schliessen

Filtern

 

Bibliotheken

Is double-gloving really protective? A comparison between the glove perforation rate among perioperative nurses with single and double gloves during surgery

Abstract Background Surgical teams rely on surgical gloves as a barrier to protect themselves against blood-borne pathogenic infections during surgery. Double-gloving is adopted by surgeons to tackle the problem of glove perforation. Nevertheless, double-gloving is not practiced commonly by operatin... Full description

Journal Title: The American journal of surgery 2012, Vol.204 (2), p.210-215
Main Author: Guo, Yue Ping, Ph.D
Other Authors: Wong, Po Ming, M.S , Li, Yi, Ph.D , Or, Peggy Pui Lai, M.S
Format: Electronic Article Electronic Article
Language: English
Subjects:
Quelle: Alma/SFX Local Collection
Publisher: New York, NY: Elsevier Inc
ID: ISSN: 0002-9610
Zum Text:
SendSend as email Add to Book BagAdd to Book Bag
Staff View
recordid: cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1027370717
title: Is double-gloving really protective? A comparison between the glove perforation rate among perioperative nurses with single and double gloves during surgery
format: Article
creator:
  • Guo, Yue Ping, Ph.D
  • Wong, Po Ming, M.S
  • Li, Yi, Ph.D
  • Or, Peggy Pui Lai, M.S
subjects:
  • Abdominal surgery
  • Abridged Index Medicus
  • Adult
  • Analysis
  • Biological and medical sciences
  • Blood-Borne Pathogens
  • Double gloving
  • Equipment Failure - statistics & numerical data
  • Female
  • General aspects
  • Glove perforation rate
  • Gloves
  • Gloves, Surgical
  • Health aspects
  • Health participants
  • Hospitals
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Medical sciences
  • Middle Aged
  • Nurses
  • Nursing
  • Nursing Staff, Hospital
  • Orthopedics
  • Perioperative nurses
  • Perioperative Nursing
  • Prevention and actions
  • Prospective Studies
  • Public health. Hygiene
  • Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine
  • Standard deviation
  • Surgery
  • Surgical nursing
  • Surgical Procedures, Operative - statistics & numerical data
ispartof: The American journal of surgery, 2012, Vol.204 (2), p.210-215
description: Abstract Background Surgical teams rely on surgical gloves as a barrier to protect themselves against blood-borne pathogenic infections during surgery. Double-gloving is adopted by surgeons to tackle the problem of glove perforation. Nevertheless, double-gloving is not practiced commonly by operating room nurses and there are only limited studies about double-gloving that targets only perioperative nurses. The aim of this research was to assess the effectiveness of double-gloving in protecting perioperative nurses by comparing the frequency of glove perforation between single-gloving and double-gloving groups. Methods A prospective and randomized study was performed. Nurses were assigned randomly to single-gloved and double-gloved groups for comparison of the glove perforation rate. Water-leakage and air-inflation tests were used to detect glove perforation. Results Glove perforations was detected in 10 of 112 sets of single-gloves (8.9%) and 12 of 106 sets of outer gloves in the double-gloved group (11.3%). There was no inner double-glove perforation (0%). Glove perforations were found in 6 and 4 of the 112 sets of single-gloves for the first assistants (5.36%) and the scrub nurses (3.57%), and 5 and 7 of 106 sets of outer gloves in the double-gloved group for the first assistants (4.72%) and the scrub nurses (6.60%), respectively. The average occurrence of perforation was 69.8 minutes (range, 20–110 min) after the beginning of surgery. The sites of perforation were localized mostly on the left middle finger (42%) and the left ring finger (33.3%). Conclusions Based on the findings of the study, double-gloving is indeed effective in protecting operating room nurses against blood-borne pathogen exposure. It should be introduced as a routine practice.
language: eng
source: Alma/SFX Local Collection
identifier: ISSN: 0002-9610
fulltext: fulltext
issn:
  • 0002-9610
  • 1879-1883
url: Link


@attributes
NO1
SEARCH_ENGINEprimo_central_multiple_fe
SEARCH_ENGINE_TYPEPrimo Central Search Engine
RANK2.439025
LOCALfalse
PrimoNMBib
record
control
sourceidgale_proqu
recordidTN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1027370717
sourceformatXML
sourcesystemPC
galeidA297207519
sourcerecordidA297207519
originalsourceidFETCH-LOGICAL-c483t-e831e41503bc5dff2ae74316b74690fb24023964775af1d98d3e7a15b1a60b703
addsrcrecordideNqFkl2L1DAUhoso7rr6E5SACN605qNt2huXYfFjYcEL9Tqk6elsxjQZk3aW-S_-WE-d0cFFkEKTps95z5vkzbLnjBaMsvrNptDjJs1xXXDKWEGbgjL5IDtnjWxz1jTiYXZOKeV5WzN6lj1JaYOfjJXicXbGuSiXsvPsx3UifZg7B_nahZ31axJBO7cn2xgmMJPdwSVZERPGrY42BU86mO4APJlugSw1QLYQhxD1ZPEvDkD0GFAIl23Al15EiJ9jgkTu7HRLEvZxiPn-2PwghFbmuFhY9gVx_zR7NGiX4NlxvMi-vn_35epjfvPpw_XV6iY3ZSOmHBrBoGQVFZ2p-mHgGmQpWN3Jsm7p0PGSctHWpZSVHljfNr0AqVnVMV3TTlJxkb0-6OKev8-QJjXaZMA57SHMSTHKpZBUMonoy3voJszRozukRF0jIqoTtdYOlPVDmKI2i6ha8VZyKivWIlX8g8Knh9Ga4GGwuP5XQXUoMDGkFGFQ22hHHffYWy2pUBt1TIVarlfRRtFfpl8cTc_dCP2fqt8xQODVEdDJaDdE7Y1NJ67Gw615g9zlgQO8jZ2FqJKx4A30NmJWVB_sf628vadgnPUWm36DPaTTYarEFVWflwgvCWYcZ7RsxU9DJ-2i
sourcetypeAggregation Database
isCDItrue
recordtypearticle
pqid1036617335
display
typearticle
titleIs double-gloving really protective? A comparison between the glove perforation rate among perioperative nurses with single and double gloves during surgery
sourceAlma/SFX Local Collection
creatorGuo, Yue Ping, Ph.D ; Wong, Po Ming, M.S ; Li, Yi, Ph.D ; Or, Peggy Pui Lai, M.S
creatorcontribGuo, Yue Ping, Ph.D ; Wong, Po Ming, M.S ; Li, Yi, Ph.D ; Or, Peggy Pui Lai, M.S
descriptionAbstract Background Surgical teams rely on surgical gloves as a barrier to protect themselves against blood-borne pathogenic infections during surgery. Double-gloving is adopted by surgeons to tackle the problem of glove perforation. Nevertheless, double-gloving is not practiced commonly by operating room nurses and there are only limited studies about double-gloving that targets only perioperative nurses. The aim of this research was to assess the effectiveness of double-gloving in protecting perioperative nurses by comparing the frequency of glove perforation between single-gloving and double-gloving groups. Methods A prospective and randomized study was performed. Nurses were assigned randomly to single-gloved and double-gloved groups for comparison of the glove perforation rate. Water-leakage and air-inflation tests were used to detect glove perforation. Results Glove perforations was detected in 10 of 112 sets of single-gloves (8.9%) and 12 of 106 sets of outer gloves in the double-gloved group (11.3%). There was no inner double-glove perforation (0%). Glove perforations were found in 6 and 4 of the 112 sets of single-gloves for the first assistants (5.36%) and the scrub nurses (3.57%), and 5 and 7 of 106 sets of outer gloves in the double-gloved group for the first assistants (4.72%) and the scrub nurses (6.60%), respectively. The average occurrence of perforation was 69.8 minutes (range, 20–110 min) after the beginning of surgery. The sites of perforation were localized mostly on the left middle finger (42%) and the left ring finger (33.3%). Conclusions Based on the findings of the study, double-gloving is indeed effective in protecting operating room nurses against blood-borne pathogen exposure. It should be introduced as a routine practice.
identifier
0ISSN: 0002-9610
1EISSN: 1879-1883
2DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2011.08.017
3PMID: 22342011
4CODEN: AJSUAB
languageeng
publisherNew York, NY: Elsevier Inc
subjectAbdominal surgery ; Abridged Index Medicus ; Adult ; Analysis ; Biological and medical sciences ; Blood-Borne Pathogens ; Double gloving ; Equipment Failure - statistics & numerical data ; Female ; General aspects ; Glove perforation rate ; Gloves ; Gloves, Surgical ; Health aspects ; Health participants ; Hospitals ; Humans ; Male ; Medical sciences ; Middle Aged ; Nurses ; Nursing ; Nursing Staff, Hospital ; Orthopedics ; Perioperative nurses ; Perioperative Nursing ; Prevention and actions ; Prospective Studies ; Public health. Hygiene ; Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine ; Standard deviation ; Surgery ; Surgical nursing ; Surgical Procedures, Operative - statistics & numerical data
ispartofThe American journal of surgery, 2012, Vol.204 (2), p.210-215
rights
0Elsevier Inc.
12012 Elsevier Inc.
22015 INIST-CNRS
3Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
4COPYRIGHT 2012 Elsevier B.V.
lds50peer_reviewed
citesFETCH-LOGICAL-c483t-e831e41503bc5dff2ae74316b74690fb24023964775af1d98d3e7a15b1a60b703
links
openurl$$Topenurl_article
openurlfulltext$$Topenurlfull_article
thumbnail$$Usyndetics_thumb_exl
backlink
0$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=26150628$$DView record in Pascal Francis
1$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22342011$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed
search
creatorcontrib
0Guo, Yue Ping, Ph.D
1Wong, Po Ming, M.S
2Li, Yi, Ph.D
3Or, Peggy Pui Lai, M.S
title
0Is double-gloving really protective? A comparison between the glove perforation rate among perioperative nurses with single and double gloves during surgery
1The American journal of surgery
addtitleAm J Surg
descriptionAbstract Background Surgical teams rely on surgical gloves as a barrier to protect themselves against blood-borne pathogenic infections during surgery. Double-gloving is adopted by surgeons to tackle the problem of glove perforation. Nevertheless, double-gloving is not practiced commonly by operating room nurses and there are only limited studies about double-gloving that targets only perioperative nurses. The aim of this research was to assess the effectiveness of double-gloving in protecting perioperative nurses by comparing the frequency of glove perforation between single-gloving and double-gloving groups. Methods A prospective and randomized study was performed. Nurses were assigned randomly to single-gloved and double-gloved groups for comparison of the glove perforation rate. Water-leakage and air-inflation tests were used to detect glove perforation. Results Glove perforations was detected in 10 of 112 sets of single-gloves (8.9%) and 12 of 106 sets of outer gloves in the double-gloved group (11.3%). There was no inner double-glove perforation (0%). Glove perforations were found in 6 and 4 of the 112 sets of single-gloves for the first assistants (5.36%) and the scrub nurses (3.57%), and 5 and 7 of 106 sets of outer gloves in the double-gloved group for the first assistants (4.72%) and the scrub nurses (6.60%), respectively. The average occurrence of perforation was 69.8 minutes (range, 20–110 min) after the beginning of surgery. The sites of perforation were localized mostly on the left middle finger (42%) and the left ring finger (33.3%). Conclusions Based on the findings of the study, double-gloving is indeed effective in protecting operating room nurses against blood-borne pathogen exposure. It should be introduced as a routine practice.
subject
0Abdominal surgery
1Abridged Index Medicus
2Adult
3Analysis
4Biological and medical sciences
5Blood-Borne Pathogens
6Double gloving
7Equipment Failure - statistics & numerical data
8Female
9General aspects
10Glove perforation rate
11Gloves
12Gloves, Surgical
13Health aspects
14Health participants
15Hospitals
16Humans
17Male
18Medical sciences
19Middle Aged
20Nurses
21Nursing
22Nursing Staff, Hospital
23Orthopedics
24Perioperative nurses
25Perioperative Nursing
26Prevention and actions
27Prospective Studies
28Public health. Hygiene
29Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine
30Standard deviation
31Surgery
32Surgical nursing
33Surgical Procedures, Operative - statistics & numerical data
issn
00002-9610
11879-1883
fulltexttrue
rsrctypearticle
creationdate2012
recordtypearticle
recordideNqFkl2L1DAUhoso7rr6E5SACN605qNt2huXYfFjYcEL9Tqk6elsxjQZk3aW-S_-WE-d0cFFkEKTps95z5vkzbLnjBaMsvrNptDjJs1xXXDKWEGbgjL5IDtnjWxz1jTiYXZOKeV5WzN6lj1JaYOfjJXicXbGuSiXsvPsx3UifZg7B_nahZ31axJBO7cn2xgmMJPdwSVZERPGrY42BU86mO4APJlugSw1QLYQhxD1ZPEvDkD0GFAIl23Al15EiJ9jgkTu7HRLEvZxiPn-2PwghFbmuFhY9gVx_zR7NGiX4NlxvMi-vn_35epjfvPpw_XV6iY3ZSOmHBrBoGQVFZ2p-mHgGmQpWN3Jsm7p0PGSctHWpZSVHljfNr0AqVnVMV3TTlJxkb0-6OKev8-QJjXaZMA57SHMSTHKpZBUMonoy3voJszRozukRF0jIqoTtdYOlPVDmKI2i6ha8VZyKivWIlX8g8Knh9Ga4GGwuP5XQXUoMDGkFGFQ22hHHffYWy2pUBt1TIVarlfRRtFfpl8cTc_dCP2fqt8xQODVEdDJaDdE7Y1NJ67Gw615g9zlgQO8jZ2FqJKx4A30NmJWVB_sf628vadgnPUWm36DPaTTYarEFVWflwgvCWYcZ7RsxU9DJ-2i
startdate2012
enddate2012
creator
0Guo, Yue Ping, Ph.D
1Wong, Po Ming, M.S
2Li, Yi, Ph.D
3Or, Peggy Pui Lai, M.S
general
0Elsevier Inc
1Elsevier
2Elsevier B.V
3Elsevier Limited
scope
0IQODW
1CGR
2CUY
3CVF
4ECM
5EIF
6NPM
7AAYXX
8CITATION
9BSHEE
103V.
117QO
127X7
137XB
1488E
158FD
168FI
178FJ
188FK
198G5
20ABUWG
21AZQEC
22BENPR
23DWQXO
24FR3
25FYUFA
26GHDGH
27GNUQQ
28GUQSH
29K9.
30M0S
31M1P
32M2O
33MBDVC
34P64
35PADUT
36PQEST
37PQQKQ
38PQUKI
39PRINS
40Q9U
417X8
sort
creationdate2012
titleIs double-gloving really protective? A comparison between the glove perforation rate among perioperative nurses with single and double gloves during surgery
authorGuo, Yue Ping, Ph.D ; Wong, Po Ming, M.S ; Li, Yi, Ph.D ; Or, Peggy Pui Lai, M.S
facets
frbrtype5
frbrgroupidcdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c483t-e831e41503bc5dff2ae74316b74690fb24023964775af1d98d3e7a15b1a60b703
rsrctypearticles
prefilterarticles
languageeng
creationdate2012
topic
0Abdominal surgery
1Abridged Index Medicus
2Adult
3Analysis
4Biological and medical sciences
5Blood-Borne Pathogens
6Double gloving
7Equipment Failure - statistics & numerical data
8Female
9General aspects
10Glove perforation rate
11Gloves
12Gloves, Surgical
13Health aspects
14Health participants
15Hospitals
16Humans
17Male
18Medical sciences
19Middle Aged
20Nurses
21Nursing
22Nursing Staff, Hospital
23Orthopedics
24Perioperative nurses
25Perioperative Nursing
26Prevention and actions
27Prospective Studies
28Public health. Hygiene
29Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine
30Standard deviation
31Surgery
32Surgical nursing
33Surgical Procedures, Operative - statistics & numerical data
toplevel
0peer_reviewed
1online_resources
creatorcontrib
0Guo, Yue Ping, Ph.D
1Wong, Po Ming, M.S
2Li, Yi, Ph.D
3Or, Peggy Pui Lai, M.S
collection
0Pascal-Francis
1Medline
2MEDLINE
3MEDLINE (Ovid)
4MEDLINE
5MEDLINE
6PubMed
7CrossRef
8Academic OneFile (A&I only)
9ProQuest Central (Corporate)
10Biotechnology Research Abstracts
11Health & Medical Collection
12ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)
13Medical Database (Alumni Edition)
14Technology Research Database
15Hospital Premium Collection
16Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)
17ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)
18Research Library (Alumni Edition)
19ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)
20ProQuest Central Essentials
21ProQuest Central
22ProQuest Central Korea
23Engineering Research Database
24Health Research Premium Collection
25Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)
26ProQuest Central Student
27Research Library Prep
28ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)
29Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)
30Medical Database
31Research Library
32Research Library (Corporate)
33Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts
34Research Library China
35ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition
36ProQuest One Academic
37ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition
38ProQuest Central China
39ProQuest Central Basic
40MEDLINE - Academic
jtitleThe American journal of surgery
delivery
delcategoryRemote Search Resource
fulltextfulltext
addata
au
0Guo, Yue Ping, Ph.D
1Wong, Po Ming, M.S
2Li, Yi, Ph.D
3Or, Peggy Pui Lai, M.S
formatjournal
genrearticle
ristypeJOUR
atitleIs double-gloving really protective? A comparison between the glove perforation rate among perioperative nurses with single and double gloves during surgery
jtitleThe American journal of surgery
addtitleAm J Surg
date2012
risdate2012
volume204
issue2
spage210
epage215
pages210-215
issn0002-9610
eissn1879-1883
codenAJSUAB
abstractAbstract Background Surgical teams rely on surgical gloves as a barrier to protect themselves against blood-borne pathogenic infections during surgery. Double-gloving is adopted by surgeons to tackle the problem of glove perforation. Nevertheless, double-gloving is not practiced commonly by operating room nurses and there are only limited studies about double-gloving that targets only perioperative nurses. The aim of this research was to assess the effectiveness of double-gloving in protecting perioperative nurses by comparing the frequency of glove perforation between single-gloving and double-gloving groups. Methods A prospective and randomized study was performed. Nurses were assigned randomly to single-gloved and double-gloved groups for comparison of the glove perforation rate. Water-leakage and air-inflation tests were used to detect glove perforation. Results Glove perforations was detected in 10 of 112 sets of single-gloves (8.9%) and 12 of 106 sets of outer gloves in the double-gloved group (11.3%). There was no inner double-glove perforation (0%). Glove perforations were found in 6 and 4 of the 112 sets of single-gloves for the first assistants (5.36%) and the scrub nurses (3.57%), and 5 and 7 of 106 sets of outer gloves in the double-gloved group for the first assistants (4.72%) and the scrub nurses (6.60%), respectively. The average occurrence of perforation was 69.8 minutes (range, 20–110 min) after the beginning of surgery. The sites of perforation were localized mostly on the left middle finger (42%) and the left ring finger (33.3%). Conclusions Based on the findings of the study, double-gloving is indeed effective in protecting operating room nurses against blood-borne pathogen exposure. It should be introduced as a routine practice.
copNew York, NY
pubElsevier Inc
pmid22342011
doi10.1016/j.amjsurg.2011.08.017