A mixed-methods study on end-user perceptions of transitioning to reusable surgical gowns

Perioperative services contribute up to 70% of the US hospitals' solid waste generation. While surgical textiles are more environmentally friendly than their disposable counterparts, many US institutions have converted to disposable surgical wear in the last few decades. End-users' perception surrounding reusable textiles is currently unknown.

Perioperative staff at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) were surveyed to assess perceptions of reusable surgical gowns to guide potential implementation. The instrument included eight close-ended questions drawn from prior studies and a free-response section. The survey was piloted before dissemination. Descriptive statistics and qualitative inductive theme analysis were applied.

205 participants or 19.8% of the workforce responded. 77.6% perceived reusable surgical gowns as better for the environment, while 34.1% were unsure or believed that switching to reusable surgical gowns would increase surgical site infections. If given an option, 39.8% preferred reusable gowns, 30.7% preferred disposable gowns, and 25.4% had no preference. Qualitatively, four themes were identified concerning reusable gowns' 1) functionality and safety, 2) user comfort, 3) environmental concern, and 4) cost, which hindered end-user buy-in. Laundering water utilization in a drought-prone area was of particular concern.

While most perioperative staff in a US tertiary hospital believed reusable surgical gowns were environmentally friendly, ambivalence towards transitioning to reusable gowns stemmed from uncertainty in reusable textiles' environmental benefits, safety profile, and cost savings. These perceptions may prevent successful implementation of reusable surgical gowns and suggest a need for staff education and context-specific environmental impact analyses.

End-user perceptions on transitioning to reusable surgical gowns are mixed and revolve around uncertainty in their environmental benefits, cost, and functionality, which may hinder their successful implementation.