Understanding the Issues of Double Gloving
The issues around personal protective equipment have never been more discussed than
they are today. It is no surprise given the amount of information we hear daily
about hospital-acquired infections, surgical site infections and antimicrobial resistance.
As deadly viruses such as hepatitis and human immunodeficiency virus become more
prevalent in the population, awareness is increasing that such infections may be
transmitted to healthcare workers through contaminated blood.
Surgery is invasive and involves potential exposure to blood and body fluids. Surgical
gloves provide a protective barrier between healthcare workers’ hands and the infectious
blood and body fluid, but research has proven that surgical gloves cannot always
withstand the rigors of lengthy and strenuous surgeries, and surgical personnel
do not always change their gloves frequently enough during lengthy procedures. When
there is a breach, or barrier failure to a surgical glove, there is a subsequent
potential for the transfer of pathogens to both the patient and the surgical team.
From a risk management, infectious disease and occupational health perspective,
prevention of barrier failure is key to protecting the surgical team and the patient.
The primary method of prevention for members of the surgical team is the practice
of double gloving for surgical procedures. Some surgeons and nurses have eagerly
adopted the practice while others have stubbornly refused, citing objections ranging
from poor fit, feel and comfort of wearing two sets of gloves to others stating
they lose necessary tactile sensitivity required for intricate surgeries all the
way to administrative budget cuts that prevent the expense for extra gloves. Is
double gloving worth the effort? What does the evidence say?
Previous Page
| Table of Contents |
Next Page