Lindsay D. Croft, Anthony D. Harris, Lisa Pineles, Patricia Langenberg, Michelle Shardell, Jeffrey C. Fink, Linda Simoni-Wastila, Daniel J. Morgan, for the Benefits of Universal Glove and Gown Primary Investigators, Syed K. Shahryar, Connie S. Price, Joseph J. Gadbaw, Marci Drees, Daniel H. Kett, L. Silvia Muñoz-Price, Jesse T. Jacob, Loreen A. Herwaldt, Carol A. Sulis, Deborah S. Yokoe, Lisa Maragakis, Matthew E. Lissauer, David K. Warren, Robin L. Carver, Deverick J. Anderson, David P. Calfee, Jason E. Bowling, Nasia Safdar

 No randomized trials have examined the effect of Contact Precautions or universal glove and gown use on adverse events. We assessed if gloves and gowns for all patient contact in the intensive care unit (ICU) changes adverse event rates.  From January 2012 to October 2012, intervention ICUs of the 20-site Benefits of Universal Gloving and Gowning cluster randomized trial required healthcare workers use gloves and gowns for all patient contact. We randomly sampled 1800 medical records of adult patients not colonized with antibiotic-resistant bacteria and reviewed for adverse events using the Institute for Healthcare Improvement Global Trigger Tool.  447 patients (24.8%) had ≥1 ICU adverse event. Adverse events were not associated with universal glove and gown use (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.81; 95% CI, 0.48-1.36). This did not change with adjustment for ICU type, severity of illness, academic hospital status, and ICU size, adverse event rates, IRR 0.91 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59-1.42; p=0.68). Rates of infectious adverse events also did not differ after adjusting for the same factors, IRR 0.75 (95% CI, 0.47-1.21; p=0.24).  In ICUs where healthcare workers donned gloves and gowns for all patient contact, patients were no more likely to experience adverse events than in control ICUs. Concerns of adverse events resulting from universal glove and gown use were not supported. Similar considerations may be appropriate regarding use of Contact Precautions.