Cover story - advertising feature
glove selection or the use of poor-quality gloves not only increases infection risks but also leads to overuse and waste, as shown in Fig.1.
European Gloves: Safer, Cleaner, Greener ARKA Medical has developed a range of Nitrile Single Use Examination Gloves, in collaboration with leading infection prevention and control (IPC) experts across Europe, ensuring they meet the latest international guidelines, orientations from WHO, NHS, ECDC and Healthcare professionals’ consensus on best practices, namely covering the key fundamental parameters in the selection of gloves, as described in the Consensus-Based Guidelines for Best Practices in the Selection and Use of Examination Gloves in Healthcare Settings. Made in Europe,
R.Advance and
R.Green prioritise safety and waste reduction, supporting Healthcare Systems in HCAIs risk mitigation and sustainability goals. Ultimately, gloves have the potential to enhance patient and healthcare provider safety in health and care settings. To realise this potential, it is imperative not only to adhere strictly to best practices in glove utilisation but also to prioritise the procurement of gloves of the suitable quality for the task at hand. Supporting healthcare providers to make good choices about the use of gloves and other PPE will help to reduce glove use overall and reduce the risk of cross transmission. This requires careful consideration of selecting the right gloves for the right application. The trend should be towards using less gloves overall, with higher quality gloves in terms of AQL, tensile strength, sanitisable packaging and single glove extraction by the cuff. To view a recording of the educational webinar on the consensus guidelines, featuring experts Dr. Paulo Alves, a researcher at Universidade Católica Portuguesa in wound care and patient safety, and Dr. David Peres, President of the Portuguese National Infection Control Association (ANCI), an association member of IPS, visit:
https://tinyurl.com/yc3brzvs
Parameters AQL value <1.5, according to EN 455-1.
Tensile strength >6 Newton, according to EN 455-2.
Glove cuffs oriented towards opening, according to the WHO Glove Use
Information Leaflet. Sanitisable packaging, since, being a
frequently touched surface, it must be cleaned, according to the recommendations of the CDC and Health Infection Control
Practices Advisory Comitee (HICPAC). Glove that can be removed one by one,
according to the WHO’s Glove Use Information Leaflet.
Justification
The lower the AQL value, the greater the barrier effect of the glove.
The higher the tensile strength value, the greater the strength of the glove.
Compliance with the WHO recommendation.
Sanitisation with the appropriate cleaning agents is essential for infection prevention and control in a healthcare environment.
Minimising the manipulation of the gloves allows you to minimise the possibility of cross-contamination.
Table 1. Fundamental parameters in the selection of gloves Parameters Recyclable and/or recycled packaging European production
Packaging is watertight until opening in a clinical setting
Gloves Inspection Justification
Decreases the impact of the ecological footprint caused by medical waste.
Decreases the ecological footprint due to transportation. Strong component in social responsability.
The watertight packaging protects the
gloves from external contamination between the time of production and use.
Decreases the number of defective gloves and decreases the amount of waste produced - One Health approach. It saves times for healthcare professionals.
Particulate-free packaging Production in a controlled environment Table 2. Parameters that promote glove quality
ISO-14644-5-2004 standard: control the number of particles present in the environment in the clean rooms.
Minimises contamination of gloves in the production phase.
Karine Jones
karine.jones@
arkamedical.eu +44 (0)7843 286 062 Gavin Cassidy
gavin.cassidy@
arkamedical.eu +44 (0)7393 494 490
The current standard solutions commonly available to Healthcare professionals vs
R.Advance and
R.Green
April 2025 I
www.clinicalservicesjournal.com 7
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100
