Dataset Information

Incorporating health workers' perspectives into a WHO guideline on personal protective equipment developed during an Ebola virus disease outbreak.

ABSTRACT: Background: Ebola virus disease (EVD) health facility transmission can result in infection and death of health workers. The World Health Organization (WHO) supports countries in preparing for and responding to public health emergencies, which often require developing new guidance in short timelines with scarce evidence. The objective of this study was to understand frontline physicians' and nurses' perspectives about personal protective equipment (PPE) use during the 2014-2016 EVD outbreak in West Africa and to incorporate these findings into the development process of a WHO rapid advice guideline. Methods : We surveyed frontline physicians and nurses deployed to West Africa between March and September of 2014. Results: We developed the protocol, obtained ethics approval, delivered the survey, analysed the data and presented the findings as part of the evidence-to-decision tables at the expert panel meeting where the recommendations were formulated within eight weeks. Forty-four physicians and nurses responded to the survey. They generally felt at low or extremely low risk of virus transmission with all types of PPE used. Eye protection reduced the ability to provide care, mainly due to impaired visibility because of fogging. Heat and dehydration were a major issue for 76% of the participants using goggles and for 64% using a hood. Both gowns and coveralls were associated with significant heat stress and dehydration. Most participants (59%) were very confident that they were using PPE correctly. Conclusion : Our study demonstrated that it was possible to incorporate primary data on end-users' preferences into a rapid advice guideline for a public health emergency in difficult field conditions. Health workers perceived a balance between transmission protection and ability to care for patients effectively while wearing PPE. These findings were used by the guideline development expert panel to formulate WHO recommendations on PPE for frontline providers caring for EVD patients in outbreak conditions.

SUBMITTER: Den Boon S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5820616 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Incorporating health workers' perspectives into a WHO guideline on personal protective equipment developed during an Ebola virus disease outbreak.

Den Boon Saskia S Vallenas Constanza C Ferri Mauricio M Norris Susan L SL

F1000Research 20180111

<b>Background:</b> Ebola virus disease (EVD) health facility transmission can result in infection and death of health workers. The World Health Organization (WHO) supports countries in preparing for and responding to public health emergencies, which often require developing new guidance in short timelines with scarce evidence. The objective of this study was to understand frontline physicians' and nurses' perspectives about personal protective equipment (PPE) use during the 2014-2016 EVD outbrea ...[more]

PMID: 29527297

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHealthcare workers (HCWs) use personal protective equipment (PPE) in Ebola virus disease (EVD) situations. However, preventing the contamination of HCWs and the environment during PPE removal crucially requires improved strategies. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of three PPE ensembles, namely, Hospital Authority (HA) Standard Ebola PPE set (PPE1), Dupont Tyvek Model, style 1422A (PPE2), and HA isolation gown for routine patient care and performing aerosol-generating procedures (PPE3) to prevent EVD transmission by measuring the degree of contamination of HCWs and the environment.MethodsA total of 59 participants randomly performed PPE donning and doffing. The trial consisted of PPE donning, applying fluorescent solution on the PPE surface, PPE doffing of participants, and estimation of the degree of contamination as indicated by the number of fluorescent stains on the working clothes and environment. Protocol deviations during PPE donning and doffing were monitored.ResultsPPE2 and PPE3 presented higher contamination risks than PPE1. Environmental contaminations such as those originating from rubbish bin covers, chairs, faucets, and sinks were detected. Procedure deviations were observed during PPE donning and doffing, with PPE1 presenting the lowest overall deviation rate (%) among the three PPE ensembles (p < 0.05).ConclusionContamination of the subjects' working clothes and surrounding environment occurred frequently during PPE doffing. Procedure deviations were observed during PPE donning and doffing. Although PPE1 presented a lower contamination risk than PPE2 and PPE3 during doffing and protocol deviations, the design of PPE1 can still be further improved. Future directions should focus on designing a high-coverage-area PPE with simple ergonomic features and on evaluating the doffing procedure to minimise the risk of recontamination. Regular training for users should be emphasised to minimise protocol deviations, and in turn, guarantee the best protection to HCWs.

Project description:In this paper, we examine the cost effectiveness of investment in personal protective equipment (PPE) for protecting health care workers (HCWs) against two infectious diseases: Ebola virus and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). This builds on similar work published for COVID-19 in 2020. We developed two separate decision-analytic models using a payer perspective to compare the costs and effects of multiple PPE use scenarios for protection of HCW against Ebola and MRSA. Bayesian multivariate sensitivity analyses were used to consider the uncertainty surrounding all key parameters for both diseases. We estimate the cost to provide adequate PPE for a HCW encounter with an Ebola patient is $13.04, which is associated with a 97% risk reduction in infections. The mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is $3.98 per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted. Because of lowered infection and disability rates, this investment is estimated to save $132.27 in averted health systems costs, a financial ROI of 1,014%. For MRSA, the cost of adequate PPE for one HCW encounter is $0.88, which is associated with a 53% risk reduction in infections. The mean ICER is $362.14 per DALY averted. This investment is estimated to save $20.18 in averted health systems costs, a financial ROI of 2,294%. In terms of total health savings per death averted, investing in adequate PPE is the dominant strategy for Ebola and MRSA, suggesting that it is both more costly and less clinically optimal to not fully invest in PPE for these diseases. There are many compelling reasons to invest in PPE to protect HCWs. This analysis examines the economic case, building on previous evidence that protecting HCWs with PPE is cost-effective for COVD-19. Ebola and MRSA scenarios were selected to allow assessment of both endemic and epidemic infectious diseases. While PPE is cost-effective for both conditions, compared to our analysis for COVID-19, PPE is relatively more cost-effective for Ebola and relatively less so for MRSA. Further research is needed to assess shortfalls in the PPE supply chain identified during the COVID-19 pandemic to ensure an efficient and resilient supply in the face of future pandemics.

Project description:SARS-CoV-2 is a coronavirus with high infectivity and has caused dramatic pressure on health systems all over the world. Appropriate personal protection for medical staffs is critical. For ocular protection, there is ongoing hot debate and concern for potential ocular transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Ocular manifestations and positive detection of viral RNA in ocular samples were only reported in very small number of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. However, health care workers need to face patients more closely and have higher risk of aerosol contamination. Thus, appropriate ocular protection for medical workers is still recommended by organizations such as WHO and American Academy of Ophthalmology. Although eye goggles provide excellent protection and are mandatory for medical practitioners with high risk of exposure, they are not ideal for common clinical practice, because they can disturb vision due to extensive formation of water droplets and frequently cause moderate to severe discomfort after longtime wearing, which have been reported to interfere with working status. For the majority of medical workers who don't deal with high risk patients, they are not advised to wear goggles in daily practice. However, they also face the risk of infection due to the presence of asymptomatic carriers. Especially in situations with high risk of ocular exposure, such as close physical examination, eye surgery, dental clinics and surgery, ocular protection may be needed. Griffithsin has been shown to directly bind to spike proteins and has anti-viral activity against a broad spectrum of viruses, including coronavirus. Griffithsin is found to inhibit the entry of SARS-CoV at relatively low concentration and is stable and non-toxic. SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV share the same entry receptors and their spike proteins are similar in conformation. We hypothesize that contact lenses containing nanoparticles loaded with griffithsin may provide sufficient ocular protection for medical staffs without high risk of exposure during the outbreak period of SARS-CoV-2. If proven effective, griffithsin-loaded contact lens can be considered as a supplementary ocular protective equipment for medical workers who can tolerate well. The daily disposable contact lens should be applied as needed and refrain from extended wearing in order to reduce potential side effects.

Dataset Information

Incorporating health workers' perspectives into a WHO guideline on personal protective equipment developed during an Ebola virus disease outbreak.

Publications

Incorporating health workers' perspectives into a WHO guideline on personal protective equipment developed during an Ebola virus disease outbreak.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets