Source avec lien : American Journal of Infection Control, (Prépublication), . 10.1016/j.ajic.2021.08.013
Les blouses d’isolement sont recommandées pour protéger le personnel de santé (PS), les patients et les visiteurs contre le transfert de micro-organismes et de fluides corporels dans les situations d’isolement des patients. Les normes fournissent des informations limitées sur les performances de barrière des blouses d’isolement pour les scénarios d’exposition possibles. L’interface gant-blouse est considérée comme l’une des zones les plus vulnérables de l’ensemble de l’équipement de protection individuelle (EPI). Cependant, les normes de classification actuelles ne prennent pas en compte les zones d’interface de l’ensemble EPI lors de l’évaluation du niveau de protection. L’objectif de cette étude était d’évaluer quantitativement la fuite de fluides à travers l’interface gant-blouse en simulant des expositions et des mouvements du bras du personnel soignant lors des soins aux patients.
Background Isolation gowns are recommended to protect healthcare personnel (HCP), patients, and visitors from transfer of microorganisms and body fluids in patient isolation situations. Standards provide limited information about barrier performance of isolation gowns for possible exposure scenarios. One of the most vulnerable areas of the personal protective equipment (PPE) ensemble is considered the glove-gown interface. However, current classification standards do not consider the interface regions of the PPE system while assessing the level of protection. The purpose of this study was to quantitatively evaluate the fluid leakage through the glove-gown interface by simulating exposures and HCP arm movements in patient care. Methods We tested fluid leakage of two examination gloves with different cuff lengths and seven isolation gown models designed with varying levels of barrier resistance and multiple cuff types. Results Our results demonstrated that leakage through the glove-gown interface depends on multiple factors, including glove cuff length and gown cuff design. Gowns with the thumb loop design provided better protection than the elastic cuff design, and the elastic cuff design provided better protection compared to the knit cuff design for a given AAMI PB70 level. More importantly, a substantial penetration through gown fabrics was observed. Conclusion This research identifies a need to develop a standardized method to evaluate leakage at the glove-gown interface to improve worker protection.