Mark E Lipson1, Rob Deardon1, Noah J Switzer1, Chris de Gara1, Chad G Ball1, Sean C Grondin1. 1. From the Department of Surgery, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alta. (Lipson, Ball, Grondin); the Department of Production Animal Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Faculty of Science, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alta. (Deardon); and the Department of Surgery, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta. (Switzer, de Gara).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite supporting evidence, many staff surgeons and surgical trainees do not routinely double glove. We performed a study to assess rates of and attitudes toward double gloving and the use of eye protection in the operating room. METHODS: We conducted an electronic survey among all staff surgeons and surgical trainees at 2 tertiary care centres in Alberta between September and November 2015.We analyzed the data using log-binomial regression for binary outcomes to account for multiple independent variables and interactions. For 2-group comparisons, we used a 2-group test of proportions. RESULTS: The response rate was 34.3% (361/1051); 205/698 staff surgeons (29.4%) and 156/353 surgical trainees (44.2%) responded. Trainees were more likely than staff surgeons to ever double glove in the operating room (p = 0.01) and to do so routinely (p = 0.01). Staff surgeons were more likely than trainees to never double glove (p = 0.01). A total of 300/353 respondents (85.0%) reported using eye protection routinely in the operating room. Needle-stick injury was common (184 staff surgeons [92.5%], 115 trainees [74.7%]). Reduced tactile feedback, decreased manual dexterity and discomfort/poor fit were perceived barriers to double gloving. CONCLUSION: Rates of double gloving leave room for improvement. Surgical trainees were more likely than staff surgeons to double glove. Barriers remain to routine double gloving among staff surgeons and trainees. Increased education on the benefits of double gloving and early introduction of this practice may increase uptake.
BACKGROUND: Despite supporting evidence, many staff surgeons and surgical trainees do not routinely double glove. We performed a study to assess rates of and attitudes toward double gloving and the use of eye protection in the operating room. METHODS: We conducted an electronic survey among all staff surgeons and surgical trainees at 2 tertiary care centres in Alberta between September and November 2015.We analyzed the data using log-binomial regression for binary outcomes to account for multiple independent variables and interactions. For 2-group comparisons, we used a 2-group test of proportions. RESULTS: The response rate was 34.3% (361/1051); 205/698 staff surgeons (29.4%) and 156/353 surgical trainees (44.2%) responded. Trainees were more likely than staff surgeons to ever double glove in the operating room (p = 0.01) and to do so routinely (p = 0.01). Staff surgeons were more likely than trainees to never double glove (p = 0.01). A total of 300/353 respondents (85.0%) reported using eye protection routinely in the operating room. Needle-stick injury was common (184 staff surgeons [92.5%], 115 trainees [74.7%]). Reduced tactile feedback, decreased manual dexterity and discomfort/poor fit were perceived barriers to double gloving. CONCLUSION: Rates of double gloving leave room for improvement. Surgical trainees were more likely than staff surgeons to double glove. Barriers remain to routine double gloving among staff surgeons and trainees. Increased education on the benefits of double gloving and early introduction of this practice may increase uptake.
Authors: A Mingoli; P Sapienza; G Sgarzini; G Luciani; G De Angelis; C Modini; F Ciccarone; R J Feldhaus Journal: Am J Surg Date: 1996-11 Impact factor: 2.565