Search

One year ago the British Orthopaedic Association issued guidelines for the prevention of cross-infection with special reference to HIV and the hepatitis viruses. We were interested to establish whether the guidelines were being widely applied and whether they had changed general orthopaedic practice. We distributed a questionnaire to Scottish Orthopaedic Fellows, Associates of the BOA, and orthopaedic trainees. With a 70 per cent return rate, it would appear that the recommendations are not adhered to in full. Of respondents, 84 per cent were immunized or undergoing immunization against hepatitis B. In all, 30 per cent were operating on high-risk patients on a monthly basis, 60 per cent thought that their current practice was low risk, and only 15 per cent thought that their future practice would be high risk; 81 per cent were concerned and yet only 60 per cent had altered their practice. It is of some concern that orthopaedic surgeons may not take the threat of HIV cross-infection seriously enough and do not consider precautions mandatory. Further pressure and support from the BOA may be necessary to encourage a change in orthopaedic practice as the threat of HIV is increasing.

Several overseas studies have documented the presence of defects in unused latex and vinyl gloves. Since such defects compromise the barrier protection afforded by gloves, information regarding the frequency and site of defects which occur during manufacture is of direct clinical relevance. This study utilized a four-stage testing procedure to evaluate defects in 13 brands of gloves which are used commonly in dental practice in Australia. Macropores in unused gloves were a significant problem, with 10 brands containing 1 per cent or more defective gloves. In addition, variations in electrical conducitivity, signifying microporosity or inconsistencies in thickness, were also observed. These findings indicate that there is room to improve further the quality of protective gloves.

Glove use and handwashing frequencies (HW) were observed in intensive care units (ICU) in two university hospitals in Denmark and two in Norway. The study included a total of 1632 patient procedures performed by 325 persons. Handwashing (HW) has become an important part of general barrier precautions. Earlier studies have shown that health care workers (HCW) far too often neglect to wash their hands after patient procedures when handwashing is strongly recommended. Despite earlier claims that increased glove use in hospitals would discourage handwashing, our results showed that HCW washed their hands more often after glove use (57%) than when gloves had not been used (40%). This significant difference in HW frequency was also noted when similar procedures were carried out by HCW with or without gloves. This might be a matter of personal discomfort after wearing gloves, but could also be due to differences in awareness of hygienic aspects of patient care. In the two countries gloves were used on average at 17% of the procedures, but were not used appropriately for dirty procedures. The results of this study indicate that more effective methods for the implementation of appropriate glove use and HW should be emphasized.

Objective: One purpose of this prospective investigation was to assess the frequency of glove perforations and subsequent blood contact associated with selected obstetric procedures. The second purpose was to assess the relative risk of perforation among different members of the surgical team and determine if time of day or urgency of the procedure affected the frequency of perforation., Study Design: Over a 3-month period, obstetric personnel were asked to double glove for all surgical procedures. After surgery, they placed their gloves in plastic bags and noted the type of procedure, time of day, and position on the surgical team. They also indicated whether they were aware of a glove tear and, if so, whether blood or fluid was on their hands. Gloves were tested for injury by two methods: by inflating them with air and subsequently immersing them in water to detect air bubbles and by directly filling them with water to observe for leaks., Results: A total of 540 glove sets (2160 individual gloves) were examined; 407 sets were from cesarean deliveries, 65 from puerperal tubal ligations, and 68 from vaginal deliveries. Sixty-seven of the sets (12.4%, 95% confidence interval 9.6% to 15.2%) had at least one hole; the total number of holes was 78. Sixty-six holes were in the outer glove only, and 7 were in the inner glove only. In five sets (0.9%, 95% confidence interval 0.5% to 1.3%) there were matching holes in the outer and inner gloves. In two of these cases (0.4%, 95% confidence interval 0.1% to 0.7%) the surgeons noted blood on their hands at the conclusion of the procedure. The difference in frequency of injury in outer versus inner gloves was highly significant (p < 0.005). Forty-six of the 78 holes (59%) were on the thumb or first two fingers of the nondominant hand. Only 2 (3%) of the glove tears were recognized by the surgeon. There was no difference in frequency of glove tears when cesarean sections were classified as urgent versus nonurgent. There also was no difference in frequency of glove tears in procedures performed at night compared with those during the daytime. Surgical nurses had 36% of all glove injuries and were more likely than physicians or medical students to sustain perforations (p < 0.005). Primary surgeons and first assistants were more likely than second assistants to sustain glove injuries (p < 0.05). For primary surgeons and first assistants, level of training did not significantly affect the frequency of glove perforations., Conclusions: Glove perforations occur in approximately 12% of obstetric surgical procedures. Surgical nurses are at greatest risk for perforation. Double gloving reduces the likelihood of penetrating injury to the inner glove and subsequent risk of blood contact.

A survey was conducted by interviewing a randomly selected sample of practicing dentists in Israel in 1991. The aim of this study was to evaluate methods of infection control in current use and to learn about the access to care for medically compromised patients. One hundred seventeen dentists were interviewed. This group represented a majority of graduates from Israeli schools (66). With respect to infection control, only 28% of the population surveyed routinely uses gloves, but 43% use steam autoclave, and 70% use dry-heat sterilization. A very high percentage (87%) took a verbal medical history, while a small minority (27%) had their patients fill out a written questionnaire. Only occasionally was the name of the patient's physician requested or recorded, implying a flaw in interprofessional communications. Only 26% of the dentists said they would treat patients with hepatitis and/or AIDS. Only about half the dentists accepted patients on chemotherapy or radiotherapy or those who were taking anticoagulant drugs. Physical access for dental patients in wheelchair or stretcher was markedly limited, with referral to regional hospitals the routine for these patients.

Purpose: To estimate (1) the prevalence of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection in emergency department (ED) patients, (2) the frequency of blood contact (BC) in ED workers (EDWs), (3) the efficacy of gloves in preventing BC, and (4) the risk of HIV infection in EDWs due to BC., Patients and Methods: We conducted an 8-month study in three pairs of inner-city and suburban hospital EDs in high AIDS incidence areas in the United States. At each hospital, blood specimens from approximately 3,400 ED patients were tested for HIV antibody. Observers monitored BC and glove use by EDWs., Results: HIV seroprevalence was 4.1 to 8.9 per 100 patient visits in the 3 inner-city EDs, 6.1 in 1 suburban ED, and 0.2 and 0.7 in the other 2 suburban EDs. The HIV infection status of 69% of the infected patients was unknown to ED staff. Seroprevalence rates were highest among patients aged 15 to 44 years, males, blacks and Hispanics, and patients with pneumonia. BC was observed in 379 (3.9%) of 9,793 procedures; 362 (95%) of the BCs were on skin, 11 (3%) were on mucous membranes, and 6 (2%) were percutaneous. Overall procedure-adjusted skin BC rates were 11.2 BCs per 100 procedures for ungloved workers and 1.3 for gloved EDWs (relative risk = 8.8; 95% confidence interval = 7.3 to 10.3). In the high HIV seroprevalence EDs studied, 1 in every 40 full-time ED physicians or nurses can expect an HIV-positive percutaneous BC annually; in the low HIV seroprevalence EDs studied, 1 in every 575. The annual occupational risk of HIV infection for an individual ED physician or nurse from performing procedures observed in this study is estimated as 0.008% to 0.026% (1 in 13,100 to 1 in 3,800) in a high HIV seroprevalence area and 0.0005% to 0.002% (1 in 187,000 to 1 in 55,000) in a low HIV seroprevalence area., Conclusions: In both inner-city and suburban EDs, patient HIV seroprevalence varies with patient demographics and clinical presentation; the infection status of most HIV-positive patients is unknown to ED staff. The risk to an EDW of occupationally acquiring HIV infection varies by ED location and the nature and frequency of BC; this risk can be reduced by adherence to universal precautions.

The purpose of this study was to compare leakage rates of used latex and vinyl examination gloves from high and low risk clinical units. A total of 4838 latex and 1008 vinyl examination gloves were collected and tested by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) watertight leak test: three brands of latex [Brand A: n = 2920; Brand B: n = 284; Brand C: n = 1634; and one brand of vinyl gloves (Brand D: n = 1008]. Seventy percent of latex gloves and 46.7% of vinyl gloves were collected from the high risk units. In general, there were no significant differences in leakage rates for vinyl gloves between high and low risk units. However, latex gloves leaked significantly more often at stress levels 2 and 3 from the high risk units as compared to the low risk units (X2 = 24.6, p < .0001). Regardless of level of stress and duration worn, 85.3% (860/1008) of used vinyl gloves and 18.4% (891/4838) of used latex gloves leaked, p < .001). There were significant differences in leakage rates between the three brands of latex gloves (Brand A, 9.8%; Brand B, 25.1%; Brand C, 30.9%, p < .001). Although latex gloves leaked slightly more frequently as stress level increased, glove material (latex or vinyl) and brand of glove were the most important predictors of leakage.

A prospective study was undertaken to determine the perforation rate of surgical gloves when double-gloving techniques were employed in 120 hip fracture operations. One or more perforations occurred in 30 operations (25%). In 10 operations (8.3%), perforations of both the outer and inner gloves occurred at corresponding sites. The surgeons were able to recognize the perforations during the surgery on five occasions only. Of the 64 perforations identified, 41 (64%) occurred in the left (nondominant) hands, and 42 (65.6%) occurred at the tips of thumbs and index fingers. Nearly half of the perforations (46.9%) occurred at the thumb and index finger of left (nondominant) hands. To reduce the perforation rate, further protection of the thumb and index finger of the nondominant hand of surgeons is therefore required.

Objective: To investigate the effect of an educational program on compliance with glove use in a pediatric emergency department., Design: Without their knowledge, participants were observed for routine use of gloves during vascular access procedures before and after an educational program. Participants with up to 3 years' vascular access experience were defined as less experienced and those with 4 or more years' experience were defined as more experienced. Their success rates performing vascular access procedures with and without wearing gloves were also monitored., Setting: Inner-city pediatric hospital emergency department., Participants: Twenty-three emergency department registered nurses., Interventions: A 30-minute lecture with slides, written materials, and posters addressing the reasons and need for universal precautions, and recommended methods of barrier precautions to prevent skin and mucous membrane exposure when handling sharp instruments., Measurements/main Results: For the less experienced registered nurses, the compliance rate before the educational program was 70% and remained at about 93% afterward. For the more experienced registered nurses, the compliance rate before the program was only 15%. After the program, this compliance rate rose to 93%, but declined to only 50% by the fifth month. The registered nurses' success rate on the first attempt at vascular access while wearing gloves was 75% compared with 70% without gloves., Conclusion: Educational programs can result in a clinically significant increase in glove use by pediatric emergency department registered nurses. Long-term improvement was less pronounced for the group of more experienced registered nurses. We also observed that glove use does not appear to interfere with the proficient performance of vascular access procedures.

To determine the potential rate of intraoperative parenteral exposure of physicians and patients caused by glove perforation during ophthalmic surgery, gloves were analyzed after 125 procedures. Gloves were collected from all surgical team members (surgeon, assistants, scrub nurse, and circulating nurse). The rate of glove perforation was significantly lower for the surgeon, 0.3% (one of 303 gloves) than for the assistants, 5% (ten of 202 gloves [P = .001]), scrub nurses, 16% (52 of 326 gloves [P = .0001]), and circulating nurses, 15% (43 of 293 gloves [P = .0001]); similarly, assistants had a significantly lower rate than did scrub nurses (P = .0001) and circulating nurses (P = .001). There was no statistically significant difference in number of perforations on the basis of surgery duration or type of ophthalmic procedure. These findings suggest that the risk of parenteral exposure during ophthalmic surgery is low for the surgeon, and higher for other surgical personnel. We also analyzed additional safety precautions. Further study is warranted to determine the effectiveness of precautions and to guide policy formulation.

This study established regular implementation of a simple feedback procedure by supervisory nurses with their assistants at a head-injury treatment center. Five nurses were trained to distribute brief written comments to their assistants about infection-control practices, including using gloves to avoid contact with body fluids. Following low rates of written feedback, nurses met with the trainer weekly to set goals for using the system, to review feedback rates, and to examine contingent letters of appreciation. Written feedback increased from 0.09 to 0.58 per day. When outcome data on glove use were subsequently added to the feedback provided to nurses, nurses' feedback on glove use increased and overall glove use by assistants increased by 36.7% for 66.7% of assistants who responded to feedback. Assistants rated feedback as highly accurate and indicated some interest in receiving future feedback. However, nurses and assistants expressed a preference for oral over written feedback.

Background: The risk of occupational exposure to the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) may be one of the important issues facing family physicians in the 1990s. The use of universal precautions has been shown to reduce the incidence of exposures to bloodborne pathogens. Studies indicate, however, that these guidelines are not being followed consistently by physicians or their staffs., Methods: A survey of 3568 randomly sampled members of the American Academy of Family Physicians was performed using a questionnaire that was designed by the authors. Three mailings were conducted., Results: The total response rate was 39%. Approximately 80% of the respondents reported that they used gloves appropriately and disposed of sharp instruments in a puncture-resistant container. Only 39% "always" or "almost always" used eye protection when indicated, and only 35% "almost never" or "never" recapped used needles. There was a significant number of physicians who reported that they or their office staff had had an occupational exposure to bloodborne pathogens within the last year., Conclusions: Family physicians and their staffs do not uniformly follow universal precaution guidelines and, as a result, many have been exposed to blood products. If the physician or the office staff would not recap used needles and would place used sharp instruments in a puncture-resistant container, the greatest risks of occupational exposure would be reduced.

Dental hospital staff and students were observed during clinical work for their compliance with infection control procedures, as recommended by the British Dental Association. A total of 183 contacts between health care worker and patient were scrutinised during December 1990. Nearly all health care workers (96%) wore gloves to carry out dental treatment, but in some cases gloves were neither changed nor hands washed between patients. Only one half wore protective eyewear and about one third (38%) wore no mask. Some dental surgery assistants used heavy duty gloves and some even scrubbed dirty dental instruments without wearing any gloves. Strict audit is clearly needed in every clinical setting in order to ensure compliance with infection control.

Cross-infection routines should be used by both the dentist and the dental surgery assistant (DSA), and the wearing of gloves during patient treatment is considered an integral part of such routines. Results are presented which indicate the extent to which DSAs wear gloves while assisting in patient care, and the factors influencing glove wearing are discussed.

Attitudes to glove wearing during treatment of patients were tested by distribution of a questionnaire to 2000 dentists known to be practising under the National Health Service regulations in England and Wales. Of the dentists who replied, 41 specialist orthodontists, representing approximately one-sixth of all orthodontists working in the general dental services in England and Wales, were identified. Results indicate that 39 per cent of these orthodontic respondents wore gloves routinely for all patients and procedures, while 49 per cent wore gloves for some patients or procedures, with 12 per cent never wearing gloves. Reasons given by the occasional glove wearers for not wearing gloves routinely included loss of tactile sensation, perceived small risk, lack of comfort, and restriction of movement. Six per cent of those who replied had experienced skin irritation considered to be associated with glove wearing, while latex gloves were preferred by 78 per cent of respondents who wore gloves.

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 past couple of years have given U.S. dentists a lot to think about. OSHA regulations, a declining economy, lingering concerns about fluoridation, dental amalgam and safety in health care settings have captured the attention of dentists everywhere.

The technique of interdental wiring was compared with a small-plate osteosynthesis technique (SPO) in a prospective study of surgical glove perforations acquired during the treatment of mandibular fractures. Using the SPO technique there was a significant reduction in the incidence of skin penetrating injuries in the surgeon (P less than 0.005) and assistant surgeon groups (P less than 0.05). The reduction in the incidence of glove perforation in the assistant surgeon group was very highly significant in the SPO series (P less than 0.001). The reduction in the surgeon group was not significant. No difference was noted in the scrub nurse group. The small-plate osteosynthesis technique has the advantage of reducing the risk of intraoperative cross-infection transmitted by hand contamination or penetrating injury. The recommended precautions for preventing the transmission of blood-borne pathogens are reviewed.

The wearing of gloves by dentists undertaking clinical procedures has been recommended by many authorities as an essential element of dental surgery cross-infection control. This paper reports an investigation into patterns of glove-wearing by practising dentists, and considers the effect of practice location and practising arrangements on this issue and other aspects of cross-infection control. The results show that these factors, including the type of patient treated, may influence the pattern of glove-wearing by dentists in England and Wales. These findings suggest that groups least likely to follow the recommended infection control procedures should be targeted when assessing dental education requirements.

The increased awareness of the need for cross-infection control in dentistry has led to recommendations that operating gloves be worn routinely by dental surgeons. A survey conducted amongst general dental practitioners in Northern Ireland showed a drop in glove wearing from 100% in the newly qualified to 47% in those who had qualified between 15 to 35 years ago. A frequently stated reason for the non wearing of gloves in this group is the diminution of tactile sense. To test this, a blind tutor was engaged to read a random standard length Braille passage whilst wearing selected gloves and the reading time recorded and compared with ungloved reading. The wearing of gloves increased reading time and, by implication, the loss of tactile perception, by between 14% and 37%, depending on the glove used. The thickness and stiffness of the gloves were also determined and the results suggest a relationship between these quantities and the loss of tactile perception.

Nurses are exposed to a variety of risks while handling cytotoxic drugs. A study was conducted in 6 different hospitals where those drugs are used. We inquired about the nurses information about their possible toxicities and the protection measures used while preparing and giving these drugs. The results showed that 50% of the 43 nurses questioned don't have complete information about these toxicities and nearly 60% of them do not apply any preventive measure for safe handling of the drugs especially the use of disposable gloves, the use of coveralls with long sleeves and the use of protective glasses.

In order to examine whether thorough surgical hand disinfection (handwashing plus hand disinfection) between consecutive operations is necessary, tests were carried out simulating normal clinical conditions. The tests were performed according to the guidelines for the evaluation of disinfection procedures of the German Society for Hygiene and Microbiology. Surgical hand disinfection was as follows: handwashing with soap without antimicrobial additives and subsequent 5-min disinfection with 60% n-propanol. This was followed by simulated operations of 30 or 120 min duration with a 30-min break between operations, during which half of the test group kept on the surgical gloves, while the other half removed them. The second surgical hand disinfection was done without prior handwashing by 50% of the test group. The disinfection time was reduced from 5 to 1 min by 50% of the test group. The results were evaluated by means of explorative data analysis and inductive statistical methods. Removing the surgical gloves during the interoperative break did not result in significantly higher numbers of colony forming units (cfu) compared with retaining the gloves. This was also the case after a subsequent handwashing. At the second surgical hand disinfection, after a simulated operation of 60 min duration (including break), there was no significant difference in the numbers of cfus between the test group who had washed their hands and those who had not. Reducing the disinfection time from 5 min to 1 min was not associated with a significant increase in the number of cfus. However, after a simulated operating time of 150 min (including the break), the second surgical hand disinfection with handwashing resulted in a significantly lower number of microorganisms than disinfection alone. In half the tests, the numbers of cfu were significantly lower when the test group disinfected their hands for 5 min rather than 1 min.

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.

Attitudes to glove wearing by dentists practising within the NHS Regulations were tested by means of a questionnaire distributed to 2000 dentists in England and Wales. The response was 76.5%. The results indicate that 68% of the respondents wore gloves routinely for all patients and procedures, 3% never wore gloves, while the remainder (29%) wore gloves for only selected patients or selected procedures. Reasons given for not wearing gloves routinely included problems of comfort, loss of tactile sensation and the risk of cross-infection, which was perceived to be small. Of the routine glove wearers, only 12% changed gloves between patients, cost being considered to be a factor by 57% of respondents who used gloves for more than one patient. The results indicate that the respondents practising and personal details had an influence on the pattern of glove wearing, with single-handed practitioners and those who graduated before 1979 being less likely to wear gloves routinely. Comparison with the findings of earlier studies of similar type suggest that there is increased awareness in the dental profession of the necessity for glove wearing, but that there is still a need to encourage routine glove use, especially amongst certain groups of GDPs.

A questionnaire was mailed to 1217 dentists whose names appear in the Dentist Register of 1987 in order to assess their awareness and acceptance of hepatitis B vaccine and their pattern of glove usage. Almost all the respondents (99.6%) were aware of the availability of the hepatitis B vaccine yet only 44.8% have received the vaccine. This is in spite of the fact that the majority (61.2%) of the vaccine non-acceptors have no reservations concerning the vaccine. About 71% and 63% of the vaccine-acceptors and non-acceptors respectively believed that the risk of their contracting hepatitis B was high or very high. About 22% of the vaccine non-acceptors never used gloves when treating patients as compared to 9% among vaccine acceptors. Overall, about 78% of the respondents have experienced needleprick injuries in the 3 years preceding the survey.

Dental specialists, dental general practitioners, dental assistants and hygienists at the medical province of Riyadh (95, 111, 141 and 14 respectively), were surveyed to ascertain their uptake of vaccination against the hepatitis B virus. Only 25.3% of dental specialists, 14.4% of dental practitioners, 25.5% of dental assistants and 42.9% of hygienists have been vaccinated. Side effects of vaccination were always minimal. Some of those respondents who have not been vaccinated were aware of the necessity of the vaccine but unable to get anyone to do it for them and the other part were aware of the desirability of the vaccine but had not yet taken positive steps to seek vaccination. Despite the risks and possible sequelae of contracting hepatitis B infection, a few of the respondents still consider vaccination unnecessary. Surprisingly, a quarter of the non-vaccinated group were not aware of the availability of the vaccine. Unfounded ideas of contracting AIDS from the vaccine accounted for 5% of the total participants in this survey. Only a quarter of the vaccinated groups have had antibody titre tests after vaccination. Wearing rubber/latex gloves when treating all patients is a further simple preventive and protective measure. However, 5% of the surveyed group never wear gloves.

Barrier precautions are a fundamental component of any infection control strategy and a critical aspect of all isolation systems. Because many infections are transmitted from patient-to-patient via the hands of personnel, gloves and gowns are widely recommended to provide an extra measure of protection against cross-infection. It is not clear whether gloves are superior to handwashing (if performed obsessionally) in this respect, and there is little evidence that gowns confer additional benefit. These concerns notwithstanding, barrier precautions can substantially reduce the risk of some infections, such as respiratory syncytial virus disease. On the other hand, the modes of transmission of many infections are complex (e.g. with rotavirus) or controversial (e.g. with rhinovirus), and, even though hands are involved in transmission, barrier precautions alone may not suffice to prevent spread. Moreover, neither gloves nor gowns can prevent nosocomial infections caused by endogenous microbial flora; perhaps this explains the limited efficacy of barrier precautions in reducing the endemic rate of infection due to bacteria such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa in intensive care units. Barrier precautions may also fail if colonized patients are not identified promptly. One potential solution to this problem is 'body substance isolation' (BSI), in which all patients are considered to be potential carriers of nosocomial pathogens whether or not they have been cultured or have developed a clinical infection. In BSI barrier techniques are used when any potentially contaminated patient material is handled. BSI also provides barrier protection from bloodborne pathogens for personnel.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Objective: To ascertain current infection control practices, endoscope cleaning procedures, perceived risks of infection, and implementation of universal precautions in gastrointestinal endoscopy units in the United States., Design: National mailed survey of gastroenterology nurses and associates conducted anonymously in March 1988., Setting: Completed surveys were received from all 50 states and Puerto Rico and from all practice settings. The most common practice setting was private/community hospitals (66%)., Participants: Of the 4,952 survey forms mailed to all members and to interested nonmembers of the Society of Gastrointestinal Nurses and Associates, 2,158 (44%) were returned and 2,030 (41%) were completed and evaluable. Of the respondents, 1,487 (73%) were registered nurses., Results: Sixty-seven percent (n = 1,358) of the respondents routinely used an enzymatic cleaner as a step in the instrument decontamination process; 93% (n = 1,879) chemically disinfected instruments after each case; and 88% (n = 1,779) disinfected endoscopes with an aqueous glutaraldehyde product. Respondents reported that they and a significantly smaller proportion of physicians (p less than .001) employed barrier precautions for all endoscopic cases involving possible contact with blood/body fluids of patients known (66% versus 57%, respectively) and not known (12% versus 8%, respectively) to have a bloodborne infection. Endoscopy-related infections, usually bacterial, were reported to have occurred at their institutions by 6% (n = 116) of respondents., Conclusions: We conclude that cleaning, disinfection, and sterilization procedures for gastrointestinal endoscopic instruments vary, that appropriate protective apparel is not always worn, and that some practices may lead to preventable endoscopy-related infection in patients.

Objective: To investigate compliance with isolation precautions., Design: A prospective observational study carried out during ten weeks of 1989. Participants were unaware of the study., Setting: The isolation bay of a 24-bed surgical intensive care unit in a 900-bed university tertiary care facility., Participants: Study participants included any healthcare worker or visitor entering the patient room during designated 15-minute intervals., Results: We observed 467 subjects entering patient rooms. Compliance with strict isolation (65%) was better than with wound/skin (40%) or excretion/secretion (36%) isolation (p less than .01). Visitors were more compliant than healthcare workers (88% versus 41%; p less than .01). Spending more time in the room was associated with improved compliance (p less than .01). Compliance was higher for subjects entering with a group compared with those entering alone (51% versus 41%; p less than .05). The compliance rate for nurses improved as the nurse/patient ratio improved (p = .14). Compliance was independent of severity of illness. Multivariate analysis revealed that the amount of time spent in the room, being a visitor, and use of strict isolation were independent predictors of compliance., Conclusions: Noncompliance was widespread. When increased demands are placed on the time of physicians and nurses in the name of cost containment, unperceived consequences, such as those resulting from decreased compliance, must be considered.

In a survey carried out in 1987 and 1988 in Vancouver British Columbia, 704 dental professionals filled out an anonymous questionnaire and submitted a blood sample. Of those not immunized, 11% had infection with Hepatitis B, with dentists having a rate of 18%, significantly higher than other dental workers. Two carriers of HBsAg were detected and no individuals showed evidence of HIV infection. There were no differences in infection rates by the specific infection control practices. Oriental dental-care workers had a significantly higher rate of infection than other races surveyed. In a multivariate model, race and the number of years in practice were the only significant factors in predicting infection. The use of gloves did not show a protective effect, although a threefold protection rate for gloves is the smallest difference that could be reliably detected. The immunization rate with Hepatitis B vaccine averaged 46%, with fewer dentists being immunized than hygienists. Seroconversion rates were lower in older individuals. Dental professionals had a high risk of Hepatitis B and had not been adequately immunized. Reliance on gloves for operator protection appears to be inadequate.

The blood-taking practices and prevalence of needle-stick injuries were recorded for 46 house officers working at the two largest teaching hospitals in Sheffield and 38 house officers working at three hospitals in London. Wearing gloves when performing venesection or inserting an intravenous cannula was generally perceived as making the procedure more difficult and no house officer in either centre wore gloves when performing routine venesection. Twenty-five (54.3%) of the house officers from Sheffield resheathed needles by hand, while a further 14 (28.3%) placed the sheath onto a work surface before attempting to manoeuvre the needle back into its sheath. Only 7 (17.4%) house officers denied resheathing needles after performing venesection. Twenty-seven (58.7%) admitted to having had a needle-stick injury within 3 months of commencing their first house officer post. Twenty-seven (71.1%) of the house officers from London resheathed needles, the remainder disposing of the needle by placing it straight into an appropriate container. Twenty-five (66%) admitted to having had a needle-stick injury the first 6 months of being a house officer. Training in the correct techniques of venesection with emphasis on either avoiding resheathing needles or resheathing safely is essential early in the medical student curriculum and needs regular repetition.

Adherence to universal blood and body fluid precautions was studied in surgical patient care areas of a university hospital in an effort to identify potentially hazardous health care personnel practices. Surgical teams of an 18-unit operating room, three surgical ward patient care teams, and patient care personnel in a 16-bed surgical intensive care unit were observed during routine patient care activities before (study 1) and after (study 2) specific educational programs were held to improve universal precaution compliance. Overall, infractions occurred in 57% of 549 observed procedures in study 1 and in 58% of 616 observed procedures in study 2. In study 1, infractions occurred in 75% of operating room procedures, 30% of surgical ward procedures, and 75% of surgical intensive care unit procedures. Study 2 procedure infraction rates were 81%, 32%, and 40%, respectively. Only surgical intensive care unit compliance significantly improved. Noncompliance with universal precautions occurs frequently during the care of patients who have undergone surgery, with the type of infraction and specific offender varying according to patient locale. These violations appear unamenable to one-time educational efforts. Substantial overall improvement may arise from ongoing educational programs directed at specific personnel who care for patients who have undergone surgery.

An analysis of the increase in expenditures for barrier isolation materials before and after the institution of universal precautions at our 900-bed university hospital was used to generate a national estimate of the cost of implementation of the new Centers for Disease Control guidelines. Following the institution of universal precautions, use of rubber gloves at our hospital increased from 1.64 million pairs of 2.81 million pairs annually. A 5-year review of hospital purchasing and supply records in both inpatient and outpatient areas indicated that the total annual costs for isolation materials increased by $350,900. This represented an increase from $13.70 to $22.89 per admission (60%) after adjustment for inflation. The cost of isolation materials increased from $98 to $215 per 1000 outpatient visits, an adjusted increase of 92%. Two thirds of the increase (64%) was due to rubber gloves and an additional 25% was due to disposable isolation gowns. Universal precautions are estimated to have cost at least $336 million in the United States in fiscal year 1989 after adjustment for inflation. If expenditures for isolation materials at our medical center are representative, previous estimates may have significantly underestimated costs nationwide.

Glove-wearing attitudes of 375 physicians, representing 56% of all physicians surveyed, were ascertained. Although the majority were comfortable with their current glove use, 33% preferred wearing them more frequently. The most common reasons for not wearing gloves were a low likelihood of disease transmission and fear of offending patients. Many physicians felt that more frequent glove use in examining human immunodeficiency virus- (HIV)-positive patients might reduce rapport and diminish the adequacy of physical examination procedures, but only 11% felt that increased glove use would compromise overall care of HIV-positive patients. With regard to all patients, 33% felt that increased glove use in examinations would compromise care. Additionally, 56% of physicians stated that they were somewhat concerned about HIV infection. Glove-wearing preferences were significantly associated with greater concern about infection, a younger age and more frequent exposure to blood and body secretions. Contact with high-risk patient groups was not associated with glove-wearing preferences.

This paper reviews the use of non-sterile gloves in dental practice. It is now considered to be normal practice to wear gloves for all dental procedures and although there is considerable controversy regarding patterns of glove use, there is increasing evidence to the effect that single patient use is indicated. Careful use of gloves and proper hand care are key components to effective cross-infection control in clinical practice.