Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T19:02:07.087Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What is Leaky Can be Risky: A Study of the Integrity of Hospital Gloves

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2016

Bienvenido G. Yangco  and
Nathaniel F. Yangco
Bienvenido G. Yangco*
Affiliation:
University of South Florida College of Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, Tampa, Florida
Nathaniel F. Yangco
Affiliation:
James A. Haley Veterans Administration Hospital, Tampa, Florida St. John's Greek Orthodox Day School, Tampa, Florida
*
USF College of Medicine, Box 19, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, 12901 Bruce B. Downs Blvd., Tampa, FL 33612
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One thousand six-hundred and eighteen medical gloves were tested to determine whether, with current increased demands, these gloves are of high quality, i.e., free of leaks. The risk of exposure to potentially infected fluids when using leaky gloves was also estimated. Using a four-stage leak test, no significant difference was found between 64 of 790 (8.1%, range 0% to 44.4%) unsterile latex gloves and 11 of 210 (5.2%, range 1.7% to 21.7%) unsterile vinyl gloves (p=.21). Sterile surgical gloves (7 of 618, 1.13% [range 0% to 3%]) had fewer leaks compared to unsterile latex and vinyl gloves combined p<.OOOl). The safranin test was positive in 27 of 28 (96.4%) leaky gloves tested, indicating a high risk of exposure to potentially infected fluids when leaky gloves are used. Because of these findings, elements of “universal precautions” such as changing gloves after each patient contact and good handwashing after using gloves should be carefully observed. There is a need for the Food and Drug Administration to establish more stringent guidelines for manufacturing gloves and to verify compliance with these guidelines.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 10 , Issue 12 , December 1989 , pp. 553 - 556
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Centers for Disease Control. Recommendations for prevention of HIV transmission in healthcare settings. MMWR. 1987;36:Suppl 2S:1S–18S.Google Scholar
2. Centers for Disease Control. Update: universal precautions for prevention of transmission of human immunodeficiency virus, hepatitis B virus. and other blood-borne pathogens in health-care settings. MMWR, 1988;37:377–388.Google Scholar
3. Polit, SA. A warning about nonsterile rubber gloves. N Engl J Med. 1988;319:1485- Letter to the Editor.Google Scholar
4. Daschner, FD, Habel, H. HIV prophylaxis with punctured gloves? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1988;9:184–185. Letter to the Editor.10.2307/30146439Google Scholar
5. Dalgleish, AC, Malkovsky, M. Surgical gloves as a mechanical barrier against human immunodeficiency viruses. Br J Surg. 1988;75:171–172 10.1002/bjs.1800750229Google Scholar
6. Food and Drug Administration. General hospital and personal use devices; classification of patient examination gloves. Federal Register. October 21, 1980;45:69723.Google Scholar
7. Food and Drug Administration. General and plastic surgery devices; general provisions and classifications of 51 devices. Federal Register. June 24, 1988;53:23856–23877.Google Scholar
8. Difco, Lab. Difco Manual. 10th ed. Detroit, Michigan;1984:436.Google Scholar
9. Bartholomew, JW, Mittwer, T. The gram stain. Bactelol Rev. 1952;16:1–29.Google Scholar
10. Snedecor, GW, Cochran, WG, Statistical methods, Iowa State University Press: Ames, Iowa;1967:5-10;210–211.Google Scholar
11. Crow, EL. Confidence intervals for a proportion. Biometrika. 1956;43:423–435,10.1093/biomet/43.3-4.423Google Scholar
12. Marcus, R and the CDC Cooperative Needlestick Surveillance Group. Surveillance of health care workers exposed to blood from patients infected with the human immunodeficiency virus. N Engl J Med 1988;319:1118–1123.10.1056/NEJM198810273191703Google Scholar
13. Centers for Disease Control. Update: Acquired immunodehciency syndrome and human immunodehciency virus infection among healthcare workers. MMWR. 1988;37:229–239.Google Scholar
14. Barker, LF, Murray, R. Relationship of virus dose of incubation time of clinical hepatitis and time appearance of hepatitis associated antigen. Am J Med Set 1972;263:27–33.10.1097/00000441-197201000-00005Google Scholar
15. Scullard, H, Greenberg, HB, Smith, JL, Gregory, PB. Merigan, TC, Robinson, WS. Antiviral treatment of chronic hepatitis B virus infection: infectious virus cannot be detected in patient serum after permanent responses to treatment. Hepatology. 1982;2:39–49.Google Scholar
16. Shikata, T, Karasawa, T, Abe, K, et al. Hepatitis B antigen and infectivity of hepatitis B virus. J Infect Dis. 1977;136:571–576.10.1093/infdis/136.4.571Google Scholar
17. Gibert, C, Willoughby, A, Hawley, H, Gordin, F. Prevalence of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis B virus (HBV) in unselected hospital admissions: implications for universal testing and precautions. Abstract No. 632. 28th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 23-26 October 1988 Los Angeles, California, p. 220.Google Scholar
18. Fahey, BJ, Willy, ME, Meehan, PE, Koziol, DE, Henderson, DK. Frequency and intensity of cutaneous exposures to blood and other body fluids in hospital-based health-care workers. Abstract No. 635. 28th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 23-26 October 1988 Los Angeles, California. p. 221.Google Scholar
19. Berish, DJ, Hamory, BH. Prevalence of chapped hands and dermatitis in health care work&s. Am J Infect Control. 1989;17:108 10.1016/0196-6553(89)90080-1Google Scholar
20. Food and Drug Administration. Medical devices: patient examination gloves; revocation of exemptions from the premarket notification procedures and the current good manufacturing practice regulations. Federal Register. January 13, 1989;54:1602–1604.Google Scholar