It is now easy to get needlestick (sharps) injury insurance in the UK though how easy it will be to succeed in a claim remains to be seen, and many solicitors are advertising their claim services in the event of injury.

Together with specific legislation to ensure suitable engineered sharps safety devices – though still some Trusts are delaying their introduction – see Compliance with Safer Sharps legislation – the UK Hall of Shame – there is far greater awareness, regular training and established protocols for investigation and specialist care in the event of an incident. Regrettably however non-healthcare staff are still receiving a poor service in A&E that should itself be the subject of litigation as well as a report to the regulator, in this case CQC.

While we have no objection to private healthcare, an advertisement to private “Needle Stick Injury Profile” testing raised an eyebrow in the extreme! For an inclusive price of £229.00 you can have blood taken and tested for:

• Hepatitis B surface antigen
• Hepatitis C antibodies
• Hepatitis C antigen (early detection)
• HIV 1+2 antibodies and p24 antigen
• Serum saved for 2 years

Results are available within hours of receipt of samples. But how many hours? Time is important, and a turn-round time of 4 hours is promised.

The service is described as “(Donor – Not recipient)” but surely this is a test of the recipient of the needlestick injury and not of the donor, ie, the patient on whom a needle or blade had first been used for which specific consent requirements are essential and far outwith the scope of this service.

But testing is often essential. That decision must be on a carefully risk-assessed and clinical evaluation though occasionally testing might provide reassurance to a concerned “victim” where testing is not really indicated.

However, what is of concern here is the lack of specialist medical expertise. Touting a blood testing service – however much that might costs – without the necessary prior clinical assessment and without follow-up to interpret the results and plan 3 month and 6 month repeats with, if indicated, early antiviral prophylaxis is simply wrong.

For those who purchase this service this additional support may be available – we simply do not know – though this would surely all be at considerable increased cost.

For those who suffer a sharps or needlestick injury, the full range of services of the NHS should swing into action, quickly and without delay, to include specialist clinical assessment according to defined clinical protocols, and including all necessary prophylactic drug therapies and long-term follow-up.

This is not the place for private blood testing.