In the interview, available in its entirety here, with Amanda Heitman, BSN, RN, CNOR, perioperative educational consultant for Periop Anew and supervisor of education for surgical services at WakeMed in Cary, North Carolina, she discusses the issues and the need for education about sharps safety. 

Despite the availability of engineering controls and regulatory guidance, facilities continue to face major barriers to ensuring sharps safety. It’s time for infection preventionists (IPs) to step forward as educators, advocates, and culture shifters.
One of the most persistent challenges is underreporting. Studies show that up to 50% of sharps injuries are never reported, often due to shame, fear of judgment, or a belief that the injury was the worker’s fault. This silence creates a dangerous illusion: facilities appear safer than they actually are. When leadership doesn’t see the problem, there’s little motivation to implement change. IPs can help break this cycle by fostering a non-punitive reporting culture, analyzing injury trends, and highlighting missed opportunities for safer practices.
Another common barrier is cost, particularly the perception that implementing safety-engineered devices is too expensive. However, IPs understand the true cost of an exposure event, including bloodborne pathogen testing, follow-up care, work restrictions, potential infections, legal liability, and staff burnout. These indirect and long-term costs far outweigh the price of a safety device. Infection prevention teams can use this data to build the business case for investment, linking worker safety to quality, staffing continuity, and even patient outcomes.

IPs are also well-positioned to advocate for safer technology. Passive safety devices, such as single-handed scalpel blade removers and retractable syringes, offer automatic protection with minimal user intervention, an essential feature in busy clinical environments. While active safety devices rely on the user to manually engage a safety feature (which often goes ignored), passive designs reduce error and boost compliance. 

Yet many facilities still don’t require or consistently provide these devices. IPs can serve on product evaluation committees, recommend device trials, and push for adoption of OSHA-aligned engineering controls.

Education is another critical area where IPs can lead. Sharps safety training should not be treated as a one-time competency. New hires may arrive with outdated habits, and experienced staff may have learned shortcuts that increase risk. Ongoing training, especially hands-on demonstrations, is essential. IPs can support perioperative leaders, sterile processing educators, and unit-based champions in providing regular instruction on safe handling, passing techniques, neutral zones, and use of protective equipment.
Sterile processing professionals are especially vulnerable to downstream injuries when sharps are improperly handled in the operating room (OR). IPs can help bridge the gap between departments by reviewing root causes of injuries, updating workflows, and reinforcing the expectation that blades are removed using proper devices before instruments are sent for decontamination. This type of interdepartmental collaboration improves both staff safety and instrument turnaround times.

Ultimately, IPs are already experts in systems thinking, surveillance, policy development, and education—all skills that align perfectly with the needs of a comprehensive sharps safety program. By collaborating with clinical teams, championing device innovation, and advocating for a culture of safety, IPs can help ensure that no health care worker suffers a preventable sharps injury under their watch.

Infection prevention has always been about protecting others. It is time we extend that protection to the very people delivering care because sharps safety starts with us.