Search

Background: Understanding the perceptions and beliefs of health care workers (HCWs) regarding glove use and associated hand hygiene (HH) may be informative and ultimately improve practice. Research in this area is limited. This study examined the practices and beliefs of HCWs surrounding the use of nonsterile gloves and HH before gloving., Methods: The study was conducted at 3 large academic US hospitals using a parallel convergent mixed-method design. To estimate compliance rates, the gloving and HH practices of HCWs were observed at entry to patient rooms for 6 months. Interviews were conducted with 25 providers, nurses, and nursing assistants to investigate their beliefs and perceptions of these practices., Results: Observed HH compliance rates before gloving were 42%, yet in the interviews most HCWs reported 100% compliance. Observed compliance with gloving before entering contact precaution rooms was 78%, although all HCWs reported always gloving for standard and contact precautions. Most HCWs described using gloves more often than necessary. HCWs generally use gloves for their own safety and sanitize hands before gloving for patient safety. Numerous barriers to compliance with HH before gloving were discussed, including beliefs that gloves provide enough protection., Conclusions: HH and glove use are highly intertwined in clinical practice and should be considered jointly in infection prevention improvement efforts., (Copyright © 2018 Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Exposure to natural rubber latex, primarily through the use of gloves, is a well-recognized cause of occupational asthma. We investigated latex glove use among Australian workers and estimated the resultant burden of occupational asthma among healthcare workers (HCWs)., Methods: Data were collected in 2014 as part of the Australian Work Exposures Study-Asthma, a telephone survey investigating the prevalence of current occupational exposure to asthmagens, including latex. We estimated adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs) to determine variables associated with the use of latex gloves among HCWs and calculated the asthma-related disability-adjusted life years due to latex exposure among HCWs., Results: Latex gloves were used by 22% of respondents. Almost two-thirds (63%) of HCWs reported wearing latex gloves, with 26% using powdered latex gloves. The use of latex gloves was more common among those employed in micro companies (less than 5 employees) than large companies (200+ employees) (aPR = 1.5, 95% confidence interval 1.1-2.0). Latex exposure in HCWs was estimated to contribute 3% of the total asthma-related burden., Discussion: Latex gloves are widely used by Australian workers and by HCWs in particular., Conclusions: This is the first estimate of the burden of asthma attributable to occupational exposure to latex among HCWs. These results can be used to guide decisions regarding the control of occupational exposure to latex., (Copyright © 2018 Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Noncompliance with recommended hand hygiene and gloving practices by workers in the emergency medical services may contribute to the transmission of health care-associated infections and lead to poor patient outcomes. The aim of this study was to explore the self-reported behaviors and perceptions of Australian paramedics in relation to their hand hygiene and gloving practices in paramedic-led health care., Methods: A national online survey (n = 417; 17% response rate) and 2 semistructured focus groups (6 per group) were conducted with members of Paramedics Australasia., Results: Although most of the study participants perceived hand hygiene and gloving to be important, the findings suggest poor compliance with both practices, particularly during emergency cases. All participants reported wearing gloves throughout a clinical case, changing them either at the completion of patient care or when visibly soiled or broken. Hand hygiene was missed at defined moments during patient care, possibly from the misuse of gloves., Conclusions: Paramedic hand hygiene and gloving practices require substantial improvement to lower potential transmission of pathogens and improve patient safety and clinical care. Further research is recommended to explore how to alleviate the barriers to performing in-field hand hygiene and the misuse of gloves during paramedic-led health care., (Copyright © 2017 Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Health care workers (HCWs) are recommended to wear nonsterile clinical gloves (NSCG) for direct contact with blood and body fluids. However, there is evidence of extensive inappropriate NSCG use., Methods: A mixed-methods study comprising observation of NSCG use in 2 acute hospitals and semistructured HCW interviews. Qualitative data were categorized using thematic analysis. Findings were mapped to the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety model and used to develop a strategy for improving NSCG use., Results: Two hundred seventy-eight procedures performed in 178 episodes of care involved the use of NSCG. NSCG were inappropriate for 59% of procedures (165 out of 278). Risk of cross-contamination occurred in 49% (87 out of 178) episodes. Twenty-six HCWs were interviewed; emotion and socialization were key factors influencing decisions to use NSCG. Data from observation and thematic analysis were mapped to 6 interacting components of the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety work system. Interventions targeting each component informed quality improvement strategies CONCLUSIONS: Despite intense promotion of hand hygiene as the key measure to protect patients from health care-associated infection, NSCG dominate routine clinical practice and potential cross-contamination occurs in 50% of care episodes. Such practice is associated with significant environmental and financial costs and adversely affects patient safety. The application of human factors and ergonomics to the complex drivers of inappropriate NSCG behavior may be more effective than conventional approaches of education and policy in achieving the goal of preventing health care-associated infection and improving patient safety., (Copyright © 2017 Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Hand hygiene (HH) is recognized as a basic effective measure in prevention of nosocomial infections. However, the importance of HH before donning nonsterile gloves is unknown, and few published studies address this issue. Despite the lack of evidence, the World Health Organization and other leading bodies recommend this practice. The aim of this study was to assess the utility of HH before donning nonsterile gloves prior to patient contact., Methods: A prospective, randomized, controlled trial of health care workers entering Contact Isolation rooms in intensive care units was performed. Baseline finger and palm prints were made from dominant hands onto agar plates. Health care workers were then randomized to directly don nonsterile gloves or perform HH and then don nonsterile gloves. Postgloving finger and palm prints were then made from the gloved hands. Plates were incubated and colony-forming units (CFU) of bacteria were counted., Results: Total bacterial colony counts of gloved hands did not differ between the 2 groups (6.9 vs 8.1 CFU, respectively, P = .52). Staphylococcus aureus was identified from gloves (once in "hand hygiene prior to gloving" group, twice in "direct gloving" group). All other organisms were expected commensal flora., Conclusion: HH before donning nonsterile gloves does not decrease already low bacterial counts on gloves. The utility of HH before donning nonsterile gloves may be unnecessary., (Copyright © 2013 Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Hand hygiene is the single most important element of strategies to prevent health care-associated infections. However, handwashing rates among health care workers have ranged from 9% to 50%. This observation took place as a structured, overt strategy to assess the hospital staff's hand hygiene compliance. The study was carried out in Imam Reza General Hospital, Mashhad, Iran., Methods: All hospital staff, including physicians, nurses, and unlicensed assistive personnel in 4 randomly selected wards, were observed by 2 infection control nurse specialists for 5 observation periods on each ward. The observation was overt, and observers compiled data by filling out 2 checklists. All staff knew that they were being observed, and the observers made no interventions., Results: The overall compliance with hand hygiene activities was 47.9% (438 episodes out of 913 potential opportunities) and, with sole emphasis on handwashing, was only 8.5%., Conclusion: Inappropriate glove use might be a component of poor hand hygiene compliance. Training campaigns should be implanted for health care personnel and all hospital staff to re-emphasize the importance of adherence to hand hygiene protocols., (Copyright © 2012 Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

In a prospective study of 30 patients with Clostridium difficile infection, we found that acquisition of spores on gloved hands was as likely after contact with commonly touched environmental surfaces (ie, bed rail, bedside table, telephone, call button) as after contact with commonly examined skin sites (ie, chest, abdomen, arm, hand)., (Copyright © 2012 Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The removal of personal protective equipment (PPE) after patient care may result in transfer of virus to hands and clothing of health care workers (HCWs). The risk of transfer can be modeled using harmless viruses to obtain quantitative data. To determine whether double-gloving reduces virus transfer to HCWs' hands and clothing during removal of contaminated PPE, we conducted a human challenge study using bacteriophages to compare the frequency and quantity of virus transfer to hands and clothes during PPE removal with single-gloving and double-gloving technique., Methods: Each experiment had a double-gloving phase and a single-gloving phase. Participants donned PPE (ie, contact isolation gown, N95 respirator, eye protection, latex gloves). The gown, respirator, eye protection, and dominant glove were contaminated with bacteriophage. Participants then removed the PPE, and their hands, face, and scrubs were sampled for virus., Results: Transfer of virus to hands during PPE removal was significantly more frequent with single-gloving than with double-gloving. Transfer to scrubs was similar during single-gloving and double-gloving. The amount of virus transfer to hands ranged from 0.15 to 2.5 log(10) most probable number. Significantly more virus was transferred to participants' hands after single-gloving than after double-gloving., Conclusions: Our comparison of double-gloving and single-gloving using a simulation system with MS2 and a most-probable number method suggests that double gloving can reduce the risk of viral contamination of HCWs' hands during PPE removal. If incorporated into practice when full PPE is worn, this practice may reduce the risk of viral contamination of HCWs' hands during PPE removal. The use of double gloves should be explored in larger controlled studies., (Copyright © 2012 Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

In a study conducted in 11 health care settings for elderly patients, we demonstrated a significant negative correlation between the proportion of glove use outside any risk of exposure to body fluids and compliance with hand hygiene (P < .02). This result underscores a major limitation of strategies for controlling the spread of multidrug-resistant bacteria that recommend systematic glove use for each contact with carriers or their environment., (Copyright © 2012 Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

We examined hand hygiene practices in surgical wards in 9 countries in Europe and Israel through direct practice observation. There was marked interhospital variation in hand hygiene compliance (range, 14%-76%), as well as glove and alcohol-based handrub use. After multivariable analysis, surgical subspecialty, professional category, type of care activity, and workload were independently associated with compliance. Hand hygiene practices are influenced by numerous factors, and a tailored approach may be required to improve practices., (Copyright © 2011 Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

We monitored hand hygiene and gloving practices by direct observation in 8 health care settings for elderly persons in western France. Compliance with hand hygiene was better than that reported by previous studies, was better for single contacts and before or after a series of successive contacts than inside series, and was closely related to gloving practices. Practices differed among the settings., (Copyright © 2011 Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

There are few studies that have assessed factors influencing infection control practices among health care workers (HCW) in nursing homes. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of HCWs (N = 392) in 4 nursing homes to assess whether knowledge, beliefs, and perceptions influence reported hand hygiene habits. Positive perceptions and beliefs regarding effectiveness of infection control in nursing homes were associated with reported appropriate glove use and fingernail characteristics, respectively, among HCWs. Further research on hand hygiene interventions, including targeted educational in-services should be conducted in the nursing home setting.

Background: Accidental exposures to blood of body fluids (ABE) expose health care workers (HCW) to the risk of occupational infection., Objectives: Our aim was to assess the prevention equipment available in the operating theater (OT) with reference to guidelines or recommendations and its use by the staff in that OT on that day and past history of ABE., Methods: Correspondents of the Centre de Coordination de la Lutte contre les Infections Nosocomiales (CCLIN) Paris-Nord ABE Surveillance Taskforce carried out an observational multicenter survey in 20 volunteer French hospitals., Results: In total, 260 operating staff (including 151 surgeons) were investigated. Forty-nine of the 260 (18.8%) staff said they double-gloved for all patients and procedures, changing gloves hourly. Blunt-tipped suture needles were available in 49.1% of OT; 42 of 76 (55.3%) of the surgeons in these OT said they never used them. Overall, 60% and 64% of surgeons had never self-tested for HIV and hepatitis C virus (HCV), respectively. Fifty-five surgeons said they had sustained a total of 96 needlestick injuries during the month preceding the survey. Ten of these surgeons had notified of 1 needlestick injury each to the occupational health department of their hospital (notification rate, 10.4%)., Conclusion: The occurrence of needlestick injury remained high in operating personnel in France in 2000. Although hospitals may improve access to protective devices, operating staff mindful of safety in the OT should increase their use of available devices, their knowledge of their own serostatus, and their ABE notification rate to guide well-targeted prevention efforts.

Background: Occupational exposures of health care workers occur because of inconsistent compliance with standard precautions. The purpose of this study was to develop national estimates of compliance with standard precautions and occupational exposure reporting among operating room nurses (specifically, scrub nurses) in Australia and to assess variables that influence compliance., Methods: A descriptive correlation design was used to investigate relationships between variables and compliance, using a theoretical framework, the Health Belief Model, to give meaning to the variables. Data collection was done through mail-out surveys to members of the Australian College of Operating Room Nurses., Results: This article reports the results of compliance with the following 2 specific self-protective behaviors: double-gloving and wearing adequate eye protection. Mean compliance rates were 55.6% with always double-gloving during surgical procedures and 92% with always wearing adequate eye protection. In addition, the variable that had the most influence on compliance was the perception of barriers to compliance, specifically, that adhering to standard precautions interfered with duties., Conclusion: These results have implications for the development of multifaceted perioperative infection control programs, including strategies for prevention, education, and policy development, to improve practices aimed at reducing occupational exposures among this high-risk group.

Background: Since the advent of universal precautions and body substance isolation, few studies have examined the relationship between glove use and handwashing., Methods: During a 5-month period in 1991, 477 structured observations were conducted on 19 patients care units at a community teaching hospital during each of three shifts. Patient care contacts were defined as either high level or low level according to potential for blood or body fluid contact., Results: Health care workers were potentially exposed to body fluids (high-level contact) on 152 occasions. Eighty-eight percent of all high-level contacts were limited to the hands; 47% of these contacts occurred during the night shift. Handwashing occurred after 32% of high-level contacts. Health-care workers wore gloves in 57% of high-level contacts. Rates of handwashing and glove use varied markedly among patient care units. Correct handwashing (> or = 9 seconds) occurred after 20% of contacts when health care workers wore gloves but after only 3% of high-level contacts when gloves were not used (p = 0.004)., Conclusions: Despite universal precautions or body substance isolation, educational efforts, and written policies, rates of handwashing and glove use are inadequate in cases of potential blood and body fluid contact. The perceived need for gloves may encourage handwashing.

In an attempt to define better situations involving exposure to blood, we surveyed nurses (N = 565) in a 1000-bed university hospital to determine the following for the last working shift: the rate of cutaneous exposure to blood for different procedures, the rate of needlestick injury, and the prevalence of hand lesions. Among nurses who had performed at least one of the specified procedures, 42% had been exposed to blood with unprotected skin. Direct examination of 100 pairs of hands revealed that 57% of the nurses had either acute or chronic skin lesions. Universal precautions were introduced, and a similar survey (N = 541) was carried out 1 year later to assess compliance. Exposure of unprotected skin to blood had been reduced to 27%, although 46% of nurses had not used gloves for any of the procedures they had performed. The main reason given by nurses for not wearing gloves was that they did not consider the patient to be at risk for carrying a blood-borne infection. The rate of needlestick injuries was high and had remained stable at approximately 2.8 needlesticks/nurse per year, as determined by information from the last working shifts. We conclude that compliance of nursing personnel with universal precautions was insufficient, despite an informational campaign throughout the hospital. Repeated instruction on barrier precautions and the prevention of needlestick injury (including the correct use of disposable containers) is necessary to ensure optimal protection.

The Center for Devices and Radiological Health, in collaboration with the state health departments of Iowa, Maryland, and Massachusetts, conducted a multi-state, multi-institutional investigation of glove use by health care workers (HCWs). Twenty-two hospitals and four ambulatory care centers were included in the investigation. All 26 health care facilities were found to have adopted universal precautions policies for glove use by HCWs, per Centers for Disease Control guidelines. Four hundred five observations were made of HCWs performing procedures that may involve contact with patient body fluids, particularly blood. The prevalence of glove use during selected procedures was as follows: arterial blood gas procedures, 92.3%; intravenous line initiation/maintenance, 77.6%; and phlebotomy, 70.6%. Glove use during phlebotomy (p less than 0.001) and intravenous line procedures (p less than 0.05) was significantly lower in the state with a prevalence of the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) below the national average than in the states with a higher AIDS prevalence. The investigation suggests that health care facilities have responded to the Centers for Disease Control and Occupational Safety and Health Administration campaign to adopt universal precaution policies for glove use by HCWs. Actual glove use by HCWs appears to be substantial but not universal. Glove use by HCWs is significantly related to statewide AIDS prevalence.

A study was conducted in the wards and laboratory of a 900-bed teaching hospital to determine the appropriateness of glove use. In the wards the rate of appropriate use was 59%, and in the laboratory it was 90%. In general, in the patient areas gloves were used for specific tasks (70%) whereas in the laboratory use for a specific task was only 32%. Financial savings could be realized by educational programs in infection control directed toward a more rational use of gloves.