In a study to investigate the incidence and significance of surgical glove perforation, bacterial contamination of surgeons' hands and gloves before and after operation was measured and the gloves tested for damage. Perforations were found in 74 of 582 gloves (12.7 per cent) and occurred in 34.5 per cent of operations. Glove perforation did not influence bacterial counts on the surgeons' hands or on the outside of their gloves. A separate clinical study of 100 adult hernia repairs gave no evidence that perforation increased wound sepsis. After standard pre-operative hand preparation, glove perforations are of no clinical significance to the patient, but their high incidence should alert surgeons to the need for protection against pathogens transmissible during surgery, such as hepatitis B and the human immunodeficiency virus. Protection of the surgeon is the main indication for preoperative change of damaged gloves.
This study assesses the perforation rate of single and double gloves and thus the extent to which double gloving protects the surgeon from diseases transmissible from the patient. We have also investigated whether double gloving offers the patient extra protection by reducing wound sepsis. Two hundred adult hernia repairs were performed, the first 100 single gloved and the second 100 double gloved. Glove perforation rates were not significantly different between single gloves and the outer of the double gloves. Although 46 of 400 outer gloves were perforated there were only 15 inner glove perforations and only eight of these matched the outer perforations. The percentage of operations in which the latex protective barrier was breached was reduced from 31 per cent when the surgeon wore single gloves to 8 per cent with double gloves. Wound sepsis was not increased by glove perforation nor reduced by double gloving. While careful technique remains mandatory we conclude that double gloving offers increased protection to the surgeon operating on high risk infectious cases.
Objective This study was performed to determine whether students who are trained in developing a personal formulary become more competent in rational prescribing than students who have only learned to use existing formularies.Methods This was a multicentre, randomised, controlled study conducted in eight universities in India, Indonesia, the Netherlands, the Russian Federation, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain and Yemen. Five hundred and eighty-three medical students were randomised into three groups: the Eur J Clin Pharmacol (2008) (PF; 94), the existing formulary group (EF; 98) and the control group (C; 191). The PF group was taught how to develop and use a personal formulary, whereas e the EF group was taught how to review and use an existing formulary. The C group received no additional training and participated only in the tests. Student's prescribing skills were measured by scoring their treatment plans for written patient cases. Results The mean PF group score increased by 23% compared with 19% for the EF group (p<0.05) and 6% for controls (p<0.05). The positive effect of PF training was only significant in universities that had a mainly classic curriculum. Conclusion Training in development and use of a personal formulary was particularly effective in universities with a classic curriculum and with traditional pharmacology teaching. In universities with a general problem-based curriculum, pharmacotherapy teaching can be based on either existing or personal formularies.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.