Practice and attitudes regarding double gloving among staff surgeons and surgical trainees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3>Background:</h3> Despite supporting evidence, many staff surgeons and surgical trainees do not routinely double glove. We performed a study to assess rates of and attitudes toward double gloving and the use of eye protection in the operating room. <h3>Methods:</h3> We conducted an electronic survey among all staff surgeons and surgical trainees at 2 tertiary care centres in Alberta between September and November 2015. We analyzed the data using log-binomial regression for binary outcomes to account for multiple independent variables and interactions. For 2-group comparisons, we used a 2-group test of proportions. <h3>Results:</h3> The response rate was 34.3% (361/1051); 205/698 staff surgeons (29.4%) and 156/353 surgical trainees (44.2%) responded. Trainees were more likely than staff surgeons to ever double glove in the operating room (<i>p</i> = 0.01) and to do so routinely (<i>p</i> = 0.01). Staff surgeons were more likely than trainees to never double glove (<i>p</i> = 0.01). A total of 300/353 respondents (85.0%) reported using eye protection routinely in the operating room. Needle-stick injury was common (184 staff surgeons [92.5%], 115 trainees [74.7%]). Reduced tactile feedback, decreased manual dexterity and discomfort/poor fit were perceived barriers to double gloving. <h3>Conclusion:</h3> Rates of double gloving leave room for improvement. Surgical trainees were more likely than staff surgeons to double glove. Barriers remain to routine double gloving among staff surgeons and trainees. Increased education on the benefits of double gloving and early introduction of this practice may increase uptake.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".