The Sharps Terminator is a new(ish) product that is to all intents a reworking of slightly older technologies which aimed to put sharps destruction onto the desktop. We have discussed these previously on the Clinical Waste Discussion Forum and this can be located in the Forum archive files.
This latest incarnation, The Sharps Terminator®, “destroys the needle shaft in a single-handed action leaving the user with only the plastic syringe, has the potential to significantly reduce the number of needlestick injuries reported by healthcare workers every year in the UK“, delegates at the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) Conference in Harrogate heard.
Well, that’s all well and good providing the user has the device available at the point of use, and doesn’t waddle and great distance to make the needle safe since that is exactly the time when needles ‘get lost’, often with disastrous consequences. The Sharps Terminator is battery operated so is less likely to be unavailable when tied to a power outlet so that is a clear advantage providing the device is charged.
Claims of an environmental advantage from The Sharps Terminator are difficult to swallow and should probably be taken with a pinch of salt since it seems that no data is available to substantiate the claims – is that legal?
Still, setting that aside The Sharps Terminator should find a role, perhaps in vaccination centres where large numbers of identical syringe/needle units are used in a short time. Elsewhere, the device must prove itself. In particular, reliability must be proven, and I have doubts about the need for and efficacy of the UV light treatment of captured waste, and the suitability for syringes and needles of various sizes; for products such as this, one size must fit all or the product will not be of any great value. I would also be cautious about the smell of burning plastic and metal residues, and even spitting of hot metal spicules that can give a nasty burn to users which had been a feature of previous incarnations of this type of unit.
A capacity of just 25-30 needles before the unit must be emptied seems to be a critical constraint. Further concerns are the requirement for disposal of needles from the Sharps Terminator that is described in the product user manual:
REMOVAL OF BURNED WASTE FROM SHARPS TERMINATOR
After burning 30 needles, device will de-activate until collector emptied and has been re-installed. The waste from destroyed needles inside the collector is exposed to the effect of a sterilizing UV lamp after each use. Dispose of the waste in a container designated for disposal of used needles. MAX burning time is 5 seconds.
If it required to dispose of the waste in a container designated for disposal of used needles, ie, a sharps bin, then why not used a sharps bin in the first instance and do without The Sharps Terminator altogether? This makes the environmental claims seem particularly shallow.
Good luck to The Sharps Terminator, but perhaps there is some work to do to advance the product design and to validate properly the environmental, safety and other claims made so far.