The Legislation

UK Legislation:
The Health and Safety at Work Act, 1974, places a legal duty on NHS trusts to provide for the health and safety of their employees and requires employers to:

In the NHS England & Wales produced Sharps and Needlestick Injury Prevention – Chapter 19 “Blue book”It states that NHS Employers should consider the following in relation to needlestick injuries:

The NHS in Scotland produced Needlestick Injuries: Sharpen Your Awareness:

Additional UK legislation:
The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (COSHH) specifically includes micro-organisms in the definition of substances that are hazardous to health. The law requires employers to make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to the health of workers exposed to such substances, with a view to preventing or adequately controlling the risks. This includes the proper use of protective equipment and safety devices.
The Department of Health, Health Act 2006, Code of Practice For The Prevention and Control of Health Care Associated Infections (HCAIs) issued guidelines stating that: “Primary Care Trusts and Hospital Trusts should be encouraged to adopt safety devices in place of conventional devices, in order to prevent needlestick injuries in healthcare workers.”
In the UK Surveillance of Significant Occupational Exposures to Bloodborne Viruses in Healthcare Workers, November 2006, the Chief Medical Officer for England in his Hepatitis C Action Plan for England also endorsed the need for all NHS organizations to minimise the risk of transmission within healthcare settings by the adoption of rigorous infection control precautions and effective management of occupational blood exposure incidents.

EU Legislation
European Council Directive 2000/54/EC (the seventh individual directive within the meaning of article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EC) contains provisions designed to protect workers from risks related to exposure to biological agents at work.
The following provisions are particularly relevant in this context: 

In addition, workers should receive information and training on the use of work equipment and any risks which such use may entail (Article 6 and 7).
and reasons the EU's second report, with recommendations to the Commission on protecting European healthcare workers from blood borne infections due to needlestick injuries, believes that legislation is necessary and imminent:

While the existing legislation should, theoretically, address the risk of needlestick injuries, in practical terms, this has not been the case. The Commission communication on the practical implementation of the Health and Safety at Work Directives (COM(2004)0062)specifically references problems with the public sector including hospitals.

Guidelines, awareness campaigns and other non-legislative initiatives can only make a partial contribution; they should be used in addition to directives [1];

The 2004 European Competitiveness Report (SEC(2004)1397) acknowledges the escalating shortage of healthcare workers as a cause for concern throughout Europe. There are many reasons why healthcare may not be seen as an attractive career, but the occupational safety risks that are present in the workplace are certainly a contributing factor.

US Legislation
In the USA The Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act requires health care facilities to provide employees with syringes and blood-drawing devices that retract, blunt or cover needles after use.

[1] E.g. The TRBA 250 (Technical Requirements for Biological Agents) was published in Germany in October 2003, detailing specific recommendations to prevent medical sharps injuries, including the use of medical technology that incorporates needle protection. One of the aims of the TRBA 250 is to reduce infections from needlestick injuries.  Therefore apart from the introduction of safer systems, it recommends alternative procedures for safer handling of cannula. The professional association rules for safety and health at work (BGR/TRBA 250) provide help for enterprises.  If they keep to the techniques described here they can assume that they have complied with the requirements of the biological substances regulation (presumed effect, conformity effect). As the requirements are worded as technical rules, however, using terms such as ‘should’, rather than defining mandatory requirements, they have had little practical impact