Surgical antisepsis practices and use of surgical gloves as a potential risk factors to intraoperative contamination
Antisepsia quirúrgica y el uso de guantes quirúrgicos como potenciales factores de riesgo para contaminación durante la cirugía
Antissepsia cirúrgica e utilização de luvas cirúrgicas como potenciais fatores de risco para contaminação transoperatória
Adriana Cristina de Oliveira; Camila Sarmento Gama
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to investigate the practice of surgical hand antisepsis and integrity of sterile gloves after use by the surgical team in a teaching hospital in the city of Belo Horizonte, Southeastern Brazil.
Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted involving the gynecology service in April 2013. Data were collected through observation of surgical hand antisepsis and test to evaluate surgical glove perforation after use. A descriptive statistical analysis was performed.
Results: Only 16% of surgeons accomplished the technique and time recommended for the practice of surgical hand antisepsis. Regarding gloves, there were 11.1% of perforations, 31.8% of which were noticed.
Conclusions: The results presented reveal that failures in these procedures occur routinely, being able to interfere with patients and healthcare workers' safety, prompting reflection on the theme in different health institutions.
Keywords
Resumen
Palabras clave
Resumo
Objetivo: Objetivou-se investigar a prática da antissepsia cirúrgica das mãos e a integridade das luvas estéreis após seu uso pela equipe cirúrgica de um hospital universitário de Belo Horizonte.
Métodos: Realizou-se um estudo transversal envolvendo o serviço de ginecologia, em abril de 2013. Os dados foram coletados por meio da observação da prática da antissepsia cirúrgica das mãos e teste para avaliação de perfuração das luvas após seu uso. Foi realizada uma análise estatística descritiva.
Resultados: Somente 16% dos cirurgiões cumpriram com a técnica e tempo recomendados para a prática antissepsia cirúrgica das mãos. Para as luvas registrou-se 11,1% de perfurações e 31,8% foram percebidas.
Conclusão: Evidenciou-se no presente trabalho que falhas nesses procedimentos ocorrem rotineiramente, sendo capazes de interferir na segurança do paciente e do profissional, incitando a reflexão acerca da temática em diferentes instituições de saúde
Palavras-chave
Referencias
1 Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, Silver LC, Jarvis WR. The Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1999; 20(4):247-78.
2 Phillips J, O'Grady H, Baker E. Prevention of surgical site infections. Surgery. 2014; 32(9):468-71.
3 Alexander JW, Solomkin JS, Edwards MJ. Updated recommendations for control of surgical site infection. Ann Surg. 2011; 253(6):1082-93.
4 Patrick M, Van Wicklin SA. Implemeting AORN recommended practices for hand hygiene. AORN J. 2012; 95(4):492-504.
5 Mioljevic V, Simic AP, Radenkovic D, Galun D, Palibrk I, Ostojic S et al. Acinetobacter spp. colonization and infection risk factors in surgical patients. Acta Chir Iugosl. 2011; 58(4):81-7.
6 World Health Organization. WHO guidelines on hand hygiene in health care. Geneva: WHO; 2009. 270 p.
7 Brasil. Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária. Medidas de prevenção de infecção relacionada à assistência à saúde. Brasília. 2013. 87 p.
8 Tanner J. Surgical hand antisepsis: the evidence. J Perioper Pract. 2008; 17(1):330-9.
9 Widmer AF, Rotter M, Voss A, Nthumba P, Allegranzi B, Boyce J et al. Surgical hand preparation: state-of-the-art. J Hosp Infect. 2010; 74(2): 112-22.
10 Widmer AF. Surgical hand hygiene: scrub or rub? J Hosp Infect. 2013; 83(Suppl 1):S35-9.
11 National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Surgical site infection: evidence update June 2013. Evidence update 43. 2013. 28 p. Acesso em: 23 de Outubro 2015. Disponível em:
12 Spruce L. Back to basics: hand hygiene and surgical hand antisepsis. AORN J. 2013. 98(5):449-57.
13 Comité Européen de Normalisation. EN 455-1. Medical glove for single use. Berlin; 2000, 7 p.
14 Suchomel M, Rotter M. Ethanol in pre-surgical hand rubs: concentration and duration of application for achieving European Norm EN 12791. J Hosp Infect. 2011; 77(3):263-6.
15 Linda KM, Olson BS, Morse DJ, Duley C, Savell BK. Prospective, randomized in vivo comparison of a dual-active waterless antiseptic versus two alcohol-only waterless antiseptics for surgical hand antisepsis. Am J Infect Control. 2012; 40(2): 155-9.
16 Gonçalves KJ, Graziano KU, Kawagoe JY. Revisão sistemática sobre antissepsia cirúrgica das mãos com preparação alcoólica em comparação aos produtos tradicionais. Rev Esc Enferm USP. 2012. 46(6):1484-93.
17 Oliveira AC, Gama CS. Evaluation of surgical glove integrity during surgery in a Brazilian teaching hospital. Am J Infect Control. 2014; 42(10): 1093-6.
18 Beldame J, Lagrave B, Lievain L, Lefebvre B, Frebourg N, Dujardin F. Surgical glove bacterial contamination and perforation during total hip arthroplasty implantation: when gloves should be changed. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2012. 98(4):432-40.
19 Guo YP, Wong PM, Li Y, Lai PP. Is double-gloving really protective? A comparison between the glove perforation rate among perioperative nurses with single and double gloves during surgery. Am J Surg. 2012; 204(2):210-5.
20 Korniewicz D, El-Masri M. Exploring the benefits of double gloving during surgery. AORN J. 2012; 95(3):328-36.
Submitted date:
01/07/2015
Accepted date:
25/02/2016
Facebook
Google+
Twitter
LinkedIn
Mendeley
StumbleUpon
CiteULike
Reddit
Email