OHP-028 Rationalisation scheme for appropriate consumption of medical gloves in a general hospital

    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid

Abstract

Background

Regarding the possibility of double certification of medical gloves (MG) as a medical device (MD) and as an individual protection device (IPD) in this country, and the need for cost containment, optimising hospital usage of MG is fundamental for appropriate consumption.

Purpose

The aim was to prepare scheme for all hospital units on the correct usage indications of MG, based on internal hospital guidelines, prevention–protection service procedures, and indications from provider companies compared with revision of the literature evidence.

Material and methods

The scheme divided MG based on material type (MT) and usage indication (UI). Each MT (6 typologies: nitrile, vinyl-elasticised, latex, synthetic, kevlar, polyethylene), corresponded to 2 types of operation (on the patient and/or on ambient), sterile/non-sterile type and disposable/non-disposable type. For each type of operation, the UI, warnings and commercial name of the MG used were specified. All MG were powder free.

Results

For 2 typologies, patient operations were divided into 2 subcategories:

Results

For 1 typology (vinyl-elasticised), both the patient and ambient operations resulted in the same MG being used.

Results

For 2 typologies, only the patient operations were specified:

Results

For 1 typology (kevlar), only the ambient operation as under-glove cut-resistant was described.

Results

Usage of the nitrile was recommended only in the situation of high manipulative stress, while the vinyl use could be increased for: patient operations without the risk of biological contamination and reorganisation and cleaning of materials (moderate manipulative stress). Vinyl resulted in costs 3 times lower than nitrile and was less likely to develop contact allergy.

Conclusion

With the same safety level, adequate biocompatibility and appropriate performance, the MG with the lower cost is preferred and its usage is required only in cases of patient and hospital personnel protection.

Conclusion

No conflict of interest

Related Topics

    loading  Loading Related Articles