Letters to the Editor
Use of two needles
- Aust Prescr 1998;21:60-3
- 1 September 1998
- DOI: 10.18773/austprescr.1998.059
The Editorial Executive Committee welcomes letters, which should be less than 250 words. Before a decision to publish is made, letters which refer to a published article may be sent to the author for a response. Any letter may be sent to an expert for comment. When letters are published, they are usually accompanied in the same issue by their responses or comments. The Committee screens out discourteous, inaccurate or libellous statements. The letters are sub-edited before publication. Authors are required to declare any conflicts of interest. The Committee's decision on publication is final.
Editor, – Since my intern days, I have always used one needle to draw up a medication into a syringe (except for plastic ampoules, where I fit the syringe nozzle directly), then replaced this needle with a second one for the actual injection. Since talking to doctors who use the one needle for both purposes, I am unable to confidently justify my 'wastage'. Is there a risk of a glass fragment (or rubber, in the case of the rubber-sealed ampoules) attaching itself to the needle tip?
Sumner Park, Qld
Dr Paul Nisselle, the Australasian Secretary of the Medical Protection Society, comments:
The Medical Protection Society does not have any cases in its international database of a patient asserting damage resulting from using one needle to both aspirate medication from an ampoule and inject the medication into the patient.
The rationale, as I understand it, for using two needles when aspirating from a rubber-sealed ampoule is:
- the needle will be significantly blunted having perforated the rubber seal, and hence the subsequent injection will be more traumatic to the patient than when a fresh, perfectly sharp needle is used
- the outside of the needle may be contaminated going through the rubber, and that contamination could then be transferred to the patient if the same needle is used
- most rubber-sealed ampoules were used for multi-dose administration, and hence it was thought that changing to a second needle reduced the possibility of patient-to-patient transmission of contamination or infection.
Generally speaking, multi-dose ampoules have been abandoned, and hence the latter point does not arise.
With a glass-topped ampoule, I see no particular reason for using one needle to draw up the medication and another to inject it. If there are any single-dose, rubber-topped ampoules, then continuation of using two needles may well be appropriate in that circumstance, as there will still be the blunt needle problem.
However, to repeat, I know of no instance where a patient has come to harm and sought compensation as a result of using only one needle to aspirate and then inject medication from a single-dose ampoule.