Is there a risk of HIV or HCV infection if the nurse was not wearing gloves?

Rather not. For infection with these viruses, approximately 0.1 ml of infected blood is necessary - this is an amount noticeable to the naked eye. The interruption of the continuity of the skin with the possible outflow of blood occurred in the lady, not in the nurse, so the gloves would protect the recipient from potential infection. This does not mean that the nurse did the right thing or that it is acceptable. On the hands there may be other microbes belonging to both normal bacterial flora and pathogenic microorganisms. Sometimes the operator, for example, gropes the puncture site in order to feel the vein. He should do this in gloves so as not to transfer them to the patient's skin. Although only the sterile part of the syringe (needle) comes into contact with the patient's body, there is a potentially dangerous moment of skin piercing when bacteria from the skin can stay on the needle and enter the vein. The skin before the puncture should be disinfected, which reduces such a risk, but it is best to simply prevent - by putting on gloves - that any additional, undesirable microorganisms are on it. Wearing disposable gloves for a medical procedure such as blood collection is now a standard, as is the disposability of equipment and auxiliary materials used during this activity. Gloves should be changed when starting work with each patient, as well as in case of damage or contamination. In conclusion - when taking blood using disposable and sterile equipment - the probability of transmitting an infectious disease to the patient is small, however, it should be done in disposable gloves. I enclose additional information about the listed diseases that may be of interest to you: https://www.gdziepolek.pl/kategorie/leki-na-hiv https://www.gdziepolek.pl/artykuly/co-warto-wiedziec-o-hiv-i-aids https://www.gdziepolek.pl/artykuly/zoltaczka-i-wirusowe-zapalenie-watroby-wzw