- Email: [email protected]
Strike-Through, Gown Safety
OCTOBER 1992, VOL 56. NO 4
AORN JOLIRNAL
Letters to the Editor
Kudos to Candlelighters
T
his is i n response t o the July 1992 “President’s Message” titled “Getting students into the OR is only half the battle.” As a recent graduate. I feel that I must respond to this article that hit close to home. I had a clinical rotation in the operating room as a student, and I began my career there. I have been trained by both “candlelighters” and “cupfillers,” and I agree there are considerable differences. It was the candlelighters who inspired me and fostered my growth. They shared their vast experiences with me and contributed to my continuing knowledge. It is the candlelighters I will remember and base my practice upon, so that 1, too, can become a candlelighter and light someone else’s candle. KIMBERLY S. CARTER, RN, BSN STAFF NURSE/OR BAYSHORE COMMUNITY HOSPITAL HOLMDEL, NJ
Strike-Through, Gown Safety
A
n article in the May 1992 issue of Surgery, Gynecology & Obstetrics titled “In-use evaluation of surgical gowns” is written by the same authors and reports the results of the same study as “Reducing blood contamination and injury in the OR: A study of the effectiveness of protective garments and OR procedures,” which appears in the January 1992 issue of the AORN Journal. Whereas one article suggests using an “impervious” gown in some situations, the other
article states that even gowns reinforced with a second layer of material that is coated with polyethylene film allow strike-through. Thus, none of the gowns tested truly are impervious. The study demonstrates only that the materials possess different levels of liquid resistance. Unfortunately, there is no standard test used by all gown manufacturers. For that reason, there is no common denominator by which users can assess manufacturers’ claims of gown safety and impenetrability. It would seem prudent for industry to adopt one of the simple, inexpensive tests, which OR nurses could replicate, to evaluate the protection, comfort, and cost of available products. It is noteworthy that neither article mentions that strike-through on the arms may be attributable to liquids penetrating sleeve seams rather than the material itself. I commend AORN for its recommended practice that states that garment seams should be constructed to prevent penetration of liquids, as this is a penetration site not mentioned in the articles. NATHAN L. BELKIN, PHD CLEARWATER. FLA Authors’ response. Dr Belkin is correct that none of the gowns tested in our study were completely free of strike-through; therefore, none of the gowns were truly impervious. Our intent was to suggest that truly impervious gowns are necessary for some procedures and that the development of truly impervious gowns should be a priority. Although the articles do not mention liquids 621
AORN JOLIRNAL
Letters to the Editor
Kudos to Candlelighters
T
his is i n response t o the July 1992 “President’s Message” titled “Getting students into the OR is only half the battle.” As a recent graduate. I feel that I must respond to this article that hit close to home. I had a clinical rotation in the operating room as a student, and I began my career there. I have been trained by both “candlelighters” and “cupfillers,” and I agree there are considerable differences. It was the candlelighters who inspired me and fostered my growth. They shared their vast experiences with me and contributed to my continuing knowledge. It is the candlelighters I will remember and base my practice upon, so that 1, too, can become a candlelighter and light someone else’s candle. KIMBERLY S. CARTER, RN, BSN STAFF NURSE/OR BAYSHORE COMMUNITY HOSPITAL HOLMDEL, NJ
Strike-Through, Gown Safety
A
n article in the May 1992 issue of Surgery, Gynecology & Obstetrics titled “In-use evaluation of surgical gowns” is written by the same authors and reports the results of the same study as “Reducing blood contamination and injury in the OR: A study of the effectiveness of protective garments and OR procedures,” which appears in the January 1992 issue of the AORN Journal. Whereas one article suggests using an “impervious” gown in some situations, the other
article states that even gowns reinforced with a second layer of material that is coated with polyethylene film allow strike-through. Thus, none of the gowns tested truly are impervious. The study demonstrates only that the materials possess different levels of liquid resistance. Unfortunately, there is no standard test used by all gown manufacturers. For that reason, there is no common denominator by which users can assess manufacturers’ claims of gown safety and impenetrability. It would seem prudent for industry to adopt one of the simple, inexpensive tests, which OR nurses could replicate, to evaluate the protection, comfort, and cost of available products. It is noteworthy that neither article mentions that strike-through on the arms may be attributable to liquids penetrating sleeve seams rather than the material itself. I commend AORN for its recommended practice that states that garment seams should be constructed to prevent penetration of liquids, as this is a penetration site not mentioned in the articles. NATHAN L. BELKIN, PHD CLEARWATER. FLA Authors’ response. Dr Belkin is correct that none of the gowns tested in our study were completely free of strike-through; therefore, none of the gowns were truly impervious. Our intent was to suggest that truly impervious gowns are necessary for some procedures and that the development of truly impervious gowns should be a priority. Although the articles do not mention liquids 621