Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-5jtmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-21T19:01:59.279Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Gowns: Selection on a Procedure-Driven Basis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Nathan L. Belkin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration requires that the types and characteristics of personal protective equipment used “depend upon the task and degree of exposure anticipated.” The level of protection required, therefore, is logically contingent upon the operative site, estimated blood loss, and duration of the procedure. However, more recent studies provide data that specifically identify the personnel and areas of the body that are most likely to become contaminated. This adds a new dimension to the procedure-oriented selection process that is worthy of consideration.

Information

Type
Product Commentary
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 15 , Issue 11 , November 1994 , pp. 713 - 716
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1994 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1. U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Occupational exposure to bloodbome pathogens: final rule. Federal Register 1991;56:64177,(d) (3) (i).Google Scholar
2. Pugliese, G. Should blood exposures in the operating room be considered part of the job? Am J Infect Control 1993;21:337–342. Editorial.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Gerberding, JL. Procedure-specific infection control for preventing intraoperative blood exposures. Am J Infect Control 1993;21:364–367.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Procedure-specific precautions best for OR? OR Manager 1994;10:7.Google Scholar
5. Quebbeman, EJ, Telford, GL, Hubbard, S, et al Risks of blood contamination and injury to operating room personnel. Ann Surg 1991;14:614–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Hubbard, MS, Wadsworth, K, Telford, GL, Quebbeman, EJ. Reducing blood contamination and injury in the OR: a study of the effectiveness of protective garments and OR procedures. AORNJ 1992;55:194–201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Bernard, HR, Beck, WC. Operating room barriers-idealism, practicality and the future. Bull Am College of Surg 1975;60:16.Google ScholarPubMed
8. Belkin, NL. Strike-through, gown safety and author’s response. AORNJ 1992;56:627–628. Letter to the Editor.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. White, MC, Lynch, P. Blood contact and exposures among operating room personnel: a multicenter study. Am J Infect Control 1993;21:243–248.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Wright, JG, McGeer, AJ, Chyatte, D, Ransohoff, DE Exposure rates to patients’ blood for surgical personnel. Surgery 1993;114:897–901.Google ScholarPubMed
11. Shadduck, PF Tyler, DS, Lyerly, HK, et al Commercially available surgical gowns do not prevent penetration by HIV-1. Surgical Forum 1990;41:77–80.Google Scholar
12. Smith, JD, Nichols, RJ. Barrier efficacy of surgical gowns. Arch Surg 1991;26:756–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Brown, PL. What’s new in ASTM’s test methods for liquid and viral resistance? Materials Management in Healthcare 1994;3(8):14.Google Scholar
14. Selection of Surgical Gowns and Drapes in Healthcare Facilities, TIR11-006-MM. Arlington, VA: Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation; September 1994.Google Scholar
15. Belkin, NL. Letters to the editor. AORN Journal 1994;60(3):365–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Altman, KW, McElhaney, JH, Moylan, JA, Fitzpatrick, KT Transmural surgical gown pressure measurements in the operating theater. Am /Infect Control 1991;19:147–155.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Belkin, NL. Surgical pros and cons. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1993;177:514–515.Google Scholar
18. Belkin, NL Are new test methods accurate predictors of gowns’ protective barrier effectiveness? AORN journal 1994;59(4):897–899.Google ScholarPubMed
19. Belkin, NL. Cost restraints forcing tough protective equipment choices. Hospital Materials Management 1994;19(5):18.Google ScholarPubMed
20. Belkin, NL. The new American Society for Testing and Materials tests: all that glitters is not gold. Am J Infect Control 1994;22(3):172–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Belkin, NL. The challenge of selecting an appropriate protective gown. Today’s OR Nurse 1994;16(4):5–7.Google ScholarPubMed
22. Stull, JO. Response. OR Reports July/August 1993;2:10.Google Scholar
23. McCullough, EA. Methods for determining the barrier efficacy of surgical gowns. Am J Infect Control 1993;21:368–374.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24. Telford, GL, Quebbeman, EJ. Assessing the risk of blood exposure in the operating room. Am J Infect Control 1993;21:351–356.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25. Fairchild’s Dictionary of Textiles. New York, NY: Fairchild Publications; 1979.Google Scholar
26. International Fabricare Institute Technical Operating Information. Water repellents. IFI Fabricare News June 1988.Google Scholar
27. Beck, WC. Thermal comfort for the patient during surgery: comfort, a physiological as well as a psychological phenomenon. Gutkrie Journal 1993;62:159–160.Google Scholar
28. Beck, WC, Belkin, NL, Meyer, KK. A new approach to the surgeon’s gown. The Guthrie Journal 1994;63(2):73–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29. Beck, WC, Belkin, NL, Meyer, KK. Divide and conquer: protection, comfort and cost of the surgeons gown. Am J Surg. In press.Google Scholar