.20</td><td>.32</td><td>1.67</td><td>0.93-2.93</td><td>.085</td></tr><tr><td>Rotating shift (night and day)</td><td>3.58</td><td>2.27-5.04</td><td>&lt;.001</td><td>3.11</td><td>1.72-4.83</td><td>&lt;.001</td></tr><tr><td>Lack of support from supervisor<sup>a</sup></td><td>1.13</td><td>1.04-1.23</td><td>.003</td><td>1.16</td><td>1.06-1.28</td><td>.001</td></tr></tbody></table>

(Continued)
<table><caption>**Table 3.** (Continued)</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Variable</th><th colspan="3">Bivariate Analysis</th><th colspan="3">Multivariate Analysis</th></tr><tr><th>RR</th><th>95% CI<sup>a</sup></th><th>P Value</th><th>RR</th><th>95% CI<sup>a</sup></th><th>P Value</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="7"><strong>Ward-level variables</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="7">Use of external personnel (nurses)</td></tr><tr><td>Sometimes</td><td>...</td><td>...</td><td></td><td>...</td><td>...</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Often</td><td>2.28</td><td>1.39-3.65</td><td>.001</td><td>2.02</td><td>1.19-3.35</td><td>.010</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note. RR, relative risk; CI, confidence interval.

<sup>a</sup>Refers to the perceived support from supervisors as assessed by the Karazek questionnaire. This subscale measure the extent to which HCWs perceive their supervisors to be unsupportive or indifferent to their needs and concerns. A higher score indicates a greater perceived lack of support from supervisors, which has been identified as a potential risk factor for occupational blood exposure.

understanding of factors influencing HCW health outcomes. We used validated scales for measuring stress, fatigue, overinvestment, social support, and human resources data (absenteeism, turnover) to facilitate the identification of contributing factors. Finally, the study was conducted in 2019, before the COVID-19 pandemic, which significantly altered healthcare organization worldwide.³⁹ Hence, our findings over the 12-month period were likely unaffected by the effects of the pandemic, an essential consideration when interpreting the results.

This study had several limitations. Data collection regarding physicians' work characteristics, particularly work hours and shifts, was imprecise. Self-report bias and accident underreporting might have influenced our findings, with potential recall or social desirability bias. Accident underreporting could result from HCW hesitation to report incidents of exposure due to fear of retaliation or reluctance to admit mistakes. This issue may hinder supervisors from providing necessary support and resources, making it difficult to track and prevent future incidents of exposure. We were not able to measure the underreporting of AEBs. In addition, our findings did not establish a direct link between stress, fatigue, and AEBs, possibly due to the presence of confounding factors. Measurements were taken at a single time point, possibly inducing measurement bias. Although AEB data were collected over a longer 4-month period, conclusive evidence of a relationship between stress and fatigue and infectious risks did not emerge.

The study findings have important implications for healthcare organizations, clinicians, and future research in HCW safety. By understanding factors associated with AEBs, facilities can develop targeted interventions addressing risks related to occupation, age, work schedule, shift rotation, and supervisor support. These efforts could include additional training, safer work schedules, and promoting a supportive organizational culture. Healthcare facilities should consider the risks of outsourcing staff and should ensure that HCWs are trained and familiar with infection control protocols to minimize AEBs and other adverse outcomes. HCWs should be encouraged to accurately report AEBs in a supportive environment that minimizes underreporting, with anonymous systems or educational programs emphasizing the importance of reporting for safety improvement.

Future research should develop robust models integrating clinical and organizational factors to better understand the relationships between stress and fatigue and the occurrence of AEBs. Utilizing alternative analytical approaches, such as directed acyclic graphs (DAGs),⁴⁰ could reveal previously unidentified relationships, guiding the development of more effective prevention strategies and enhancing HCW safety and patient care.

**Acknowledgments.** We acknowledge the support and funding provided by Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris (Département de la Recherche Clinique et du Développement). We also express our gratitude to all the HCWs who participated in this study.

**Financial support.** This study was funded by a grant from Programme de Recherche sur la Performance du Système de Soins - PREPS 2016 (Ministère de la Santé).

**Competing interests.** All authors report no conflicts of interest relevant to this article.

## References

1. Tarantola A, Abiteboul D, Rachline A. Infection risks following accidental exposure to blood or body fluids in healthcare workers: a review of pathogens transmitted in published cases. *Am J Infect Control* 2006;34:367–375.

2. Mengistu DA, Tolera ST, Demmu YM. Worldwide prevalence of occupational exposure to needle stick injury among healthcare workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. *Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol* 2021;2021:e9019534.

3. Hinkin J, Gammon J, Cutter J. Review of personal protection equipment used in practice. *Br J Community Nurs* 2008;13:14–19.

4. Mannocci A, De Carli G, Di Bari V, et al. How much do needlestick injuries cost? A systematic review of the economic evaluations of needlestick and sharps injuries among healthcare personnel. *Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol* 2016;37:635–646.

5. Adams S, Stojkovic SG, Leveson SH. Needlestick injuries during surgical procedures: a multidisciplinary online study. *Occup Med Oxf Engl* 2010;60:139–144.

6. Zingg W, Holmes A, Dettenkofer M, et al. Hospital organisation, management, and structure for prevention of healthcare-associated infection: a systematic review and expert consensus. *Lancet Infect Dis* 2015;15:212–224.

7. Farokhzadian J, Dehghan Nayeri N, Borhani F. The long way ahead to achieve an effective patient safety culture: challenges perceived by nurses. *BMC Health Serv Res* 2018;18:654.

8. Gershon RR, Karkashian CD, Grosch JW, et al. Hospital safety climate and its relationship with safe work practices and workplace exposure incidents. *Am J Infect Control* 2000;28:211–221.

9. Jones G, Hocine M, Salomon J, et al. Demographic and occupational predictors of stress and fatigue in French intensive-care registered nurses and nurses’ aides: a cross-sectional study. *Int J Nurs Stud* 2015;52:250–259.

10. Stress at work and infectious risk in patients and caregivers—full text view — ClinicalTrials.gov. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03532321. Accessed September 2, 2021.

11. Daouda OS, Bun RS, Ait Bouziad K, et al. Multilevel approach to individual and organisational predictors of stress and fatigue among healthcare workers of a university hospital: a longitudinal study. *Occup Environ Med* 2022;79:839–847.
12. Siegrist J, Starke D, Chandola T, et al. The measurement of effort-reward imbalance at work: European comparisons. Soc Sci Med 1982 2004;58:1483-1499.

13. Karasek R, Brisson C, Kawakami N, et al. The Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ): an instrument for internationally comparative assessments of psychosocial job characteristics. J Occup Health Psychol 1998;3:322-355.

14. Cohen S, Kamarck T, Mermelstein R. A global measure of perceived stress. J Health Soc Behav 1983;24:385-396.

15. Lesage F-X, Berjot S, Deschamps F. Psychometric properties of the French versions of the Perceived Stress Scale. Int J Occup Med Environ Health 2012;25:178-184.

16. Pichot P, Brun JP. Brief self-evaluation questionnaire for depressive, asthenic and anxious dimensions. Ann Med Psychol (Paris) 1984;142:862-865.

17. Buuren S van, Groothuis-Oudshoorn K, Vink G, et al. mice: Multivariate imputation by chained equations. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=mice. Published 2021. Accessed September 8, 2021.

18. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, et al. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using 'Eigen' and S4. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lme4/index.html. Published 2023. Accessed April 27, 2023.

19. Wicker S, Jung J, Allwinn R, et al. Prevalence and prevention of needlestick injuries among healthcare workers in a German university hospital. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2008;81:347-54.

20. Motaarefi H, Mahmoudi H, Mohammadi E, et al. Factors associated with needlestick injuries in healthcare occupations: a systematic review. J Clin Diagn Res 2016;10:IE01-IE04.

21. Van der Molen HF, Zwinderman KAH, Sluiter JK, et al. Interventions to prevent needle stick injuries among healthcare workers. Work Read Mass 2012;41 suppl 1:1969-1971.

22. Caruso CC. Negative impacts of shiftwork and long work hours. Rehabil Nurs Off J Assoc Rehabil Nurses 2014;39:16-25.

23. Trinkoff AM, Le R, Geiger-Brown J, et al. Work schedule, needle use, and needlestick injuries among registered nurses. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2007;28:156-164.

24. Hopcia K, Dennerlein JT, Hashimoto D, et al. Occupational injuries for consecutive and cumulative shifts among hospital registered nurses and patient care associates: a case-control study. Workplace Health Saf 2012;60:437-444.

25. Geiger-Brown J, Rogers VE, Trinkoff AM, et al. Sleep, sleepiness, fatigue, and performance of 12-hour-shift nurses. Chronobiol Int 2012;29:211-219.

26. Cimiotti JP, Aiken LH, Sloane DM, et al. Nurse staffing, burnout, and healthcare-associated infection. Am J Infect Control 2012;40:486-490.

27. Aiken LH, Sloane DM, Bruyneel L, et al. Nurses' reports of working conditions and hospital quality of care in 12 countries in Europe. Int J Nurs Stud 2013;50:143-153.

28. Estryn-Béhar M, Van der Heijden BIJM, Ogińska H, et al. The impact of social work environment, teamwork characteristics, burnout, and personal factors upon intent to leave among European nurses. Med Care 2007;45:939-950.

29. Needleman J, Buerhaus P, Mattke S, et al. Nurse-staffing levels and the quality of care in hospitals. N Engl J Med 2002;346:1715-722.

30. Perry J, Jagger J, Parker G, et al. Disposal of sharps medical waste in the United States: impact of recommendations and regulations, 1987-2007. Am J Infect Control 2012;40:354-358.

31. Stone PW, Pogorzelska M, Kunches L, et al. Hospital staffing and healthcare-associated infections: a systematic review of the literature. Clin Infect Dis 2008;47:937-944.

32. Albrich WC, Harbarth S. Healthcare workers: source, vector, or victim of MRSA? Lancet Infect Dis 2008;8:289-301.

33. Clarke SP. Hospital work environments, nurse characteristics, and sharps injuries. Am J Infect Control 2007;35:302-309.

34. Senek M, Robertson S, Ryan T, et al. The association between care left undone and temporary nursing staff ratios in acute settings: a cross-sectional survey of registered nurses. BMC Health Serv Res 2020;20:637.

35. Braithwaite J, Herkes J, Ludlow K, et al. Association between organisational and workplace cultures, and patient outcomes: systematic review. BMJ Open 2017;7:e017708.

36. Battail T, Fort E, Denis M-A, et al. Underreporting of occupational blood and body fluid exposure in French university hospitals in 2017. Work Read Mass 2022;73:1393-1403.

37. Gupta A, Anand S, Sastry J, et al. High risk for occupational exposure to HIV and utilization of postexposure prophylaxis in a teaching hospital in Pune, India. BMC Infect Dis 2008;8:142.

38. Auta A, Adewuyi EO, Tor-Anyiin A, et al. Healthcare workers' occupational exposures to body fluids in 21 countries in Africa: systematic review and meta-analysis. Bull World Health Organ 2017;95:831-841F.

39. Blumenthal D, Fowler EJ, Abrams M, et al. COVID-19—implications for the healthcare system. N Engl J Med 2020;383:1483-1488.

40. Textor J, van der Zander B, Gilthorpe MS, et al. Robust causal inference using directed acyclic graphs: the R package 'dagitty.' Int J Epidemiol 2016;45:1887-1894.