A CASE FOR GOING BACK TO THE BASICS IN INFECTION CONTROL

In the midst of the Sars outbreak, there is great concern that our health-care workers are well protected. Thus the present drive to make sure that we are adequately provided with protective apparel.

In a sense, I am extremely touched by the concern and sympathy for us frontline staff working in the hospitals. However, it is critically important that the right equipment is provided for the task. The OSHA (Occupation Safety and Health Administration) manual in the United States, states clearly that in the selection of protective clothing, 'Overprotection as well as underprotection can be hazardous and should be avoided'.

It should be appreciated that protective gowns are not new in the hospital setting. Similarly, the concern for infection control dates back even before the days of Florence Nightingale. Through years of experience and refinement, we have developed gowns that are well suited for hospital work and are based on solid principles of infection control.

The front is always considered the dirty area and that is why gowns for use in the hospital tie up at the back. If they are removed in the correct way, you can simply flip off the entire gown without touching the dirty area in front.

Protective gowns in the hospital, like surgical gowns, are often loose enough to allow the ease of movement needed in medical procedures. Then it must not be stuffy, for sweating is a definite infection risk.

I have concerns regarding the Barrierman coverall. It is without question a well-manufactured garment.

However, it is an outfit well suited for general fieldwork. Thus the Barrierman is comparatively tight-fitting and includes a pair of trousers. It is apparent that this will enhance the mobility of the user, but such mobility is really not needed in a hospital ward.