Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

31 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

The effects of personal protective equipment on airway management: An in-situ simulation

ABSTRACT: The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organisation on 11th March and has led to over 41,000 deaths in the UK. Public Health England guidance for aerosol generating procedures (AGP) requires the donning of personal protective equipment (PPE). We evaluated airway management skills using an in-situ emergency simulation. The scenarios were video recorded and scored by two independent assessors using a skill specific checklist. A total of 34 airway management procedures were evaluated. The checklist involved 13 steps with a maximum score of 26. The median (IQR [range]) checklist score was 25 (24-25 [20-26]). Four teams failed to intubate the trachea and proceeded to manage the airway using a supraglottic airway device. The mean (SD) intubation time was 47.9 (16.5) seconds and two anaesthetists (7%) required a second attempt. Our results show that airway management can be carried out successfully whilst donned in PPE. However, additional training in using newly introduced devices such as a McGrath® video laryngoscope is of paramount importance. Highlights • A high standard of successful airway management is possible in personal protective equipment.• All successful intubations were carried out by the first intubator with 93% first attempt success rate.• Mean intubation time was 47.9s using a McGrath® video laryngoscope.• Palpation of cricothyroid membrane and video laryngoscopy were poorly performed steps.• Additional training of newly introduced devices is of paramount importance.

SUBMITTER: Ansari U

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7335411 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Similar Datasets

The impact of respiratory protective equipment on difficult airway management: a randomised, crossover, simulation study.

Project description:The current international COVID-19 health crisis underlines the importance of adequate and suitable personal protective equipment for clinical staff during acute airway management. This study compares the impacts of standard air-purifying respirators and powered air-purifying respirators during simulated difficult airway scenarios. Twenty-five anaesthetists carried out four different standardised difficult intubation drills, either unprotected (control), or wearing a standard or a powered respirator. Treatment times and wearer comfort were determined and compared. In the wearer comfort evaluation form, operators rated mobility, noise, heat, vision and speech intelligibility. All anaesthetists accomplished the treatment objectives of all study arms without adverse events. Total mean (SD) intubation times for the four interventions did not show significant differences between the powered and the standard respirator groups, being 16.4 (8.6) vs. 19.2 (5.2) seconds with the Airtraq™; 11.4 (3.4) vs. 10.0 (2.1) seconds with the videolaryngoscope; 39.2 (4.5) vs. 40.1 (4.8) seconds with the fibreoptic bronchoscope scope; and 15.4 (5.7) vs. 15.1 (5.0) seconds for standard tracheal intubation by direct laryngoscopy, respectively. Videolaryngoscopy allowed the shortest intubation times regardless of the respiratory protective device used. Anaesthetists rated heat and vision significantly higher in the powered respirator group; however, noise levels were perceived to be significantly lower than in the standard respirator group. We conclude that standard and powered respirators do not significantly prolong simulated advanced intubation procedures.

| S-EPMC7267320 | biostudies-literature

Infectious Diseases Simulation for Medical Students: Experiential Instruction on Personal Protective Equipment.

Project description:IntroductionThe emergence of COVID-19 highlighted the critical importance of appropriate use of personal protective equipment (PPE) for the safety of patients and health care personnel. However, previously published survey data indicated that formal instruction on the correct utilization of PPE is uncommon in medical school curricula, and there is no published guidance about optimal instruction methods. The infectious disease (ID) simulation lab at Oregon Health & Science University filled this need.MethodsSecond- through fourth-year medical students participated in the infection intersession, a 2-week didactic session that students were required to enroll in once during their clinical rotations. As part of the course, students completed the ID simulation lab, during which they were presented with common ID syndromes (suspected tuberculosis, C. difficile colitis, and neutropenic fever) and asked to select the proper PPE prior to interacting with standardized patients. ID physicians acted as the patients and then conducted feedback sessions, which focused on PPE choice, donning and doffing techniques, and ID diagnosis and management principles.ResultsMore than 500 medical students participated between 2016 and 2020, demonstrating the feasibility of the experience. The average exam scores were above 80%, and the average student evaluation score of the session was 8.9 out of 10, demonstrating acceptability.DiscussionThe ID simulation lab allowed students to reinforce didactic teaching about PPE, dispel common misconceptions, and receive real-time feedback from ID clinicians. Availability of the lab and facilitators were limiting factors. Future work will focus on better understanding the efficacy of the sessions.

| S-EPMC7703477 | biostudies-literature

Are coveralls required as personal protective equipment during the management of COVID-19 patients?

Project description:ObjectivesFew studies have investigated the contamination of personal protective equipment (PPE) during the management of patients with severe-to-critical coronavirus disease (COVID-19). This study aimed to determine the necessity of coveralls and foot covers for body protection during the management of COVID-19 patients.MethodsPPE samples were collected from the coveralls of physicians exiting a room after the management of a patient with severe-to-critical COVID-19 within 14 days after the patient's symptom onset. The surface of coveralls was categorized into coverall-only parts (frontal surface of the head, anterior neck, dorsal surface of the foot cover, and back and hip) and gown-covered parts (the anterior side of the forearm and the abdomen). Sampling of the high-contact surfaces in the patient's environment was performed. We attempted to identify significant differences in contamination with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) between the coverall-only and gown-covered parts.ResultsA total of 105 swabs from PPEs and 28 swabs from patient rooms were collected. Of the PPE swabs, only three (2.8%) swabs from the gown-covered parts were contaminated with SARS-CoV-2. However, 23 of the 28 sites (82.1%) from patient rooms were contaminated. There was a significant difference in the contamination of PPE between the coverall-only and gown-covered parts (0.0 vs 10.0%, p = 0.022).ConclusionsCoverall contamination rarely occurred while managing severe-to-critical COVID-19 patients housed in negative pressure rooms in the early stages of the illness. Long-sleeved gowns may be used in the management of COVID-19 patients.

| S-EPMC8626720 | biostudies-literature

COVID-19 and personal protective equipment: Treatment and prevention of skin conditions related to the occupational use of personal protective equipment.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC7228687 | biostudies-literature

Personal protective equipment doffing practices of healthcare workers.

Project description:During the doffing of personal protective equipment (PPE), pathogens can be transferred from the PPE to the bodies of healthcare workers (HCWs), putting HCWs and patients at risk of exposure and infection. PPE doffing practices of HCWs who cared for patients with viral respiratory infections were observed at an acute care hospital from March 2017 to April 2018. A trained observer recorded doffing performance of HCWs inside the patient rooms using a pre-defined checklist based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guideline. Doffing practices were observed 162 times during care of 52 patients infected with respiratory viral pathogens. Out of the 52 patients, 30 were in droplet and contact isolation, 21 were in droplet isolation, and 1 was in contact isolation. Overall, 90% of observed doffing was incorrect, with respect to the doffing sequence, doffing technique, or use of appropriate PPE. Common errors were doffing gown from the front, removing face shield of the mask, and touching potentially contaminated surfaces and PPE during doffing. Deviations from the recommended PPE doffing protocol are common and can increase potential for contamination of the HCW's clothing or skin after providing care. There is a clear need to change the approach used to training HCWs in PPE doffing practices.

| S-EPMC7157959 | biostudies-literature

Effects of personal protective equipment on cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality and outcomes: A systematic review.

Project description:BackgroundThe impact of wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) on CPR quality and patient outcomes is unclear. This systematic review aimed to examine whether wearing PPE during resuscitation affects patient outcomes, CPR quality and rescuer fatigue.MethodsIn this review registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022347746), we searched Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane library between 2000 and 2022. The inclusion criteria were studies: in actual or simulated cardiac arrest; comparing PPE with no PPE; and randomised controlled trials and observational studies with a English abstract. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane's Risk of Bias-2 and ROBINS-I tools and outcomes assessed with GRADE. We conducted a meta-analysis according to the study design. Quantitative data synthesis was done using a random-effect model incorporating the potential heterogeneity.ResultsA total of 17 simulation-based studies and 1 clinical study were included. All outcomes were judged to be very low certainty of evidence, subject to high risk of bias. The clinical study showed no difference in survival comparing enhanced and conventional PPE. Meta-analysis of 11 RCTs and 6 observational studies found no difference in CPR quality in rescuers wearing PPE compared with no PPE. Pooled rescuer fatigue was significantly worse in the PPE group (mean difference, 2.7 VAS score out of 10; 95% CI, 1.4-4.0).ConclusionsPPE was not associated with reduced CPR quality or lower cardiac arrest survival. Rescuers wearing PPE may report more fatigue. This finding was mainly derived from simulation studies, additional clinical studies are needed.

| S-EPMC10230254 | biostudies-literature

Personal Protective Equipment: Current Best Practices for Orthopedic Teams.

Project description:The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV-2) virus is challenging healthcare providers across the world. Current best practices for personal protective equipment (PPE) during this time are rapidly evolving and fluid due to the novel and acute nature of the pandemic and the dearth of high-level evidence. Routine infection control practices augmented by airborne precautions are paramount when treating the COVID-19-positive patient. Best practices for PPE use in patients who have unknown COVID-19 status are a highly charged and emotional issue. The variables to be considered include protection of patients and healthcare providers, accuracy and availability of testing, and responsible use of PPE resources. This article also explores the concerns of surgeons regarding possible transmission to their own family members as a result of caring for COVID-19 patients.

| S-EPMC7169903 | biostudies-literature

Contamination of personal protective equipment during COVID-19 autopsies.

Project description:Confronted with an emerging infectious disease at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the medical community faced concerns regarding the safety of autopsies on those who died of the disease. This attitude has changed, and autopsies are now recognized as indispensable tools for understanding COVID-19, but the true risk of infection to autopsy staff is nevertheless still debated. To clarify the rate of SARS-CoV-2 contamination in personal protective equipment (PPE), swabs were taken at nine points in the PPE of one physician and one assistant after each of 11 full autopsies performed at four centers. Swabs were also obtained from three minimally invasive autopsies (MIAs) conducted at a fifth center. Lung/bronchus swabs of the deceased served as positive controls, and SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected by real-time RT-PCR. In 9 of 11 full autopsies, PPE samples tested RNA positive through PCR, accounting for 41 of the 198 PPE samples taken (21%). The main contaminated items of the PPE were gloves (64% positive), aprons (50% positive), and the tops of shoes (36% positive) while the fronts of safety goggles, for example, were positive in only 4.5% of the samples, and all the face masks were negative. In MIAs, viral RNA was observed in one sample from a glove but not in other swabs. Infectious virus isolation in cell culture was performed on RNA-positive swabs from the full autopsies. Of all the RNA-positive PPE samples, 21% of the glove samples, taken in 3 of 11 full autopsies, tested positive for infectious virus. In conclusion, PPE was contaminated with viral RNA in 82% of autopsies. In 27% of autopsies, PPE was found to be contaminated even with infectious virus, representing a potential risk of infection to autopsy staff. Adequate PPE and hygiene measures, including appropriate waste deposition, are therefore essential to ensure a safe work environment.

| S-EPMC8735722 | biostudies-literature

Contamination of UK firefighters personal protective equipment and workplaces.

Project description:Firefighters' personal protective equipment (PPE) is a potential source of chronic exposure to toxic contaminants commonly released from fires. These contaminants have also been found in fire stations. However, little research characterises the routes via which fire contaminants travel back to fire stations. The UK Firefighter Contamination Survey provides information on firefighters' PPE provision, decontamination, and storage practices. All serving UK firefighters were eligible to take part in the survey, which comprised 64 questions. A total of 10,649 responses were included for analysis, accounting for roughly 24% of the UK's firefighting workforce. Results revealed that most firefighters (84%) de-robe contaminated PPE/workwear after re-entering the appliance cab. There was a significant decreasing tendency to send PPE for cleaning after every incident with increasing seniority of role, length of service, and fire attendance frequency. Around one third of firefighters cleaned PPE after every incident. A number of issues were linked to external professional cleaning services, e.g. shrinkage, fit, turn-around time, and stock of reserve/pooled PPE. PPE storage was found to be a potential source of cross contamination, with almost half of firefighters (45%) indicating clean and dirty PPE is not stored separately. More than half of firefighters (57%) stored fire gloves (an item sent for professional decontamination by only 19% of firefighters, and never cleaned by 20%) within other items of PPE such as helmets, boots and tunic/trouser pockets. The survey's results can be used to target gaps in decontamination measures within UK Fire and Rescue Services.

| S-EPMC9832125 | biostudies-literature

Polymer Additives to Personal Protective Equipment can Inactivate Pathogens.

Project description:Face masks have been proven to be medicine's best public health tool for preventing transmission of airborne pathogens. However, in situations with continuous exposure, lower quality and "do-it-yourself" face masks cannot provide adequate protection against pathogens, especially when mishandled. In addition, the use of multiple face masks each day places a strain on personal protective equipment (PPE) supply and is not environmentally sustainable. Therefore, there is a significant clinical and commercial need for a reusable, pathogen-inactivating face mask. Herein, we propose adding quaternary poly(dimethylaminohexadecyl methacrylate), q(PDMAHDM), abbreviated to q(PDM), to existing fabric networks to generate "contact-killing" face masks-effectively turning cotton, polypropylene, and polyester into pathogen resistant materials. It was found that q(PDM)-integrated face masks were able to inactivate both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria in liquid culture and aerosolized droplets. Furthermore, q(PDM) was electrospun into homogeneous polymer fibers, which makes the polymer practical for low-cost, scaled-up production.

| S-EPMC9569176 | biostudies-literature

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

Tweets

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data