• Nimrod Ophir, Nadav Milk, Talia Mayer, Shaul Ravfogel, Nirit Yavnai, Arik Eisenkraft, Tamar Kadar, Michael Kassirer, and Yossi Rosman.
• Israel Defense Forces Medical Corps, Ramat Gan, Israel.
• Am J Emerg Med. 2016 Oct 1; 34 (10): 1986-1990.

AbstractWe aimed to evaluate the performance of medical personnel in using the IB1 topical protective lotion on their hands and wrists together with standard disposable medical gloves, compared to standard-issued medical chemical protective gloves. This randomized cross-over study included 144 medical personnel. Primary endpoints were time-to-completion of autoinjection; success rate, number of attempts, and time-to-achieve successful endotracheal intubation; time-to-achieve satisfactory tube fixation; time-to-draw and inject the content of an ampoule; and the total time-to-perform all medical procedures. Secondary endpoints included the subjective assessment of convenience to perform these four procedures with each protective measure. Mean time was significantly shorter using IB1 compared to chemical protective gloves for tube fixation, ampoule drawing, and the total time-to-perform all procedures (58.6±22.7 seconds vs. 71.7±29.7; 31.5±21.8 vs. 38.2±19.4; 137.4±56.1 vs. 162.5±63.6, respectively; P<.001 for all). For all medical procedures, the use of IB1 was reported as significantly more convenient than the use of chemical protective gloves (P<.001 for all comparisons). IB1 with standard medical gloves significantly shorten the time-to-perform medical procedures requiring fine motor dexterities and is subjectively more convenient than chemical protective gloves. IB1 should be considered as an appropriate alternative for medical teams in a chemical event.Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

25 keywords...

hide…