ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Hospital gowns protect patients and health care workers from exposure to blood and other infectious materials. Previous studies have shown that certain gowns do allow blood strike-through. Because of worldwide increases in the incidence of Staphylococcus aureus infections, especially with methicillin-resistant strains, there is now increased concern regarding bacterial transmission through gowns. METHODS: This study evaluated six gown types used in hospitals (one disposable cover or isolation gown, three disposable operating room gowns, and new and washed reusable operating room gowns). Gowns were evaluated for dry spore and S. aureus filtration efficiencies and were subjected to 20 time-pressure combinations with methicillin-resistant S. aureus-spiked blood (10(4)/ml) to evaluate blood strike-through and passage of methicillin-resistant S. aureus. RESULTS: Blood strike-through was lowest with disposable operating room gowns 1 and 2 (polypropylene). Disposable operating room gown 3 (polyester-wood pulp) showed the greatest strike-through and overall passage of methicillin-resistant S. aureus. Operating room gowns 1 and 2 showed minimal bacterial passage, whereas the disposable cover (polypropylene) only allowed passage at pressures greater than 1 psi. Bacterial filtration efficiency testing showed operating room gowns 1 and 2 to be the most protective; operating room gown 3 and both reusable (cotton) gowns were the least protective. Dry spore passage was greatest for reusable gowns. CONCLUSION: Different hospital gowns offer varying degrees of protection against fluid strike-through or bacterial passage. Gowns therefore should be chosen according to the task performed and conditions encountered.
Subject(s)
Blood-Borne Pathogens , Infection Control/methods , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Methicillin Resistance , Occupational Exposure/prevention & control , Protective Clothing/microbiology , Staphylococcal Infections/transmission , Analysis of Variance , Bacillus subtilis/isolation & purification , Consumer Product Safety , Disposable Equipment , Equipment Reuse , Evaluation Studies as Topic , Humans , Louisiana , Operating Rooms , Personnel, Hospital , Skin Absorption , Spores , Staphylococcal Infections/prevention & control , Staphylococcus aureus/isolation & purificationABSTRACT
In North America, the rate of infections following colorectal surgery decreased after the introduction of oral antibiotic bowel preparation against colonic microflora. Eight hundred eight board-certified colorectal surgeons were surveyed for their current bowel preparation practices before elective procedures. The 471 responders (58%) all use mechanical preparation: oral polyethylene glycol solution (70.9% of the respondents), oral sodium phosphate solution with or without bisacodyl (28.4%), and "traditional" methods of dietary restriction, cathartics, and enemas (28.4%). Most surgeons (86.5%) add oral and parenteral antibiotics to the regimen; 11.5% add only parenteral antibiotics, 1.1% add only oral antibiotics, and 0.9% add no antibiotics. Generally (77.8% of cases), oral neomycin and erythromycin or metronidazole are combined with a perioperative parenteral antibiotic. Most individuals start the preparation as outpatients the day before surgery, and the parenteral drugs are added to the regimen 1-2 hours before the procedure. The use of outpatient bowel preparation is increasing; however, patient selection is critical, and education is needed to reduce the rate of complications.
