The durability of examination gloves used on intensive care units

BMC Infectious Diseases

Lars Ivo Partecke²  Axel Kramer⁴  Claus-Dieter Heidecke²  Ute Pohrt¹  Axel Mannerow⁴  Anna-Maria Goerdt²  Nils-Olaf Hübner³ 

[1] German Social Accident Insurance Institution for the Health and Welfare Services, Berlin, Germany;Department of Surgery, Clinic of General, Visceral, Vascular and Thoracic Surgery, Greifswald, Germany;Robert Koch-Institute, Division of Applied General and Hospital Hygiene (FG14), Berlin, Germany;Institute of Hygiene and Environmental Medicine, Ernst-Moritz-Arndt University, Greifswald, Germany

关键词: Multi-barrier strategy;    Disinfection;    Intensive care unit;    Glove change;    Micro perforation;    Examination gloves;    Hand hygiene;   

Others  :  1148309
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2334-13-226

 received in 2012-03-30, accepted in 2013-05-02,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

The use of examination gloves is part of the standard precautions to prevent medical staff from transmission of infectious agents between patients. Gloves also protect the staff from infectious agents originating from patients. Adequate protection, however, depends on intact gloves. The risk of perforation of examination gloves is thought to correlate with duration of wearing, yet, only very few prospective studies have been performed on this issue.

Methods

A total number of 1500 consecutively used pairs of examination gloves of two different brands and materials (latex and nitrile) were collected over a period of two months on two ICU’s. Used gloves were examined for micro perforations using the “water-proof-test” according to EN 455–1. Cox-regression for both glove types was used to estimate optimal changing intervals.

Results

Only 26% of gloves were worn longer than 15 min. The total perforation rate was 10.3% with significant differences and deterioration of integrity of gloves between brands (p<0.001). Apart from the brand, “change of wound dressing” (p = 0.049) and “washing patients” (p = 0.001) were also significantly associated with an increased risk of perforation.

Conclusion

Medical gloves show marked differences in their durability that cannot be predicted based on the technical data routinely provided by the manufacturer. Based on the increase of micro perforations over time and the wearing behavior, recommendations for maximum wearing time of gloves should be given. Changing of gloves after 15 min could be a good compromise between feasibility and safety. HCWs should be aware of the benefits and limitations of medical gloves. To improve personal hygiene hand disinfection should be further encouraged.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Hübner et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Kock R, Becker K, Cookson B, van Gemert-Pijnen JE, Harbarth S, Kluytmans J, Mielke M, Peters G, Skov RL, Struelens MJ: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA): burden of disease and control challenges in Europe. Euro Surveillance 2010, 15(41):19688.
• [2]Allegranzi B, Pittet D: Role of hand hygiene in healthcare-associated infection prevention. J Hosp Infect 2009, 73(4):305-315.
• [3]Pitten FA, Panzig B, Schroder G, Tietze K, Kramer A: Transmission of a multiresistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa strain at a German University Hospital. J Hosp Infect 2001, 47(2):125-130.
• [4]Partecke LI, Goerdt AM, Langner I, Jaeger B, Assadian O, Heidecke CD, Kramer A, Huebner NO: Incidence of microperforation for surgical gloves depends on duration of wear. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2009, 30(5):409-414.
• [5]Brough SJ, Hunt TM, Barrie WW: Surgical glove perforations. Br J Surg 1988, 75(4):317.
• [6]Laine T, Aarnio P: Glove perforation in orthopaedic and trauma surgery. A comparison between single, double indicator gloving and double gloving with two regular gloves. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2004, 86(6):898-900.
• [7]Patel HB, Fleming GJ, Burke FJ: Puncture resistance and stiffness of nitrile and latex dental examination gloves. Br Dent J 2004, 196(11):695-700. discussion 685; quiz 707
• [8]Muto CA, Sistrom MG, Strain BA, Farr BM: Glove leakage rates as a function of latex content and brand: caveat emptor. Arch Surg 2000, 2000, 135(8):982-985.
• [9]Harnoss JC, Partecke LI, Heidecke CD, Hubner NO, Kramer A, Assadian O: Concentration of bacteria passing through puncture holes in surgical gloves. Am J Infect Control 2010, 38(2):154-158.
• [10]Normenausschuss Medizin (NAMed) (an expert commitee): DIN EN 455–1:2001–01: medical gloves for single use - part 1: requirements and testing for freedom from holes; German version EN 455–1:2000. Berlin: Beuth Verlag; 2001.
• [11]Bloemendaal AL, Fluit AC, Jansen WM, Vriens MR, Ferry T, Argaud L, Amorim JM, Resende AC, Pascual A, Lopez-Cerero L: Acquisition and cross-transmission of Staphylococcus aureus in European intensive care units. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2009, 30(2):117-124.
• [12]Shaughnessy MK, Micielli RL, DePestel DD, Arndt J, Strachan CL, Welch KB, Chenoweth CE: Evaluation of hospital room assignment and acquisition of Clostridium difficile infection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011, 32(3):201-206.
• [13]Jarvis WR: Handwashing–the Semmelweis lesson forgotten? Lancet 1994, 344(8933):1311-1312.
• [14]Boyce JM, Pittet D: Guideline for Hand Hygiene in Health-Care Settings: recommendations of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee and the HICPAC/SHEA/APIC/IDSA Hand Hygiene Task Force. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2002, 23(12 Suppl):S3-S40.
• [15]Ott M, French R: Hand hygiene compliance among health care staff and student nurses in a mental health setting. Issues Ment Health Nurs 2009, 30(11):702-704.
• [16]Kuzu N, Ozer F, Aydemir S, Yalcin AN, Zencir M: Compliance with hand hygiene and glove use in a university-affiliated hospital. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2005, 26(3):312-315.
• [17]German Federal Ministery of the Interior (Ed): Technical Rule for Biological Agents 250 - Biological agents in health care and welfare facilities (TRBA 250) In Gemeinsames Ministerialblatt. Köln: Carl Heynemann; 2012:380-382.
• [18]Hubner NO, Goerdt AM, Stanislawski N, Assadian O, Heidecke CD, Kramer A, Partecke LI: Bacterial migration through punctured surgical gloves under real surgical conditions. BMC Infect Dis 2010, 10:192. BioMed Central Full Text
• [19]Arnold SG, Whitman JE Jr, Fox CH, Cottler-Fox MH: Latex gloves not enough to exclude viruses. Nature 1988, 335(6185):19.
• [20]Manian FA, Meyer L, Jenne J: Clostridium difficile contamination of blood pressure cuffs: a call for a closer look at gloving practices in the era of universal precautions. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1996, 17(3):180-182.
• [21]Dirschka T, Winter K, Kralj N, Hofmann F: Glove perforation in outpatient dermatologic surgery. Dermatol Surg 2004, 30(9):1210-1212. discussion 1212–1213
• [22]Doebbeling BN, Pfaller MA, Houston AK, Wenzel RP: Removal of nosocomial pathogens from the contaminated glove. Implications for glove reuse and handwashing. Ann Intern Med 1988, 109(5):394-398.
• [23]Olsen RJ, Lynch P, Coyle MB, Cummings J, Bokete T, Stamm WE: Examination gloves as barriers to hand contamination in clinical practice. JAMA 1993, 270(3):350-353.
• [24]Hannigan P, Shields JW: Handwashing and use of examination gloves. Lancet 1998, 351(9102):571.
• [25]Pitten FA, Muller P, Heeg P, Kramer A: [The efficacy of repeated disinfection of disposable gloves during usage]. Zentralbl Hyg Umweltmed 1999, 201(6):555-562.
• [26]Pitten FA, Herdemann G, Kramer A: The integrity of latex gloves in clinical dental practice. Infection 2000, 28(6):388-392.