Background Regarding the possibility of double certification of medical gloves (MG) as a medical device (MD) and as an individual protection device (IPD) in this country, and the need for cost containment, optimising hospital usage of MG is fundamental for appropriate consumption.

Purpose The aim was to prepare scheme for all hospital units on the correct usage indications of MG, based on internal hospital guidelines, prevention–protection service procedures, and indications from provider companies compared with revision of the literature evidence.

Material and methods The scheme divided MG based on material type (MT) and usage indication (UI). Each MT (6 typologies: nitrile, vinyl-elasticised, latex, synthetic, kevlar, polyethylene), corresponded to 2 types of operation (on the patient and/or on ambient), sterile/non-sterile type and disposable/non-disposable type. For each type of operation, the UI, warnings and commercial name of the MG used were specified. All MG were powder free.

Results For 2 typologies, patient operations were divided into 2 subcategories:

1. Nitrile non-sterile in assisted diagnostic procedures and chemotherapy administration.

2. Latex sterile in invasive surgical operations (single MG) and invasive surgical operations in potentially infected patients (double MG).

For 1 typology (vinyl-elasticised), both the patient and ambient operations resulted in the same MG being used.

For 2 typologies, only the patient operations were specified:

1. Synthetic sterile, only in the case of latex hypersensitivity for surgical operations (it resulted in costs 3–10 times higher than latex)

2. Polyethylene sterile, in non-surgical operations (possibility to use over the nitrile non-sterile).

For 1 typology (kevlar), only the ambient operation as under-glove cut-resistant was described.

Usage of the nitrile was recommended only in the situation of high manipulative stress, while the vinyl use could be increased for: patient operations without the risk of biological contamination and reorganisation and cleaning of materials (moderate manipulative stress). Vinyl resulted in costs 3 times lower than nitrile and was less likely to develop contact allergy.

Conclusion With the same safety level, adequate biocompatibility and appropriate performance, the MG with the lower cost is preferred and its usage is required only in cases of patient and hospital personnel protection.

No conflict of interest