Critical investigation of glove-gown interface barrier performance in simulated surgical settings

Evaluation of fluid leakage at the coverall and glove interface in single and double glove conditions

BACKGROUND

Fluid leakage through the glove-protective clothing interface is an area of concern for many health care personnel, including emergency medical service providers, who may wear coveralls to protect themselves from multiple types of hazards. There is currently no established standard test method to specifically evaluate the barrier performance of the glove-protective clothing interface region for any personal protective equipment ensemble.

OBJECTIVE

This study quantifies the fluid leakage at the coverall and glove interface using single and double gloving.

METHODS

A robotic arm, which can simulate upper extremity movements of health care personnel, was used to test 5 coverall models and an extended examination glove model in single and double glove conditions.

RESULTS

The results show that there was a significant difference in fluid leakage amounts between some of the coverall models and the number of glove layers studied. Findings also highlight that there is a high correlation between basis weight and stiffness of the coverall fabrics and the fluid leakage amounts.

CONCLUSIONS

These results underline that coverall constructed from thin and less stiff fabrics can result in lower fluid leakage levels. Also, there was no significant difference in fluid leakage amounts between single and double gloves when tested with each of the coverall models, with the exception of the coveralls with the highest basis weight and stiffness.

Intraoperative damage to surgical gloves during various operations on the musculoskeletal system: a multicenter study

INTRODUCTION

Various orthopedic surgical procedures cause mechanical stress for gloves. In some cases, sharp-edged objects impact on the glove surfaces. The systematic description of lesions is still missing.

METHODS

2289 gloves from 409 surgeries [primary hip and knee arthroplasties (PA), revisions arthroplasties (RA) and arthroscopic shoulder, hip and knee surgery (AY)] from 3 clinics were examined for lesions using water tightening test according to the European norm EN 455-1.

RESULTS

Arthroscopies showed the lowest rate of operations with damaged gloves (6.9%). Depending on clinic, 32.7% and 59.2% of PA surgeries generated damaged gloves, while in RA, these numbers rose to 76.0% and 72.8%, respectively. In PA and RA, the most affected finger was the index finger, whereas in arthroscopies, more damage occurred on the middle finger and the thumb. The size of the lesions was rather small with the vast majority being 1 mm or 2 mm in size.

CONCLUSION

All investigated interventions led to glove lesions. With increasing mechanical stress, the number of glove defects increased. EN 455 does not account for the intraoperative tear risk. Stricter requirements for gloves should be introduced. Glove change intervals should be defined and implemented, and new materials should be developed.

A simulation study to assess fluid leakage through the glove-gown interface in isolation settings

BACKGROUND

Isolation gowns are recommended to protect healthcare personnel, patients, and visitors from transfer of microorganisms and body fluids in patient isolation situations. Standards provide limited information about barrier performance of isolation gowns for possible exposure scenarios. One of the most vulnerable areas of the personal protective equipment ensemble is considered the glove-gown interface. However, current isolation gown classification standards do not consider the interface regions of the personal protective equipment system while assessing the level of protection. The purpose of this study was to quantitatively evaluate the fluid leakage through the glove-gown interface by simulating exposures and healthcare personnel arm movements in patient care for isolation settings.

METHODS

We tested fluid leakage of two examination gloves with different cuff lengths and seven isolation gown models designed with varying levels of barrier resistance and multiple cuff types.

RESULTS

Our results demonstrated that leakage through the glove-gown interface depends on multiple factors, including glove cuff length and gown cuff design. Gowns with the thumb loop design provided better protection than the elastic cuff design, and the elastic cuff design provided better protection compared to the knit cuff design for a given AAMI PB70 level. More importantly, a substantial penetration through gown fabrics was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

This research identifies a need to develop a standardized method to evaluate leakage at the glove-gown interface to improve worker protection.

Barrier resistance of double layer isolation gowns

Background

Isolation gowns are one of the crucial pieces of personal protective equipment (PPE) to prevent the migration of microorganisms and body fluids from patients to health care personnel and vice versa. Underperforming isolation gowns in terms of fluid resistance, could potentially put lives in danger. Wearing multiple layers of isolation gowns could theoretically increase the fluid penetration resistance. This study investigates if 2-layer lower barrier level isolation gowns meet the barrier effectiveness requirements of a single higher barrier level isolation gown.

Methods

Three commonly used ANSI/AAMI Level 2 isolation gown models were selected and tested in single layer and double layer configurations in accordance with ANSI/AAMI PB70 requirements.

Results

Total of 240 experiments were conducted to analyze the effects of gown model, fabric region, and the number of gown layers on AATCC 127 and AATCC 42 test results. In regard to AATCC 42, there was a significant difference among the different gown models, and the number of gown layers. Similar to AATCC 42 results, there was a significant difference among the different gown models, and the number of gown layers for AATCC 127; additionally, the gown regions was also significantly different.

Conclusion

Test results demonstrated that the double layer isolation gown configurations do not always provide equal fluid penetration resistance as required for a single Level 3 isolation gown using the standard test methods specified in ANSI/AAMI PB70.

A Combined Tie-Fastening Method for the Reusable Surgical Gown with Two Neck Tie Belts to Improve Wearing Comfort

The reusable surgical gowns made of slippery materials have the tendency to slip down as they are being worn. The rear neck tie(s) can sometimes loosen, and this causes the surgical gown to slip down somewhat, making the surgical staff members feel uncomfortable. If the gowns have two rear neck ties with a tendency of loosening and allowing the gowns to slip down, the surgical staff members feel more uncomfortable when there is only one tie loosening but the other tie is tethering. To fasten the neck ties of the surgical gown with two neck tie belts, we propose a simplified method of fastening the two sets of tie belts together as one tie, instead of fastening them separately. The object of this study is to evaluate this combined tying method for its ability to secure the gown and its wearing comfort. We enrolled five volunteers to evaluate the tie loosening condition of the reusable surgical gowns with two sets of rear neck tie belts after a series of upper limb motion exercises while wearing and not wearing the X-ray protective apron beneath the gown. The amount of uppermost rear neck cloth edge separation was recorded before and after the exercise. We also evaluated the wearing comfort of five enrolled operating surgeons for comparing the original and this modified tying method while wearing and not wearing the X-ray protective apron. In the results, we found that combined tying tends to have significantly more rear gown separation (0.94 cm) than separate tying (0.27 cm) after vigorous upper extremities exercise. However, during the actual performance of the surgeries, the rear neck tie(s) loosening and wearing discomfort of the combined tying method was significantly less than using the separate tying method (loosening: 0% vs. 30%) (discomfort: 0% vs. 35%) while the X-ray protective apron was not worn. For reusable surgical gowns that have two rear neck ties, we suggest the two sets of rear neck ties could be fastened together as one combined tie in routine surgical practice. With this, tying could be performed easier and faster, and wearing comfort could be improved.

Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff

BACKGROUND

In epidemics of highly infectious diseases, such as Ebola, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), or coronavirus (COVID-19), healthcare workers (HCW) are at much greater risk of infection than the general population, due to their contact with patients' contaminated body fluids. Personal protective equipment (PPE) can reduce the risk by covering exposed body parts. It is unclear which type of PPE protects best, what is the best way to put PPE on (i.e. donning) or to remove PPE (i.e. doffing), and how to train HCWs to use PPE as instructed.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate which type of full-body PPE and which method of donning or doffing PPE have the least risk of contamination or infection for HCW, and which training methods increase compliance with PPE protocols.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL to 20 March 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all controlled studies that evaluated the effect of full-body PPE used by HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases, on the risk of infection, contamination, or noncompliance with protocols. We also included studies that compared the effect of various ways of donning or doffing PPE, and the effects of training on the same outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in included trials. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses were appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

Earlier versions of this review were published in 2016 and 2019. In this update, we included 24 studies with 2278 participants, of which 14 were randomised controlled trials (RCT), one was a quasi-RCT and nine had a non-randomised design. Eight studies compared types of PPE. Six studies evaluated adapted PPE. Eight studies compared donning and doffing processes and three studies evaluated types of training. Eighteen studies used simulated exposure with fluorescent markers or harmless microbes. In simulation studies, median contamination rates were 25% for the intervention and 67% for the control groups. Evidence for all outcomes is of very low certainty unless otherwise stated because it is based on one or two studies, the indirectness of the evidence in simulation studies and because of risk of bias. Types of PPE The use of a powered, air-purifying respirator with coverall may protect against the risk of contamination better than a N95 mask and gown (risk ratio (RR) 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.43) but was more difficult to don (non-compliance: RR 7.5, 95% CI 1.81 to 31.1). In one RCT (59 participants) coveralls were more difficult to doff than isolation gowns (very low-certainty evidence). Gowns may protect better against contamination than aprons (small patches: mean difference (MD) -10.28, 95% CI -14.77 to -5.79). PPE made of more breathable material may lead to a similar number of spots on the trunk (MD 1.60, 95% CI -0.15 to 3.35) compared to more water-repellent material but may have greater user satisfaction (MD -0.46, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.08, scale of 1 to 5). According to three studies that tested more recently introduced full-body PPE ensembles, there may be no difference in contamination. Modified PPE versus standard PPE The following modifications to PPE design may lead to less contamination compared to standard PPE: sealed gown and glove combination (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.78), a better fitting gown around the neck, wrists and hands (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.55), a better cover of the gown-wrist interface (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.78, low-certainty evidence), added tabs to grab to facilitate doffing of masks (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.80) or gloves (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.31). Donning and doffing Using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations for doffing may lead to less contamination compared to no guidance (small patches: MD -5.44, 95% CI -7.43 to -3.45). One-step removal of gloves and gown may lead to less bacterial contamination (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.77) but not to less fluorescent contamination (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28) than separate removal. Double-gloving may lead to less viral or bacterial contamination compared to single gloving (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.66) but not to less fluorescent contamination (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28). Additional spoken instruction may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -0.9, 95% CI -1.4 to -0.4) and to fewer contamination spots (MD -5, 95% CI -8.08 to -1.92). Extra sanitation of gloves before doffing with quaternary ammonium or bleach may decrease contamination, but not alcohol-based hand rub. Training The use of additional computer simulation may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -1.2, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.7). A video lecture on donning PPE may lead to better skills scores (MD 30.70, 95% CI 20.14 to 41.26) than a traditional lecture. Face-to-face instruction may reduce noncompliance with doffing guidance more (odds ratio 0.45, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.98) than providing folders or videos only.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low- to very low-certainty evidence that covering more parts of the body leads to better protection but usually comes at the cost of more difficult donning or doffing and less user comfort. More breathable types of PPE may lead to similar contamination but may have greater user satisfaction. Modifications to PPE design, such as tabs to grab, may decrease the risk of contamination. For donning and doffing procedures, following CDC doffing guidance, a one-step glove and gown removal, double-gloving, spoken instructions during doffing, and using glove disinfection may reduce contamination and increase compliance. Face-to-face training in PPE use may reduce errors more than folder-based training. We still need RCTs of training with long-term follow-up. We need simulation studies with more participants to find out which combinations of PPE and which doffing procedure protects best. Consensus on simulation of exposure and assessment of outcome is urgently needed. We also need more real-life evidence. Therefore, the use of PPE of HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases should be registered and the HCW should be prospectively followed for their risk of infection.

Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff

BACKGROUND

In epidemics of highly infectious diseases, such as Ebola, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), or coronavirus (COVID-19), healthcare workers (HCW) are at much greater risk of infection than the general population, due to their contact with patients' contaminated body fluids. Personal protective equipment (PPE) can reduce the risk by covering exposed body parts. It is unclear which type of PPE protects best, what is the best way to put PPE on (i.e. donning) or to remove PPE (i.e. doffing), and how to train HCWs to use PPE as instructed.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate which type of full-body PPE and which method of donning or doffing PPE have the least risk of contamination or infection for HCW, and which training methods increase compliance with PPE protocols.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL to 20 March 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all controlled studies that evaluated the effect of full-body PPE used by HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases, on the risk of infection, contamination, or noncompliance with protocols. We also included studies that compared the effect of various ways of donning or doffing PPE, and the effects of training on the same outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in included trials. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses were appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

Earlier versions of this review were published in 2016 and 2019. In this update, we included 24 studies with 2278 participants, of which 14 were randomised controlled trials (RCT), one was a quasi-RCT and nine had a non-randomised design. Eight studies compared types of PPE. Six studies evaluated adapted PPE. Eight studies compared donning and doffing processes and three studies evaluated types of training. Eighteen studies used simulated exposure with fluorescent markers or harmless microbes. In simulation studies, median contamination rates were 25% for the intervention and 67% for the control groups. Evidence for all outcomes is of very low certainty unless otherwise stated because it is based on one or two studies, the indirectness of the evidence in simulation studies and because of risk of bias. Types of PPE The use of a powered, air-purifying respirator with coverall may protect against the risk of contamination better than a N95 mask and gown (risk ratio (RR) 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.43) but was more difficult to don (non-compliance: RR 7.5, 95% CI 1.81 to 31.1). In one RCT (59 participants), people with a long gown had less contamination than those with a coverall, and coveralls were more difficult to doff (low-certainty evidence). Gowns may protect better against contamination than aprons (small patches: mean difference (MD) -10.28, 95% CI -14.77 to -5.79). PPE made of more breathable material may lead to a similar number of spots on the trunk (MD 1.60, 95% CI -0.15 to 3.35) compared to more water-repellent material but may have greater user satisfaction (MD -0.46, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.08, scale of 1 to 5). Modified PPE versus standard PPE The following modifications to PPE design may lead to less contamination compared to standard PPE: sealed gown and glove combination (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.78), a better fitting gown around the neck, wrists and hands (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.55), a better cover of the gown-wrist interface (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.78, low-certainty evidence), added tabs to grab to facilitate doffing of masks (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.80) or gloves (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.31). Donning and doffing Using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations for doffing may lead to less contamination compared to no guidance (small patches: MD -5.44, 95% CI -7.43 to -3.45). One-step removal of gloves and gown may lead to less bacterial contamination (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.77) but not to less fluorescent contamination (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28) than separate removal. Double-gloving may lead to less viral or bacterial contamination compared to single gloving (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.66) but not to less fluorescent contamination (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28). Additional spoken instruction may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -0.9, 95% CI -1.4 to -0.4) and to fewer contamination spots (MD -5, 95% CI -8.08 to -1.92). Extra sanitation of gloves before doffing with quaternary ammonium or bleach may decrease contamination, but not alcohol-based hand rub. Training The use of additional computer simulation may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -1.2, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.7). A video lecture on donning PPE may lead to better skills scores (MD 30.70, 95% CI 20.14 to 41.26) than a traditional lecture. Face-to-face instruction may reduce noncompliance with doffing guidance more (odds ratio 0.45, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.98) than providing folders or videos only.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low- to very low-certainty evidence that covering more parts of the body leads to better protection but usually comes at the cost of more difficult donning or doffing and less user comfort, and may therefore even lead to more contamination. More breathable types of PPE may lead to similar contamination but may have greater user satisfaction. Modifications to PPE design, such as tabs to grab, may decrease the risk of contamination. For donning and doffing procedures, following CDC doffing guidance, a one-step glove and gown removal, double-gloving, spoken instructions during doffing, and using glove disinfection may reduce contamination and increase compliance. Face-to-face training in PPE use may reduce errors more than folder-based training. We still need RCTs of training with long-term follow-up. We need simulation studies with more participants to find out which combinations of PPE and which doffing procedure protects best. Consensus on simulation of exposure and assessment of outcome is urgently needed. We also need more real-life evidence. Therefore, the use of PPE of HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases should be registered and the HCW should be prospectively followed for their risk of infection.