Thinking out of the box .

Subject: Thinking out of the box

Leaving aside the government debacle regarding ordering and supplying PPE (Personal Protection Equipment ) to front line medical staff in our hospitals who are fighting the Corona virus we have to ask, why do we seem to get through so many thousands of masks and gowns in each hospital totalling a billion pieces of kit when taking the NHS as a whole. Why is there a need to dispose of each item at the end of a shift or even at the end of each individual patient  procedure. The obvious answer is the basic medical mantra that everything must be completely sterilised.
Each piece of equipment is designed to give the nurse/doctor protection from the virus spreading from the infected patient onto exposed parts of the body of the doctor/nurse, the hands and face being the areas most at risk. The gowns and gloves along with face masks and the protective visor are made of materials which one would think, in a crisis can be treated and reused at the end of a shift. The gowns have a coating which prevents the abortion of fluids and it been found that this protective coating can last at least three cleans before the protection is nullified. We are told soap and water is the method we must use to keep our skin virus free, why can't a stronger more targeted detergent be used to treat the gowns in some sort of spray chamber through which the garments can pass and, if the crucial fluid protection needs replacing why can't the fluid repellent be sprayed onto the gown prior to its reuse.
It's been my experience that the mind set within the medical profession is pretty hidebound and new ways of working routinely questioned and summarily  thrown out. Sterilisation and reuse of equipment used in the operating theatre follows very strict criteria and the protocol used is set in stone. In a previous life I used to try to convince the medical staff in Prisons to use a sterilised kit which contained most of the things a surgeon would need, a kit which had been sterilised using radiation  to kill the bacteria. The items in the kit which were not used were thrown away. This built in redundancy and the need to start each new procedure with pristine, out of the box equipment was thought to be critical in the prevention of further infection.
Now it seems an obvious no brainier that to keep the tools of the trade, needle's, forceps, scalpels, clamps etc etc as sterile as possible is vital, but does the clothing which is designed to provide a barrier between doctor and patient need the same level of sterility.  In the case of a virus infection this protection of the doctor/nurse is paramount but can this protection be accomplished by thinking out of the box and not be so slavish to protocol in a crisis, especially since the medical staff are seemingly on the verge of not treating patients until the supplies of PPE are made adequate.
If the gear they use can be made reusable whilst perhaps not the advised procedure, will at least prevent a total failure of the critical care the patients so desperately need and only then we can turn our spotlight on the incompetence of our government in the purchase and provision of the gear in the first place.