Dataset Information

Personal protection equipment for biological hazards: does it affect tracheal intubation performance?

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Personal protection equipment (PPE) is recommended for use during airway management of patients with highly contagious respiratory tract illness. While its use in chemical hazards and its effect on airway management has been assessed previously, there has been no research assessing whether this equipment affects the ability to perform tracheal intubation. It is the intention of this investigation to answer this question.

Methods

Eighteen workers at various level of training were asked to wear three different types of PPE while performing four different types of tracheal intubation. The PPE used included the eye shield, face shield and the "Dustmaster". The intubation techniques were direct laryngoscopy, intubation through the intubating laryngeal mask (Fastrach) and flexible bronchoscopy using the eyepiece and an eyepiece with camera attached. We assessed the time to intubate as well as the incidence of oesophageal intubation. A short questionnaire was used to examine participants' subjective experiences of wearing the various types of PPE.

Results

There was no significant effect on the time to intubation for any of the methods studied. However, all subjects found that the face shield was uncomfortably hot to wear. Fibreoptic bronchoscopic intubation using the eyepiece was particularly difficult with all of the PPE used due to the distance of the subjects' eye from the eyepiece.

Conclusion

Although the use of PPE may not affect the length of time to intubate manikins, certain types of PPE may be uncomfortable to wear and noisy. Further research is needed to investigate whether this could be a problem in the clinical setting or in actual difficult intubations.

SUBMITTER: Greenland KB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7115758 | biostudies-literature | 2007 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Personal protection equipment for biological hazards: does it affect tracheal intubation performance?

Greenland K B KB Tsui D D Goodyear P P Irwin M G MG

Resuscitation 20070313 1

<h4>Purpose</h4>Personal protection equipment (PPE) is recommended for use during airway management of patients with highly contagious respiratory tract illness. While its use in chemical hazards and its effect on airway management has been assessed previously, there has been no research assessing whether this equipment affects the ability to perform tracheal intubation. It is the intention of this investigation to answer this question.<h4>Methods</h4>Eighteen workers at various level of trainin ...[more]

PMID: 17353076

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTracheal intubation in patients with coronavirus disease-19 is a high-risk procedure that should be performed with personal protective equipment (PPE). The influence of PPE on operator's performance during tracheal intubation remains unclear.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of simulation studies to evaluate the influence of wearing PPE as compared to standard uniform regarding time-to-intubation (TTI) and success rate. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to device used and operator's experience.ResultsThe TTI was prolonged when wearing PPE (eight studies): Standard Mean Difference (SMD) -0.54, 95% Confidence Interval [-0.75, -0.34],p < 0.0001. Subgroup analyses according to device used showed similar findings (direct laryngoscopy, SMD -0.63 [-0.88, -0.38], p < 0.0001; videolaryngoscopy, SMD -0.39 [-0.75, -0.02], p = 0.04). Considering the operator's experience, non-anesthesiologists had prolonged TTI (SMD -0.75 [-0.98, -0.52], p < 0.0001) while the analysis on anesthesiologists did not show significant differences (SMD -0.25 [-0.51, 0.01], p = 0.06). The success rate of tracheal intubation was not influenced by PPE: Risk Ratio (RR) 1.02 [1.00, 1.04]; p = 0.12). Subgroup analyses according to device demonstrated similar results (direct laryngoscopy, RR 1.03 [0.99, 1.07], p = 0.15, videolaryngoscopy, RR 1.01 [0.98, 1.04], p = 0.52). Wearing PPE had a trend towards negative influence on success rate in non-anesthesiologists (RR 1.05 [1.00, 1.10], p = 0.05), but not in anesthesiologists (RR 1.00 [0.98, 1.03], p = 0.84). Trial-sequential analyses for TTI and success rate indicated robustness of both results.ConclusionsUnder simulated conditions, wearing PPE delays the TTI as compared to dressing standard uniform, with no influence on the success rate. However, certainty of evidence is very low. Performing tracheal intubation with direct laryngoscopy seems influenced to a greater extent as compared to videolaryngoscopy. Similarly, wearing PPE affects more the non-anesthesiologists subgroup as compared to anesthesiologists.

Project description:BackgroundThe use of personal protective equipment (PPE) decreased the probability of viral transmission during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, some drawbacks have been observed with its extensive use, such as headaches, anxiety, and stress among physicians, which could affect decision-making processes, the performance of physicians, and consequently patients' safety. Few articles have studied the impact of PPE on physicians from different specialties. This study assessed the effect of wearing PPE on the performance and decision-making of physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic and compared the effects of wearing PPE on physicians from different specialties.MethodsA descriptive cross-sectional study was carried out through an anonymous 39-item online questionnaire. The physicians were divided according to the probability and frequency of performing invasive procedures. Group 1 included emergency medicine and critical care physicians, intensivists, and anesthetists, group 2 included physicians from different surgical subspecialties, and group 3 included physicians from different medical fields.ResultsThis study included 272 physicians; group 1 included 54, group 2 included 120, and group 3 included 98 physicians. Approximately, 90.4% of the participants aged between 30 and -40 years, and 72.8% of the participants were specialists. Results indicated that the comfort, vision, and communication were significantly reduced in all groups (81.1%, 88.7%, and 75.5%, respectively). In contrast, the handling of instruments was not significantly affected in the second group only. In addition, the decision-making and the rate of complications were not significantly affected.ConclusionThere was a negative impact of wearing PPE on the non-technical skills (vision, communication and overall comfort), and the technical skills of the physicians. The decision-making and patients' safety were not significantly affected. Recommendations include additional improvement of the PPE design due to its crucial effect on both non-technical and technical skills of physicians.

Project description:BackgroundWork in the wood industry is often associated with exposure to wood dust and formaldehyde. The aims of this study were to describe the Knowledge, Attitude and Practice (KAP) concerning chemical health hazards among particleboard workers and to compare the KAP among temporary and permanent workers.MethodsA cross-sectional study design was used to collect data by structured questionnaires in two particleboard factories in Ethiopia. A total of 159 workers and 13 management personnel participated in this study. Both closed-ended and open-ended questions were included in the interviews. Chi-square tests, T tests and correlation analyses were used for categorical and continuous data. Total knowledge score (range 0-8) was calculated as the sum score of 8 items weighing one point each. Multiple linear regression was applied to estimate the impact of employment status on total knowledge score adjusted for level of education. Content analysis was applied to analyse collected data from open-ended questions.ResultsThe mean age of the respondents was 28 (SD = 6) years and on average they had 3.7 [3] years of service. The permanent workers were older than the temporary workers (29 vs 26 years, p = 0.001), and a considerably high fraction of the permanent workers had vocational education (90%) compared to the temporary workers (11%). Permanent workers had higher proportion of response on knowledge of 10 of 12 topics regarding chemical hazards and attitudes on 6 of 11 of these topics than temporary workers. Permanent workers had higher knowledge scores (3.7) compared to temporary workers (1.3) (p < 0.001), also after adjusting for education (p = 0.011). Permanent workers were provided with personal protective equipment (PPE) while temporary workers were not. The qualitative data helps to understand the workers and administrative personnel attitude and thinking regarding chemical hazards and PPE.ConclusionsThe findings revealed that permanent workers have higher proportion of positive response on knowledge and attitude towards chemical health hazards than temporary workers. However, practice in use of PPE depended on access to PPE. Few temporary workers were provided with PPE.

Dataset Information

Personal protection equipment for biological hazards: does it affect tracheal intubation performance?

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Personal protection equipment for biological hazards: does it affect tracheal intubation performance?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets