Assessing the risk of blood exposure in the operating room

Sustainable Personal Protective Clothing for Healthcare Applications: A Review

Personal protective equipment (PPE) is critical to protect healthcare workers (HCWs) from highly infectious diseases such as COVID-19. However, hospitals have been at risk of running out of the safe and effective PPE including personal protective clothing needed to treat patients with COVID-19, due to unprecedented global demand. In addition, there are only limited manufacturing facilities of such clothing available worldwide, due to a lack of available knowledge about relevant technologies, ineffective supply chains, and stringent regulatory requirements. Therefore, there remains a clear unmet need for coordinating the actions and efforts from scientists, engineers, manufacturers, suppliers, and regulatory bodies to develop and produce safe and effective protective clothing using the technologies that are locally available around the world. In this review, we discuss currently used PPE, their quality, and the associated regulatory standards. We survey the current state-of-the-art antimicrobial functional finishes on fabrics to protect the wearer against viruses and bacteria and provide an overview of protective medical fabric manufacturing techniques, their supply chains, and the environmental impacts of current single-use synthetic fiber-based protective clothing. Finally, we discuss future research directions, which include increasing efficiency, safety, and availability of personal protective clothing worldwide without conferring environmental problems.

Isolation gowns in health care settings: Laboratory studies, regulations and standards, and potential barriers of gown selection and use

Although they play an important role in infection prevention and control, textile materials and personal protective equipment (PPE) used in health care settings are known to be one of the sources of cross-infection. Gowns are recommended to prevent transmission of infectious diseases in certain settings; however, laboratory and field studies have produced mixed results of their efficacy. PPE used in health care is regulated as either class I (low risk) or class II (intermediate risk) devices in the United States. Many organizations have published guidelines for the use of PPE, including isolation gowns, in health care settings. In addition, the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation published a guidance document on the selection of gowns and a classification standard on liquid barrier performance for both surgical and isolation gowns. However, there is currently no existing standard specific to isolation gowns that considers not only the barrier resistance but also a wide array of end user desired attributes. As a result, infection preventionists and purchasing agents face several difficulties in the selection process, and end users have limited or no information on the levels of protection provided by isolation gowns. Lack of knowledge about the performance of protective clothing used in health care became more apparent during the 2014 Ebola epidemic. This article reviews laboratory studies, regulations, guidelines and standards pertaining to isolation gowns, characterization problems, and other potential barriers of isolation gown selection and use.

Bloodborne Pathogen Exposure Risk Among Surgeons in Sub-Saharan Africa

To document the frequency and circumstances of bloodborne pathogen exposures among surgeons in sub-Saharan Africa, we surveyed surgeons attending the 2006 Pan-African Association of Surgeons conference. During the previous year, surgeons sustained a mean of 3.1 percutaneous injuries, which were typically caused by suture needles. They sustained a mean of 4.1 exposures to blood and body fluid, predominantly from blood splashes to the eyes. Fewer than half of the respondents reported completion of hepatitis B vaccination, and postexposure prophylaxis for human immunodeficiency virus was widely available. Surgeons reported using hands-free passing and blunt suture needles. Non-fluid-resistant cotton gowns and masks were the barrier garments worn most frequently.

Healthcare worker safety: a vital component of surgical capacity development in low-resource settings

INTRODUCTION

A disparate number of occupational exposures to bloodborne pathogens occur in low-income countries where disease prevalence is high and healthcare provider-per-population ratios are low.

METHODS

In an effort to highlight the important role of healthcare worker safety in surgical capacity building in Rwanda, we measured self-reported presence of safety materials and compliance with personal protective equipment in the operating theatre as part of a nationwide survey to characterize emergency and essential surgical capacity in all government hospitals.

RESULTS

We surveyed 44 hospitals. While staff report general availability of safe disposal of sharps and hazardous waste, presence of and compliance with eye protection was lacking. Staff were cognizant of prevention measures such as double-gloving and 'safe receptacles', as well as hospital policies for post-exposure prophylaxis for HIV following needlesticks, but there was little awareness of hepatitis exposure.

CONCLUSIONS

Healthcare worker safety should be a key component of hospital-level surgical capacity.

A comparison of reusable and disposable perioperative textiles: sustainability state-of-the-art 2012

Contemporary comparisons of reusable and single-use perioperative textiles (surgical gowns and drapes) reflect major changes in the technologies to produce and reuse these products. Reusable and disposable gowns and drapes meet new standards for medical workers and patient protection, use synthetic lightweight fabrics, and are competitively priced. In multiple science-based life cycle environmental studies, reusable surgical gowns and drapes demonstrate substantial sustainability benefits over the same disposable product in natural resource energy (200%-300%), water (250%-330%), carbon footprint (200%-300%), volatile organics, solid wastes (750%), and instrument recovery. Because all other factors (cost, protection, and comfort) are reasonably similar, the environmental benefits of reusable surgical gowns and drapes to health care sustainability programs are important for this industry. Thus, it is no longer valid to indicate that reusables are better in some environmental impacts and disposables are better in other environmental impacts. It is also important to recognize that large-scale studies of comfort, protection, or economics have not been actively pursued in the last 5 to 10 years, and thus the factors to improve both reusables and disposable systems are difficult to assess. In addition, the comparison related to jobs is not well studied, but may further support reusables. In summary, currently available perioperative textiles are similar in comfort, safety, and cost, but reusable textiles offer substantial opportunities for nurses, physicians, and hospitals to reduce environmental footprints when selected over disposable alternatives. Evidenced-based comparison of environmental factors supports the conclusion that reusable gowns and drapes offer important sustainability improvements. The benefit of reusable systems may be similar for other reusables in anesthesia, such as laryngeal mask airways or suction canisters, but life cycle studies are needed to substantiate these benefits.

The health beliefs of hospital staff and the reporting of needlestick injury

AIM

The aim of this study is to examine the connection between the health beliefs of hospital staff (doctors, nurses and auxiliary staff) and their failure to report needlestick injuries.

BACKGROUND

Needlestick injury to hospital staff is quite frequent and can result in infections and disease, but staff frequently do not report the injury despite their awareness of the risk of blood-borne pathogens.

METHODS

Five questionnaires were constructed based on three existing research tools and were tested for validity and reliability. Two hundred and forty questionnaires were distributed to eight randomly chosen departments of a single Israeli hospital. Seventy-six percent of the questionnaires were anonymously completed and returned.

RESULTS

Nurses had the highest rate of needlestick injury, followed by auxiliary staff and doctors. Auxiliary staff showed the highest rate of compliance with the duty to report such injuries, while doctors showed the lowest. Perceived severity of contractable disease, the perceived efficacy of reporting injuries and overall motivation to maintain health were the best predictors of reporting compliance. Non-compliers emphasized the negative aspects of reporting the injuries, primarily that it took up too much time.

CONCLUSIONS

The solution to non-compliance with the duty to report must be a targeted investment in training and education. Relevance to clinical practice. Finding the reasons for compliance and non-compliance with the duty to report needlestick injuries will help in designing educational programmes for hospital staff and in determining a strategy for improving health behaviour.

[Risk injuries at operating and delivery rooms. EPINETAC Project 1996-2000]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Surgical areas have long been considered risky with regard to occupational exposures to blood-borne pathogens. The objective of study was to describe and evaluate the risk of occupational exposure to blood-borne pathogens at operating and delivery rooms, from reports of injuries in health care workers.

SUBJECTS AND METHOD

Transversal study of percutaneous injuries occurring in operating and delivery rooms which were registered in the Spanish surveillance system EPINETAC (Exposure Prevention Information Network Accidents) between 1996 and 2000. We recorded data from the exposed health care worker, from the accident itself and from the exposure source. The risk of exposition was calculated by logistic regression. The dependent variable was the exposition in operating/delivery rooms. We calculated the rate of exposure, total and by occupational categories, per 10,000 surgical procedures in 3 surgical specialties.

RESULTS

There were 3,625 percutaneous injuries reported. The exposure risk was higher in midwives [OR 36.6 (CI 95% 19.61-68.52)] than in staff [OR 12.6 (CI 95% 10.21-15.71)] or training doctors [OR 12.8 (CI 95% 10.34-15.98)]. The highest risk turned up during use of material [OR 1.37 (CI 95% 1.05-1.79)] and during preparation of material for reuse [OR 1.81 (CI 95% 1.27-2.59)]. The exposure rate, in gynecologic procedures, was 34.36 injuries per 10,000, in digestive surgery it was 24.61 per 10,000, and in trauma surgery it was 18.92 per 10,000 surgical procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of occupational exposure to blood-borne pathogens in staff and training doctors was higher in operating and delivery rooms than in others areas. Obstetric and gynecologic procedures exhibited the highest risk of exposure.

Perceptions that influence occupational exposure reporting

Statistics on health care workers' occupational exposures to bloodborne pathogens underestimate the true extent of the problem because of a tendency for underreporting. A descriptive correlational design was used to investigate compliance with standard precautions and occupational exposure reporting practices among perioperative nurses in Australia. The study found that although intention to report both percutaneous and mucocutaneous exposures was relatively high, mean compliance rates for actually reporting exposures incurred were considerably lower. The perception of barriers to reporting significantly influenced compliance.

A historical review of barrier materials

When surgical gowns first were used, their primary purpose was to protect patients from members of the surgical team. In 1952, it was revealed that although the muslin the garments were made from may have been an effective barrier when dry, it lost barrier capability after it became wet. This disclosure triggered research to develop more satisfactory materials for this unique application. In the interim, the emergence of HIV was accompanied by the need to protect surgical team members from patients, and barrier effectiveness attained even greater importance. During the past 50 years, several attempts have been made to develop a universally acceptable and meaningful test method to demonstrate a material's barrier capability under conditions that simulate usual conditions of use. None has been successful. Today, with the trend toward minimally invasive surgery and pressure to reduce costs, perioperative nurses are confronted with selecting a product that is appropriate for the task and degree of exposure anticipated.

A review of single-use and reusable gowns and drapes in health care

Gowns and drapes are used widely in healthcare facilities. Gowns have been used to minimize the risk of disease acquisition by healthcare providers, to reduce the risk of patient-to-patient transmission, and during invasive procedures to aid in maintaining a sterile field. Drapes have been used during invasive procedures to maintain the sterility of environmental surfaces, equipment, and patients. This article reviews the use of gowns and drapes in healthcare facilities, including the characteristics, costs, benefits, and barrier effectiveness of single-use and reusable products. Currently, gowns protect healthcare personnel performing invasive procedures from contact with bloodborne pathogens. Although gowns have been recommended to prevent patient-to-patient transmission in certain settings (eg, neonatal intensive care unit) and for certain patients (eg, those infected with vancomycin-resistant enterococci), scientific studies have produced mixed results of their efficacy. While appropriate use of drapes during invasive procedures is recommended widely as an aid in minimizing contamination of the operative field, the efficacy of this practice in reducing surgical-site infections has not been assessed by scientific studies. Based on an evaluation of the functional requirements, environmental impact, and economics of gowns and drapes, clear superiority of either reusable or single-use gowns and drapes cannot be demonstrated. The selection of particular gowns and drapes by individual healthcare facilities requires an assessment of the facility's requirements, available products, and costs and should be based on the desired characteristics of an ideal gown or drape as defined in this paper.

Biogel Reveal: a puncture indication system from Regent Medical

Gloves provide an essential barrier against contamination and are an important item of personal protective equipment. Gloves used in clinical practice do leak although there is no direct evidence that such leaks result in transmission of infection. Double-gloving is recommended in theatre as a means of reducing hand injury during surgical procedures. Biogel Reveal is a double-glove puncture indication system that shows punctures as a visible green colour when damaged.

[Surgical scrub: evaluation of its adequacy for the prevention of biological risks in surgical procedures II: effectiveness of surgical scrub]

The study elaborated evaluation patterns of the components of the surgical scrub in hospitals of the district of São Paulo. The most important difficulty was the lack of rules and consent on the types of the fabrics, as a microbiological and contact with blood and other fluids barrier. However, it was possible to identify positive and problematic aspects. It was observed that the components are similar among the hospitals, considering the design and the way of fabrics production. Gloves were the ones with the best quality results, while shootweares were the worst. The most problematic aspect was referred to the acquisition controls and the re-use process of the components.

Testing surgical gowns for the "anticipated level of exposure"

Although the use of the surgeon's gown dates back to the turn of the century, the need for it to be made of a liquid-repellent material was disclosed only in 1952. Because of the relatively poor performance of the products that were introduced early on, the entire textile industry--makers of nonwoven disposable and woven reusable materials alike--was challenged to develop a test method to demonstrate a fabric's capability "under usual conditions of use." A cooperative attempt to do that was abandoned in 1983. With the emergence of HIV, the need to protect the wearer became the gown's priority. However, because there was no standard test method, the manufacturers used any of an array of tests to promote a product's suitability for use under what the Occupational Safety and Health Administration describes as the "level of exposure anticipated." Now, a standard test method has been adopted that describes the results on a pass/fail basis. However, the literature indicates that gowns made of materials that have passed this test have failed "under usual conditions of use." Nevertheless, the Food and Drug Administration is permitting manufacturers to mislead the surgical community by describing products as being "impervious" or "liquid proof."

[Surgical scrub: evaluation of its adequacy in preventing biological risks in surgery: I. Its use in surgery]

The study elaborated approaches for adequate use of the surgical scrub and it evaluated, through systematized observation, the performance of the surgical team during the surgery. The adopted procedure was very valid, allowing to recognize positive and problematic aspects. Except the protecting glasses, all the other components of the surgical scrub were used. The subject located in the use form, where caps and masks were more problematic among anaesthesists and circulate nurses; apron and gloves among surgeons and, mainly, scrub nurses.

Reducing blood exposures during orthopedic surgical procedures

Surgical team members constantly are exposed to blood during procedures. Inadvertent injuries (e.g., needle sticks, cuts) and contaminations expose team members and patients to the risk of transmission of bloodborne pathogens. Injuries and contaminations can be decreased significantly for scrub people and first assistants, however, by introducing new working methods (i.e., no-touch instrument passing technique, instrument neutral zone).

Nurses and hospital infection control: knowledge, attitudes and behaviour of Italian operating theatre staff

This study examined the disinfection and sterilization practices used by hospital operating theatres and evaluated the knowledge, attitude and behaviour of nursing staff with regard to infection control. Of the 216 nurses responding, knowledge concerning such practices was not consistent since 10% did not believe that items should be rinsed in water after contact with glutaraldehyde and more than 25% thought that 10 min contact time provided sterilization. Almost all were aware that improper practices increased the risk of nosocomial infections in patients. Nurses in orthopaedic surgery had a significantly lower level of knowledge compared with others. The great majority of nurses agreed that guidelines for disinfection and sterilization practice should be maintained and applied. With regard to the use of surgical instruments, the majority used steam or dry heat sterilizers for the appropriate time and temperature. Glutaraldehyde was used by 95% to sterilize endoscopes, but at different temperatures and times of exposure. Similar procedures were reported as used for laryngoscopes, though a higher percentage used heat sterilization. Only 38% routinely used all barrier techniques (gloves, masks, and protective eye-wear). Predictors for the routine use of all barrier techniques included attendance at continuing education courses on nosocomial infections, and nurses who were male and those involved in orthopaedic operations. Data support the need for finding and implementing interventions related to the prevention of hospital infection activities, in order to motivate nurses to use the correct procedures as a routine.

Evaluation of the protective value of hospital gowns against blood strike-through and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus penetration

BACKGROUND

Hospital gowns protect patients and health care workers from exposure to blood and other infectious materials. Previous studies have shown that certain gowns do allow blood strike-through. Because of worldwide increases in the incidence of Staphylococcus aureus infections, especially with methicillin-resistant strains, there is now increased concern regarding bacterial transmission through gowns.

METHODS

This study evaluated six gown types used in hospitals (one disposable cover or isolation gown, three disposable operating room gowns, and new and washed reusable operating room gowns). Gowns were evaluated for dry spore and S. aureus filtration efficiencies and were subjected to 20 time-pressure combinations with methicillin-resistant S. aureus-spiked blood (10(4)/ml) to evaluate blood strike-through and passage of methicillin-resistant S. aureus.

RESULTS

Blood strike-through was lowest with disposable operating room gowns 1 and 2 (polypropylene). Disposable operating room gown 3 (polyester-wood pulp) showed the greatest strike-through and overall passage of methicillin-resistant S. aureus. Operating room gowns 1 and 2 showed minimal bacterial passage, whereas the disposable cover (polypropylene) only allowed passage at pressures greater than 1 psi. Bacterial filtration efficiency testing showed operating room gowns 1 and 2 to be the most protective; operating room gown 3 and both reusable (cotton) gowns were the least protective. Dry spore passage was greatest for reusable gowns.

CONCLUSION

Different hospital gowns offer varying degrees of protection against fluid strike-through or bacterial passage. Gowns therefore should be chosen according to the task performed and conditions encountered.

Bloodborne pathogen transmission in health care workers. Risks and prevention strategies

Occupational transmission of hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus, and HIV has been documented. The risk for occupationally transmitted infection varies for these three viruses. Despite effective pre- and postexposure prophylaxis for HBV and recent recommendations for postexposure chemoprophylaxis after an HIV exposure, the best approach to prevent occupational bloodborne infection is the prevention of blood exposures. Epidemiologic data of percutaneous injuries and other blood contacts have provided the basis for prevention strategies. These strategies include the development of improved engineering controls, work practices, and personal protective equipment.

A critical review of the literature on sharps injuries: epidemiology, management of exposures and prevention

This article reviews the literature related to the epidemiology, prevention and management of sharps injuries in health care workers, particularly nurses, and the subsequent risk of harm. The studies are reviewed chronologically, beginning with the efforts to reduce sharps injuries by changing behaviours, followed by the introduction of barriers to protect the caregiver, and finally, the engineering of safer products. Initial efforts to prevent sharps injuries focused on placing rigid, disposal containers at the site where sharps were used and instructing health care workers to refrain form the practice of recapping. When these interventions were shown to alter the type, but not the overall number, of sharps injuries, alternative measures were sought. This search intensified with the increasing evidence of the small, but measurable, risk of the transmission of human immunodeficiency virus from sharps injuries. The current knowledge of the factors related to sharps injuries has been collected primarily through retrospective surveillance. This surveillance has been conducted primarily in hospital settings and has focused on the type of sharp and the purpose for which it was used rather than prospective research. Research is now needed to elucidate the organizational and behavioural factors leading to sharps injury both within the hospital as well as other health care settings. The implications for nursing practice are discussed.

Prevention of blood exposure. Body and facial protection

Regardless of the specific clinical setting in the operating room, it is clear that better protection of all personnel is an appropriate objective in the current environment. Better protection through improved PPE and modification of operational practices is essential. A prompt response to blood contact when it does occur is likewise appropriate. With conscientious applications of methods to reduce blood exposure, it is hoped that the operating room can become a safer place with respect to occupational infections from bloodborne pathogens.

Determination of surgeon-generated gown pressures during various surgical procedures in the operating room

BACKGROUND

Patients' blood or other potentially infectious body fluids frequently pass through surgeons' gowns in the operating room. These fluids are absorbed by the scrub suit and can directly contaminate the surgeons' skin. Protective barriers remain an important method of exposure control for many blood-borne pathogens. The efficacy of surgical gowns in preventing this passage or strikethrough has therefore become the focus of much attention. Limited data are available concerning the magnitude and duration of pressure against surgeons' gowns.

METHODS

A 32-sensor mat placed in the abdominal area was used to obtain pressure data for 15 surgeons of both sexes performing 20 procedures.

RESULTS

The percentage of time any pressure was detected varied from 0% during knee reconstruction to 97.4% for excision of a stomach mass. In 16 procedures, more than 87.8% of pressure contacts were 2 N/cm2 (2.9 psi or less); in addition, more than 80% of the contacts were 15 seconds or less during 13 of the procedures. No correlation was found between the amount of pressure and sex of the surgeon, surgical service, or length of the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Because pressure is related to the type of procedure, gowns should be chosen to afford protection against fluid strikethrough for the pressures and blood loss anticipated.

Barrier protection and latex allergy associated with surgical gloves

Latex continues to be the material of choice for surgical gloves because it is resealable and flexible, and it maintains the wearer's tactile sensitivity. The use of latex gloves for barrier protection may need to be reevaluated in light of the increasing number of individuals who are sensitive to latex. Hospital personnel can use low-allergen gloves or nonlatex gloves when caring for patients with known sensitivity to latex; however, only nonlatex gloves may be effectives at reducing or preventing anaphylactic reaction. Health care facilities must develop policies and procedures for dealing with latex-sensitive patients and health care workers.

Gowns: selection on a procedure-driven basis

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration requires that the types and characteristics of personal protective equipment used "depend upon the task and degree of exposure anticipated." The level of protection required, therefore, is logically contingent upon the operative site, estimated blood loss, and duration of the procedure. However, more recent studies provide data that specifically identify the personnel and areas of the body that are most likely to become contaminated. This adds a new dimension to the procedure-oriented selection process that is worthy of consideration.