Benefits and Downsides to the Double Gloving System

696 Words2 Pages

The merits of double-gloving are obvious to many individuals; it provides two layers of protection instead of one, for instance. Greater protection from pathogens is implied in this system. One might assume that in clinical settings, it would be foolish not to require healthcare workers to double-glove. There are, however, downsides to the double-glove system, as well as lack of improvement in preventing the spread of pathogens when comparing double-gloving to single-gloving. These factors must also be explored before double-gloving can be crowned as a superior method for protecting both patients and clinicians from the spread of pathogens. There are several benefits to double-gloving that have been supported by recent studies [1-4]. By double-gloving, it has been shown that the transfer of virus to healthcare workers’ hands is significantly decreased, as compared to single gloving [1]. Perhaps the incidence of nosocomial infections could be reduced if double-gloving were a requirement in healthcare settings. In the operating room (OR), double-gloving has been shown to provide superior protection against potential exposure to blood-borne pathogens [2]. Breaking the barrier between an OR nurses’ hands and the external environment was shown to occur in 8.9% of cases in one study in which single-gloving was practiced during surgical procedures [2]. Remarkably, in the same study, it was shown that when double-gloving was practiced, there was not a single case of both layers of gloves being perforated [2]. From the evidence provided in that study, one could assume that when double-gloving is practiced, it is virtually impossible for the hands of a healthcare worker to become exposed to the external environment during a sur... ... middle of paper ... ...erity and tactile sensitivity when double-gloved [3], and it is worth considering whether just this perception of reduced ability would result in increased errors during surgical procedures if surgeons were required to double-glove. To double-glove, or not to double-glove, is a much more complicated question than a study of viral presence on healthcare workers’ hands can answer. It is a more complicated question than data about perforations in single-glove vs. double-glove systems can answer. Future research should examine this issue from an epidemiological perspective, and from an administrative perspective. Additionally, it will be beneficial to further explore the impact that double-gloving has on the confidence and comfort level of surgeons and other OR staff; it is critical to weigh those factors against the protective benefits of double-gloving.

Open Document