Surgical |

Infections in the operating room

See how protecting yourself, your patients and staff from hospital-acquired infections, also known as healthcare-associated infections, can save on costs and avoid unnecessary additional care when complications occur.

Operating room staff

Healthcare providers are under constant pressure to reduce costs and increase efficiency to improve standards of care while also preventing cross-contamination. Maintaining both HCP and patient safety depends on following aseptic procedures in the operating room, and even then, infections in the operating room still happen.

Healthcare-associated infection (HAI) is a major health and economic issue, and surgical site infection (SSI) is a major contributor. The rate of SSI is influenced by a number of different factors. Microorganisms, such as bacteria, viruses and fungi can potentially contaminate the OR environment through HCPs and staff clothing or surgical equipment or instruments. OR staff behaviour is also an influence; breaks in sterile technique, such as improper hand hygiene, failure to maintain a sterile field, or a glove breach, can increase the risk that pathogens be introduced into the surgical site.

Despite protocols, infections remain a major concern in the surgical environment. SSIs can lead to a requirement for more care, meaning prolonged hospital stays, staff time, additional medication, devices, energy use and possibly further surgical interventions, which all increase healthcare costs and mortality while also being less sustainable.

Infection incidence

It is estimated that one out of every 20 patients undergoing surgery will develop a surgical site infection (SSI)1 and staff exposure rate to patient’s blood during surgery is as high as 10.4 per 100 procedures2. It’s important to ensure patient safety in the operating room (OR) and to protect healthcare professionals from infection from bloodborne illnesses.

In Europe, surgical site infections affect half a million people every year and represent an additional cost of 19 billion euros3.

Infection exposure

Healthcare professionals are frequently exposed to pathogens. Needlestick injuries, of which there are an estimated one million in Europe each year4, put them at risk of contracting bloodborne illnesses, including hepatitis B, hepatitis C and HIV from patients’ blood.

The burden of surgical site infections

Surgical site infections are costly to treat; they also cause pain and trauma to patients. An SSI could, for example, mean that a patient goes on to develop a deep tissue infection, which results in the patient having to remain hospitalised for a longer period of time, requiring more staff time, medication, devices, energy use and potentially further surgical interventions, and all of these have an environmental impact and could all have been prevented.

SSIs are caused by bacteria that get in through incisions made during surgery. The microorganisms enter by one of the following:

  • From the skin of patients
  • From the surgeons and other operating room personnel
  • From the air
  • From contaminated surfaces or instruments used during surgery5 

Preventing SSI isn’t easy. For example, it’s estimated that about one-third of the population naturally carries the bacteria, Staphylococcus aureus, on the skin and in the nostrils6. Some strains of this bacteria (e.g. methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, MRSA) are multidrug-resistant organisms. Both staphylococci and enterococci bacteria can survive for days to months after drying on commonly used hospital fabrics and plastics7.

The air is also a source of potential contamination. Humans shed thousands of skin scales every minute8, each potentially carrying bacteria (80% of bacteria come from the air9).

Gloving to prevent infection

Preventing infection and cross-contamination in the OR involves considering the air, patients, staff, equipment and surfaces. We collaborate with healthcare professionals to find the most efficient ways to prevent infection and cross-contamination.

 

Surgical gloves


Single gloving:

Surgical gloves help reduce the risk of infection for both healthcare professionals and patients10, 11 – and are one of many factors that work together to prevent contamination in the OR10. But if a glove is punctured by a needle, the protection is lost and the hole may not be visible. There is an increased risk of SSI when gloves are punctured11.

Glove powder may be used to make it easier to put on and take off surgical gloves. But it can trigger reduced resistance to infection, bacterial environmental contamination, foreign body reaction, delayed wound healing, adhesion formation and granuloma formation12, 13. All of these potential consequences can increase the risk of SSI14 .

Double gloving with puncture indication:

Double gloving with a puncture indication system – wearing both overgloves and undergloves – enables the healthcare professional to see a glove puncture as soon as it occurs. This means they can quickly change gloves and continue the procedure without compromising protection from cross-infection15, 16.

In a study of gloves used in surgical procedures, the rate of detection of perforations during surgery was 90.2% with the indicator gloves sub-group, compared to 23% and 36.0% with the combination (two regular) gloves and single gloves sub-groups, respectively15.

The practice of double gloving is proven to reduce the risk of needlestick and other sharps injuries and exposure to bloodborne infections. A 2014 Cochrane Review concludes that double gloving reduces the risk of an inner glove perforation by 71%, compared to single gloving16.

Leading authorities now recommend double gloving for invasive surgeries:

  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)17 
  • National Association of Theatre Nurses (NATN)18 
  • Association of periOperative Registered Nurses (AORN)19
  • American College of Surgeons (ACS)20 
  • Royal College of Surgeons of England18
  • Australian College of Operating Room Nurses18

Preventing infection with staff clothing

Staff clothing plays a key role in infection prevention – through protecting patients and OR staff from contamination and supporting clean air in the OR.

 

Multi-patient (reusable) scrub suits

Traditional, textile scrub suits are washed between surgeries and reused. However, the use of multi-patient (reusable) textiles raises concerns about the effective cleanliness of the laundered clothing and potential risks from lint production, human health and safety concerns, and environmental impact.

Cleanliness of multi-patient scrub suits

Stains, wear and tear, and invisible dangers like bacteria can compromise protection and quality of performance.  

Firstly, can effective laundry facilities be guaranteed, whether the facility is in-house or delivered by a third party? Often, laundry facilities harbour pathogens even in clean environments, leading to recontamination after disinfection. In one study, an epidemiologist determined that the laundry was a potential unrecognised vector of hospital-acquired infections21.

The difficulty of effectively removing recalcitrant bacteria, such as clostridium was demonstrated in a large academic university hospital in the United States. It was determined that high levels of CDIFF existed both in their dirty and clean areas of the laundry as well as on delivery truck handles transporting processed textiles back to the facility22.

Increased risk of airborne particles due to laundry comes from lint production. Airborne particles increase the risk of SSI, and lint contamination of surgical wounds contributes to other complications, such as thrombogenesis (blood clots), infections, amplified inflammation, poor wound healing, granulomas, adhesions and capsule formation.

Health and human safety of multi-patient scrub suits

Occupational health is a critical component of sustainability, and by extension, a key part of ensuring occupational health and human safety is reducing the risk of exposure to contaminated material for all staff. With multi-patient (reusable) textiles, laundering reusables poses occupational health and safety risks23, for wearers, patients and laundry staff alike. Hospital laundry workers, for example, handle reusables repeatedly and are at risk of exposure to contaminated material and infection in hospital laundry facilities.                 

Environmental impact of multi-patient (reusable) scrub suits

Multi-patient (reusable) scrub suits also have a clear environmental impact. The environmental footprint of laundering reusables includes water consumption24, AMR pathogens entering wastewater25, and biocides and detergents entering wastewater. In addition, laundry facilities require a great deal of hot water, which consumes a lot of energy. In fact, the laundry consumes approximately 50-75% of the total hot water generated in a hospital26. Finally, laundry transport and delivery functions also contribute to CO2 emissions.

Single-patient (single-use) scrub suits

Single-patient (single-use) scrub suits contribute to hospital infection control measures.  Polypropylene scrub suits in particular are associated with significantly lower air and wound bacterial contamination than conventional cotton shirts and trousers27.

Wearing single-patient scrub suits ensures that the wearer has a new, quality-controlled product every time. There is no risk of damage or contamination from previous use.

Clean air suits

Ultra clean air in the OR is achieved by a combination of laminar air flow, the number of door openings, the number of people in the OR and clean air suits. It’s particularly important in orthopaedic, implant and paediatric interventions.

Clean air suits are especially designed to reduce contamination from airborne microorganisms by staff. They have a better protective effect than a multi-patient (reusable) system made of cotton/ polyester, giving high resistance towards bacterial penetration28 even when ordinary ventilation is used in the OR29.

Preventing contamination from the patient’s skin

Surgical drapes and whole body washing can prevent microorganisms from the patient’s skin from contaminating the surgical wound and causing SSIs.

Surgical drape

 

Surgical drapes

Surgical drapes prevent the transfer of microorganisms from the patient’s skin in surgical procedures. Impermeable materials control infection, while effective fluid control allows for a drier working area. The most effective drapes have fewer parts and are easy to use – to reduce the risk of contamination.

Washing the skin

Whole body washing reduces the skin bacterial load and ultimately decreases the risk of SSI. There are a number of ways to clean the skin:

  • Soap and water: the typical standard patient-cleansing procedure. But this simply spreads the organisms, releasing the bacteria over the surface of the skin from the naturally heavily colonized areas30.
  • Povidone iodine: preoperative body washing with povidone iodine provides some protection. But surgery-associated products like blood, bus and fat make it less effective31.
  • Chlorhexidine digluconate solution: in several studies, a chlorhexidine digluconate solution has been found to prevent healthcare-acquired conditions in intensive care settings32. Recent surgical protocols recommend patients shower twice with chlorhexidine digluconate solution before surgery, waiting at least one minute before rinsing it off33. It’s also less likely to cause skin reactions than alternatives34.

Reducing potential infection vectors with surgical procedure trays

In addition to increasing efficiency and convenience, surgical procedure trays like ProcedurePak reduce the potential for introducing additional sources of microorganisms in the OR35. All the components, surgical instruments, and procedure-specific surgical drapes and gowns required to perform a surgery are contained within a single package. The pack forms the basis for not only less preparation time, less opening and set-up time³⁸ but also to reduce the risk of contamination in the OR due to less packages to open³⁹. 

All-in-one and single use

ProcedurePak is designed to include every single-patient component required for a single surgical procedure within a single package, meaning there are fewer packages to open, reduced waste in the OR36, and less risk for contamination37.

The all-in-one convenience of ProcedurePak also allows for a faster OR set-up, which contributes to an overall reduction in procedure duration, which has also been shown to reduce the risk of SSI.

    1. Anderson DJ, et al. Strategies to prevent surgical site infections in acute care hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2014 update [cited14 Sep 2017];35(6):605-627. URL: doi: 10.1086/676022.
    2. Wright JG, et al. Exposure rates to patients' blood for surgical personnel. Surg. 1993;114(5):897-901.
    3. The Socioeconomic Impact of Surgical Site Infections. WHO infographic (2016).
    4. European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EASHW). Directive 2010/32/EU – prevention from sharp injuries in the hospital and healthcare sector. Bilbao, Spain: EASHW; 2010 [cited 14 Sep 2017]. URL: https://osha.europa.eu/en/legislation/directives/council-directive-2010-32-eu-prevention-from-sharp-injuries-in-the-hospital-and-healthcare-sector.
    5. Ducel G, et al. (eds.) Prevention of hospital-acquired infections: a practical guide. 2nd edition. Lyon, France: WHO; 2002 [cited 14 Sep 2017]. URL: http://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/67350.
    6. Public Health England (PHE). MRSA information for patients. London: PHE; 2010. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/mrsa-information-for-patients [accessed 13 May 2017].
    7. Neely AN, et al. Survival of enterococci and staphylococci on hospital fabrics and plastics. J Clin Microbiol. 2000 [cited 14 Sep 2017];38(2):724-726. URL: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC86187/.
    8. Hambraeus A. Aerobiology in the operating room – a review. J Hosp Infect. 1988;11(Supplement A):68-76.
    9. Howorth FH. Prevention of airborne infection during surgery. Lancet. 1985;1(8425):386-388.
    10. World Health Organization (WHO). Glove Use Information Leaflet [cited 14 Sep 2017]. URL: http://www.who.int/gpsc/5may/Glove_Use_Information_Leaflet.pdf.
    11. Junker T, et al. Prevention and control of surgical site infections: review of the Basel Cohort Study. Swiss Med Wkly. 2012 [cited 14 Sep 2017]; 142:w13616. URL: doi: 10.4414/smw.2012.13616.
    12. van den Tol MP, et al. Glove powder promotes adhesion formation and facilitates tumour cell adhesion and growth. Br J Surg. 2001;88(9):1258-1263.
    13. Edlich RF. Deadly powder on medical gloves: a wake-up call to the food and drug administration. Bloomington, Indiana, USA. iUniverse; 2012.
    14. Suding P, et al. Glove powder increases staphylococcus aureus abscess rate in a rat model. Surg Infect. 2010;11(2):133-135.
    15. Laine T, et al. Glove perforation in orthopaedic and trauma surgery. A comparison between single, double indicator gloving and double gloving with two regular gloves. J Bone Joint Surg. British Volume; 2004;86(6):896-900.
    16. Mischke C, et al. Gloves, extra gloves or special types of gloves for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries in healthcare personnel. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 [cited 14 Sep 2017]; (3):CD009573. URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd009573.pub2
    17. Mangram AJ, et al. Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection. Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1999;20(4):250-278.
    18. Tanner J, Parkinson H. Double gloving to reduce surgical cross-infection. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006; Issue 3. Art. No.: CD003087. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003087.pub2/full [accessed 13 May 2017].
    19. Childs T. Use of double gloving to reduce surgical personnel’s risk of exposure to bloodborne pathogens: an integrative review. AORN J. 2013 [cited14 Sep 2017];98(6):585-596 e6. URL: doi: 10.1016/j.aorn.2013.10.004
    20. American College of Surgeons. Revised statement on sharps safety. 2016 [cited 14 Sep 2017]. URL: https://www.facs.org/about-acs/statements/94-sharps-safety.
    21. Michael KE, No D, Roberts MC. vanA-positive multi-drug resistant Enterococcus spp. Isolated from surfaces of a US hospital laundry facility. J Hosp Inf, 2017; 95: 218-223
    22. Michael K, No D, Dankoff J, Lee K, Crawford EL, Roberts MC. Clostridium difficile environmental contamination within a clinical laundry facility in the USA. FEMS Microbiology Letters, 2016; 363, doi: 10.1093/femsle/fnw236)
    23. Michael KE, No D, Daniell WE, Seixas NS, Roberts MC. Assessment of environmental contamination with pathogenic bacteria at a hospital laundry facility. Annals of work exposures and health, 2017; 61(9) 1087-1096
    24. https://www.scirp.org/html/2-2200743_41855.htm
    25. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195670115001425
    26. CDC, Guidelines for Environmental Infection Control in Health-Care Facilities, https://www.cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/guidelines/environmental/background/laundry.html
    27. Blomgren G, et al. Reduction of contamination at total hip replacement by special working clothes. J Bone Joint Surg.1990;72(6):985-987.
    28. Ljungqvist, B., Reinmüller, B. People as a contamination source. Surgical clothing systems for operating rooms – a comparison between disposable non-woven and reusable mixed material. Göteborg: Chalmers University of Technology; 2012.
    29. Tammelin, A., Ljungqvist, B., Reinmüller, B. Single-use surgical clothing system for reduction of airborne bacteria in the operating room. Journal of Hospital Infection 2013; 84(3):245-247.
    30. Hayek LJ, et al. A placebo-controlled trial of the effect of two preoperative baths or showers with chlorhexidine detergent on postoperative wound infection rates. J Hosp Infect. 1987;10(2):165-172.
    31. Zamora JL, et al. Inhibition of povidone-iodine's bactericidal activity by common organic substances: an experimental study. Surg. 1985;98(1):25-29.
    32. Huang HP, et al. The efficacy of daily chlorhexidine bathing for preventing healthcare-associated infections in adult intensive care units. Korean J Intern Med. 2016;31(6):1159-1170.
    33. Edmiston CE, et al. Evidence for a standardized preadmission showering regimen to achieve maximal antiseptic skin surface concentrations of chlorhexidine gluconate, 4%, in surgical patients. JAMA Surg. 2015;150(11):1027-1033.
    34. Sadakane K, et al. Effect of the hand antiseptic agents benzalkonium chloride, povidone-iodine, ethanol and chlorhexidine gluconate on atopic dermatitis in NC/Nga mice. Int J Med Sci. 2015 [cited 14 Sep 2017];12(2):116-125. URL: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4293176/.
    35. Calò , F. Catena, D. Corsaro, L. Costantini, F. Falez, B. Moretti, V. Parrinello, E. Romanini, A. Spinarelli, G. Vaccaro, F. Venneri, Optimisation of perioperative procedural factors to reduce the risk of surgical site infection in patients undergoing surgery: a systematic review. Discov Health Systems 2, 6 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44250-023-00019-9
    36. “Assessing the carbon and waste benefits of moving to Procedure Packs at Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals, NHS Trust”, 2011
    37. Aseptic technique and packaging: A study of potential contamination pathways during the use of sterile packaging in an operating room context, 2016

    38. Greiling. A multinational case study to evaluate and quantify time-saving by using custom procedure trays for operation room efficiency. (poster from 2010

    39. Aseptic technique and packaging: A study of potential contamination pathways during the use of sterile packaging in an operating room context, 2016