The UK's leading infection societies, the British Infection Association, Healthcare Infection Society and Infection Prevention Society, have jointly issued a national position statement on glove use in health and social care. Published in Clinical Infection in Practice in July 2026, the statement sets out where gloves are genuinely needed, where they are not, and why overuse can undermine rather than protect patient safety.

For IV Cannulation, venepuncture and vascular access practice, the message is not "gloves off." It is "gloves where a proper risk assessment says they are needed," with hand hygiene doing the protective work the rest of the time.

What the position statement actually says

Appropriate glove use protects the wearer from contact with blood and other body fluids. However, the statement is clear that non-sterile gloves are less effective than proper hand hygiene at preventing transmission of infection to patients, and that inappropriate glove use can divert staff from timely hand hygiene, increasing rather than reducing cross-infection risk. Overuse also carries a real environmental and financial cost: the NHS uses an estimated 1.5 billion gloves a year, and the statement calculates that even a 10% reduction in unnecessary glove use could prevent around 3,900 tonnes of CO2 equivalent emissions annually.

The core principle is a task-specific risk assessment, considering the exposure risk of the activity, the clinical status of the patient, situational factors, and the susceptibility of the staff member.

What this means for venepuncture and peripheral IV cannulation

This is the area practitioners will want to read most carefully. The statement places taking blood and, by extension, peripheral IV cannulation in a "gloves may be required" category, gated by an individual risk assessment of factors such as needlestick risk (patient agitation, operator competence) and bloodborne virus transmission risk (for example, broken skin). Critically, the statement is explicit that if a risk assessment is not possible, gloves should be used.

This is not a licence to cannulate or take blood without gloves as standard practice. It is a reminder that the decision should be a considered one, not an unconsidered habit in either direction. VeinTrain's Structured Learning Programme continues to teach glove use for insertion procedures, with the risk-assessment principle now given a clear, citable national backing.

Where the statement does not apply

Two distinctions matter and should not be blurred:

• Sterile technique and ANTT are untouched. This statement addresses non-sterile glove overuse in general clinical contact. It does not reduce or reinterpret sterile glove requirements for procedures governed by Aseptic Non Touch Technique.
• Exposure to blood or body fluids remains an unambiguous "gloves on" situation, as does handling hazardous drugs or chemicals under COSHH.

Gloves are also confirmed as not routinely required for tasks such as taking a history, examining a patient without expected fluid exposure, giving vaccinations, feeding a patient, entering a person's home, preparing or administering medication, or comforting a patient.

Why this matters beyond infection control

The evidence behind the statement also draws on occupational health: glove overuse is a recognised contributor to occupational dermatitis, particularly with prolonged or unnecessary wear. Case studies cited in the statement, including a 45.2% reduction in non-sterile glove use at University Hospitals Sussex's Sexual Health and HIV department, show that appropriate glove use can improve safety, reduce waste, and in some settings reduce stigma for patients, without compromising infection prevention.

VeinTrain's position

We welcome this statement as a clear, evidence-based national reference point. It supports what we already teach: glove use for blood-taking and IV Cannulation should follow a task-specific risk assessment, never a blanket rule, and always defaulting to gloves on where that assessment cannot be carried out. Hand hygiene, ANTT, occupational safety requirements and local employer policy remain non-negotiable throughout.

See also: Difficult IV Access: VAD Selection and Escalation and New Cochrane Evidence: What It Means for IV Cannula Removal Practice.

Source: Infection Societies Sustainability Forum, Walpole S, Pike G, Hunt L. UK infection societies' position statement on glove use in health and social care. Clinical Infection in Practice. 2026;31:100708. Read the full position statement (open access, CC BY-NC-ND).

A VeinTrain certificate evidences training and learning activity. Final clinical competency sign-off for glove use and infection prevention practice remains with your employer, supervisor or clinical organisation, in line with local policy.