Search

Objective: To investigate the relative importance of features of gloves for medical staff working with problem wounds. Design: Prospective, consecutive, crossover, open questionnaire investigation. Setting: University hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark. Subjects: 38 doctors, nurses, and podiatrists. Interventions: Two types of powder-free, non-sterile gloves (No powder Ansell Medical and Skinsense Biogel coated examination glove) were evaluated in the outpatient clinic and the ward of the Copenhagen Wound Healing Center. Main outcome measures: Features of gloves regarded as important in the treatment of wounds and a comparison of the features based on the following criteria: much better = 2, better = 1, no difference = 0, worse = -1, much worse = -2. Results: The first questionnaire showed that 84% of the respondents needed a new type of non-sterile glove, and for 66% the price of the glove was a main feature. The study of individual features of gloves showed that "protection" was ranked highest followed by "durability" and "sensitivity". Least important was the "length of the gloves" (p < 0.01). The gloves were tested in two different time periods. The Skinsense Biogel glove was evaluated better or much better for "durability" (82%-92% (period 1, 2), p < 0.001), "protection" (76%-80%, p < 0.001) and "ease of donning" (68%-71%, p < 0.001). The Ansell Medical glove was evaluated as better or much better for "tactile sensitivity" (77%-79%, p < 0.001). The Skinsense Biogel glove showed more positive changes in skin condition than the Ansell Medical glove. The quality of packing of the Ansell Medical glove in the containers also resulted in more gloves being unusable when unpacked. Conclusion: The powder-free, non-sterile gloves were useful in a wound healing department. The Skinsense Biogel glove showed more advantageous features, less changes for the worse in the skin condition, and was better packed in the containers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]