Hostname: page-component-7f64f4797f-pmsz9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-11T14:17:45.774Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Does one size fit all for contact precautions implementation? Impact of requiring use of gloves and gowns for every room entry on personnel time, personal protective equipment costs, and carbon footprint

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 September 2025

Amelia L. Milner ,
Elizabeth C. Eckstein Open the ORCID record for Elizabeth C. Eckstein [Opens in a new window]  and
Curtis J. Donskey Open the ORCID record for Curtis J. Donskey [Opens in a new window]
Amelia L. Milner
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Elizabeth C. Eckstein
Affiliation:
Infection Control Department, Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, USA
Curtis J. Donskey*
Affiliation:
Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center, Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, USA
*
Corresponding author: Curtis J. Donskey; Email: Curtis.Donskey@va.gov
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In an observational study, healthcare personnel often entered contact precautions rooms without contacting patients or the environment. An approach requiring gloves and gowns based on actual contacts rather than for all room entries would reduce personal protective equipment donning and doffing time, cost, and carbon footprint by more than half.

Information

Type
Concise Communication
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , First View , pp. 1 - 3
Check for updates
Creative Commons
This is a work of the US Government and is not subject to copyright protection within the United States. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America.
Copyright
© U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 2025

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

Siegel, JD, Rhinehart, E, Jackson, M, Chiarello, L, and the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Guideline for isolation precautions: Preventing transmission of infectious agents in healthcare settings. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/infection-control/hcp/isolation/isolation-precautions/index.html. Accessed May 1, 2025.Google Scholar
Gastmeier, P. From ‘one size fits all’ to personalized infection prevention. J Hosp Infect 2020;104:256–260.10.1016/j.jhin.2019.12.010CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bearman, GM, Harris, AD, Tacconelli, E. Contact precautions for the control of endemic pathogens: Finding the middle path. Antimicrob Steward Healthc Epidemiol 2023;3:e57.10.1017/ash.2023.145CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diekema, DJ, Nori, P, Stevens, MP, Smith, MW, Coffey, KC, Morgan, DJ. Are contact precautions “essential” for the prevention of healthcare-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus? Clin Infect Dis 2024;78:1289–1294.10.1093/cid/ciad571CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dhar, S, Marchaim, D, Tansek, R, et al. Contact precautions: More is not necessarily better. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2014;35:213–21.10.1086/675294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Hara, LM, Calfee, DP, Miller, LG, et al. Optimizing contact precautions to curb the spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in hospitals: A multicenter cohort study to identify patient characteristics and healthcare personnel interactions associated with transmission of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus . Clin Infect Dis 2019;69:S171–S177.10.1093/cid/ciz621CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Adediran, TY, Robinson, GL, Johnson, JK, et al. Factors associated with patient-to-healthcare personnel (HCP) and HCP-to-subsequent patient transmission of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus . Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2024;45:583–589.10.1017/ice.2023.269CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rizan, C, Reed, M, Bhutta, MF. Environmental impact of personal protective equipment distributed for use by health and social care services in England in the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic. J R Soc Med 2021;114:250–263.10.1177/01410768211001583CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, B, Hyman, S, Rosenberg, L, Larson, E. Frequency of patient contact with health care personnel and visitors: Implications for infection prevention. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2012;38:560–5.Google ScholarPubMed
Vozzola, E, Overcash, M, Griffing, E. Environmental considerations in the selection of isolation gowns: A life cycle assessment of reusable and disposable alternatives. Am J Infect Control 2018;46:881–886.10.1016/j.ajic.2018.02.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Milner et al. supplementary material

Milner et al. supplementary material
Download Milner et al. supplementary material(File)
File 42.3 KB