Quality improvement study reveals initial reductions in glove procurement without sustained practice changes among hospital staff, indicating the need for targeted behavioral interventions.
Background Inappropriate glove use can undermine hand hygiene, increase cross-transmission risk, and contribute to healthcare waste. Objectives To evaluate a trust-wide quality improvement campaign aimed at reducing unnecessary non-sterile glove use and improving appropriateness of glove use. Methods A multimodal intervention was implemented across an acute NHS Trust (February 2023–April 2026), including education, policy refinement, visual prompts, and audit feedback. Evaluation used a triangulated design: staff survey, statistical process control (SPC) analysis, and procurement/environmental trend data. The Capability, Opportunity, Motivation and Behaviour (COM-B) model informed interpretation. Descriptive statistics and SPC methods were applied. Results A total of 123 staff responded. Mean knowledge score was 89%, with 76% scoring ≥80%; 72% reported receiving education and 75% exposure to campaign materials. Confidence was high (95.1%), but fewer (65.9%) felt comfortable challenging inappropriate practice. SPC analysis showed common-cause variation with no sustained improvement in glove use audit data. Procurement data suggested an initial reduction followed by plateau: glove use decreased from 57.24 to 49.52 per occupied bed day (difference 7.71). Waste and carbon metrics showed similar proportional reductions (∼13.5%). Due to mixed reporting periods, findings are interpreted as trend data. Discussion The campaign achieved high knowledge and early system-level reductions but did not produce sustained behavioural change. Significance and impact Findings suggest a ceiling effect, with residual behaviour driven by social and contextual factors. Future efforts should prioritise targeted, behaviour-focused interventions over repeated trust-wide awareness campaigns.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Owhotake et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: