Using double gloves in surgical procedures: a literature review

Force application of laparoscopic surgeons under the impact of heavy personal protective equipment

Objective

Surgeons are required to wear heavy personal protective equipment while delivering care to patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. We examined the impact of wearing double gloves on surgeons’ performance in laparoscopic surgery.

Methods

Eleven surgeons-in-training at the Surgical Simulation Research Lab of the University of Alberta were recruited to perform laparoscopic cutting tasks in simulation while wearing none, one pair, and two pairs of surgical gloves. Forces applied to laparoscopic instruments were measured.

Results

Wearing gloves prolonged task times (one pair of gloves: 301.6 ± 61.7 s; two pairs of gloves: 295.8 ± 65.3 s) compared with no gloves (241.7 ± 46.9 s; p = 0.043). Wearing double gloves increased cutting errors (20.4 ± 5.1 mm²) compared with wearing one pair of gloves (16.9 ± 5.5 mm²) and no gloves (14.4 ± 4.6 mm²; p = 0.030). Wearing gloves reduced the peak force (one pair of gloves: 2.4 ± 0.7 N; two pairs of gloves: 2.7 ± 0.6 N; no gloves: 3.4 ± 1.4 N; p = 0.049), and the total force (one pair of gloves: 10.1 ± 2.8 N; two pairs of gloves: 10.3 ± 2.6 N; no glove: 12.6 ± 1.9 N; p = 0.048) delivered onto laparoscopic scissors compared with wearing no glove.

Conclusion

The combined effects of wearing heavy gloves and using tools reduced the touching sensation, which limited the surgeons’ confidence in performing surgical tasks. Increasing practice in simulation is suggested to allow surgeons to overcome difficulties brought by personal protective equipment.

Education and training for preventing sharps injuries and splash exposures in healthcare workers

BACKGROUND

In healthcare settings, health care workers (HCWs) are at risk of acquiring infectious diseases through sharps injuries and splash exposures to blood or bodily fluids. Education and training interventions are widely used to protect workers' health and safety and to prevent sharps injuries. In certain countries, they are part of obligatory professional development for HCWs.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of education and training interventions compared to no intervention or alternative interventions for preventing sharps injuries and splash exposures in HCWs.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, NHSEED, Science Citation Index Expanded, CINAHL and OSH-update (from all time until February 2016). In addition, we searched the databases of Global Health, AustHealth and Web of Science (from all time until February 2016). The original search strategy was re-run in November 2019, and again in February 2020. In April 2020, the search strategy was updated and run in CINAHL, MEDLINE, Scopus and Web of Science (from 2016 to current).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-randomized trials (cluster-RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), interrupted time series (ITS) study designs, and controlled before-and-after studies (CBA), that evaluated the effect of education and training interventions on the incidence of sharps injuries and splash exposures compared to no-intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors (SC, HL) independently selected studies, and extracted data for the included studies. Studies were analyzed, risk of bias assessed (HL, JL) , and pooled using random-effect meta-analysis, where applicable, according to their design types. As primary outcome we looked for sharps injuries and splash exposures and calculated them as incidence of injuries per 1000 health care workers per year. For the quality of evidence we applied GRADE for the main outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven studies met our inclusion criteria: one cluster-RCT, three CCTs, and three ITS studies. The baseline rates of sharps injuries varied from 43 to 203 injuries per 1000 HCWs per year in studies with hospital registry systems. In questionnaire-based studies, the rates of sharps injuries were higher, from 1800 to 7000 injuries per 1000 HCWs per year.  The majority of studies utilised a combination of education and training interventions, including interactive demonstrations, educational presentations, web-based information systems, and marketing tools which we found similar enough to be combined. In the only cluster-RCT (n=796) from a high-income country, the single session educational workshop decreased sharps injuries at 12 months follow-up, but this was not statistically significant either measured as registry-based reporting of injuries (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.30, low-quality evidence) or as self-reported injuries (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.21, very low-quality evidence) In three CCTs educational interventions decreased sharps injuries at two months follow-up (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.95, 330 participants, very low-quality evidence). In the meta-analysis of two ITS studies with a similar injury rate, (N=2104), the injury rate decreased immediately post-intervention by 9.3 injuries per 1000 HCWs per year (95% CI -14.9 to -3.8). There was a small non-significant decrease in trend over time post-intervention of 2.3 injuries per 1000 HCWs per year (95% CI -12.4 to 7.8, low-quality evidence). One ITS study (n=255) had a seven-fold higher injury rate compared to the other two ITS studies and only three data points before and after the intervention. The study reported a change in injury rate of 77 injuries per 1000 HCWs (95% CI -117.2 to -37.1, very low-quality evidence) immediately after the intervention, and a decrease in trend post-intervention of 32.5 injuries per 1000 HCWs per year (95% CI -49.6 to -15.4, very low quality evidence). None of the studies allowed analyses of splash exposures separately from sharps injuries. None of the studies reported rates of blood-borne infections in patients or staff. There was very low-quality evidence of short-term positive changes in process outcomes such as knowledge in sharps injuries and behaviors related to injury prevention.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low- to very low-quality evidence that education and training interventions may cause small decreases in the incidence of sharps injuries two to twelve months after the intervention. There was very low-quality evidence that educational interventions may improve knowledge and behaviors related to sharps injuries in the short term but we are uncertain of this effect. Future studies should focus on developing valid measures of sharps injuries for reliable monitoring. Developing educational interventions in high-risk settings is another priority.

National Evaluation of Needlestick Events and Reporting Among Surgical Residents

BACKGROUND

Needlestick injuries pose significant health hazards; however, the nationwide frequency of needlesticks and reporting practices among surgical residents are unknown. The objectives of this study were to examine the rate and circumstances of self-reported needlestick events in US surgery residents, assess factors associated with needlestick injuries, evaluate reporting practices, and identify reporting barriers.

STUDY DESIGN

A survey administered after the American Board of Surgery In-Training Examination (January 2017) asked surgical residents how many times they experienced a needlestick during the last 6 months, circumstances of the most recent event, and reporting practices and barriers. Factors associated with needlestick events were examined using multivariable hierarchical regression models.

RESULTS

Among 7,395 resident survey respondents from all 260 US general surgery residency programs (99.3% response rate), 27.7% (n = 2,051) noted experiencing a needlestick event in the last 6 months. Most events occurred in the operating room (77.5%) and involved residents sticking themselves (76.2%), mostly with solid needles (84.7%). Self-reported factors underlying needlestick events included residents' own carelessness (48.8%) and feeling rushed (31.3%). Resident-level factors associated with self-reported needlestick events included senior residents (PGY5 29.9% vs PGY1 22.4%; odds ratio 1.66; 95% CI 1.41 to 1.96), female sex (31.9% vs male 25.2%; odds ratio 1.31; 95% CI 1.18 to 1.46), or frequently working more than 80 hours per week (odds ratio 1.42; 95% CI 1.20 to 1.68). More than one-fourth (28.7%) of residents did not report the needlestick event to employee health.

CONCLUSIONS

In this comprehensive national survey of surgical residents, needlesticks occurred frequently. Many needlestick events were not reported and numerous reporting barriers exist. These findings offer guidance in identifying opportunities to reduce needlesticks and encourage reporting of these potentially preventable injuries among trainees.

Don't Get Stuck: A Quality Improvement Project to Reduce Perioperative Blood-Borne Pathogen Exposure

BACKGROUND

Blood-borne pathogen exposure (BBPE) represents a significant safety and resource burden, with more than 380,000 events reported annually across hospitals in the United States. The perioperative environment is a high-risk area for BBPE, and efforts to reduce exposures are not well defined. A multidisciplinary group of nurses, surgical technologists, surgeons, and employee health specialists created a BBPE prevention bundle to reduce Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) recordable cases.

METHODS

Mandatory double gloving, a safety zone, engineered-sharps injury prevention devices, and clear communication when passing sharps were implemented in an evidence-based fashion at one institution. Days between exposures and total number of exposures were monitored. Analysis by specialty, role, location, type of injury, and timing was performed.

RESULTS

During fiscal year (FY) 2015, 45 cases were reported. During the first year of implementation, cases decreased to 38 (a 15.6% decrease; p < 0.65). In the postimplementation period (FY 2017), only 21 cases were reported (an additional 44.7% decrease; p < 0.12), for a total decrease of 53.3% (p < 0.01). The mean number of days between injuries significantly increased (2.5 to 16.3) over the study period. For FY 2017, the main cause of BBPE was needlestick while suturing (47.6%); fellows and attendings combined had the most injuries (52.4%); among divisions, pediatric surgery (19.0%), operating room staff (19.0%), and orthopedics (19.0%) had the most events.

CONCLUSION

A comprehensive and multidisciplinary approach to employee safety, focused on reduction of BBPE resulted in a significant progressive annual decrease of injuries among perioperative staff.

Risk factors of cardiac device infection: Glove contamination during device procedures

BACKGROUND

Infections in cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) constitute a serious complication. We sought to identify contamination of gloves before handling the device in primary and replacement CIED procedures.

METHODS

Two groups of 30 patients underwent primary CIED implantation or replacement. Before the device entered the surgical field, surgeon and assistant imprinted their outer gloves on aerobe and anaerobe agar plates, and a wound swab was performed. Samples were cultured, and the presence of bacteria was identified, counted as the number of colony forming units, and characterized to the level of genus and species.

RESULTS

Samples from 40 (67%) procedures revealed bacteria on surgeons' or assistants' gloves. Contamination occurred in 80% of replacements and 67% of primary implantations (risk difference, 13%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -8.8 to 35.5). Contamination of surgeons' and assistants' gloves occurred in 55% and 44% of procedures, respectively. Coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (CNS) occurred in 52%, and Propionibacterium spp (PS) occurred in 84% of positive cases. For every 15 minutes of procedure time, colony levels increased by 7.4% (95% CI, 1.4%-13.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Contamination of gloves is common during CIED procedures before handling the device. Therefore, devices are often handled with contaminated gloves. The most prevalent bacteria were PS and CNS, which are associated with clinical CIED infections. Changing outer gloves before handling the device might improve sterile state and lower infection risk.