Personal protective equipment protecting healthcare workers in the Chinese epicentre of COVID-19.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Zhao Y
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7377698 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Personal protective equipment protecting healthcare workers in the Chinese epicentre of COVID-19.
Zhao Yi Y Liang Wenhua W Luo Yan Y Chen Ying Y Liang Peng P Zhong Ran R Chen Ailan A He Jianxing J
Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 20200723 12
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7474831 | biostudies-literature
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
Project description:BackgroundThe relationship between changes in anxiety levels and personal protective equipment (PPE) use is yet to be evaluated. The present study assessed this relationship among healthcare workers (HCWs) involved in the care of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).MethodsAn online survey was conducted in a municipal hospital with 195 nationally designated negative pressure isolation units in Korea. Anxiety level was measured using the self-rating anxiety scale (SAS), and changes in anxiety levels were assessed based on the time when COVID-19 vaccine was introduced in March 2021 in Korea. Monthly PPE usage between June 2020 and May 2021 was investigated.ResultsThe mean SAS score (33.25 ± 5.97) was within normal range and was lower than those reported in previous studies conducted before COVID-19 vaccination became available. Among the 93 HCWs who participated, 64 (68.8%) answered that their fear of contracting COVID-19 decreased after vaccination. The number of coveralls used per patient decreased from 33.6 to 0. However, a demand for more PPE than necessary was observed in situations where HCWs were exposed to body fluids and secretions (n = 38, 40.9%). Excessive demand for PPE was not related to age, working experience, or SAS score.ConclusionAnxiety in HCWs exposed to COVID-19 was lower than it was during the early period of the pandemic, and the period before vaccination was introduced. The number of coveralls used per patient also decreased although an excessive demand for PPE was observed.
| S-EPMC9039197 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8061624 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Adherence observations of health care workers (HCW) revealed deficiencies in the use of recommended personal protective equipment (PPE) among HCW caring in COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 wards during the first period of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in a university hospital in Germany. The adherence to wearing surgical face or FFP2-masks and disinfecting hands prior to donning and after doffing the PPE was significantly higher in COVID-19 wards However, there was no total adherence of 100% in COVID-19 wards.
| S-EPMC7726598 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AbstractThe pandemic of the 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has caused an unprecedented mobilization of the United States' healthcare workforce. In addition to working extended hours under increased duress, healthcare professionals (HCP) of all stations have been making use of various types of personal protective equipment (PPE) with greatly increased frequency and duration. Current data regarding adverse skin reactions as a possible consequence of PPE use are, particularly in the United States, largely insufficient for policy-makers to make informed decisions regarding daily PPE use among HCP.The research vehicle employed by this study is a cross-sectional 25-item survey distributed via email to workers currently employed by a five-hospital system in southcentral Kentucky. This survey was used to collect information from hospital workers of all professional roles about their experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on reports of adverse dermatological reactions and associated risk factors.Out of 879 respondents, 54.4% reported some type of skin irritation reaction. Skin irritation was significantly more prevalent among medical and medical support staff than non-medical hospital workers, with the highest prevalence among Certified Nurse Assistant (CNAs). Among clinical workers, those in dedicated COVID-19 units reported the highest prevalence of adverse skin reaction. The most common complaint was dryness/scaling of the skin (306 out of 439, 69.7%), and the most common location was the facial cheeks (305 out of 516, 59.1%). Among those who reported skin irritation, the average self-reported severity of skin reaction (on a scale of 1-5) was 2.00 ± 0.05, and the mean total days of skin reaction per month was 11.70 ± 0.39 days. Total days of irritation per month was found to be significantly related to "total days of PPE use per month," "hours of PPE use per day," "frequency of hand washing," and "use of disinfecting UV irradiation." Severity of skin reaction was found to be significantly related to "hours per day of PPE use," "consecutive days of PPE use," and "female sex."Clinical workers that put in the most face-to-face time with patients, and those in dedicated COVID-19 units, had the highest risk of adverse skin reaction. Overall, skin reactions were found to be mild, even in those hospital workers with the heaviest PPE use. Because the widespread and consistent use of facial masks in public settings has become a key tool in our protracted struggle with SARS-CoV-2, these findings may help to ameliorate concerns that everyday facial mask and/or other PPE usage contributes to significant dermatologic morbidity among both medical professionals and public citizens.
| S-EPMC8896487 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC10286963 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveCoronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19), the cause of the ongoing pandemic, is an acute respiratory tract infection, which has made it necessary for healthcare personnel to use protective equipment such as N95 masks, protective goggles and visors. External compression headaches caused by the compression of the pericranial soft tissues by wearing hats, helmets, or goggles (worn during swimming or diving) have been previously described. In our study, we aimed to evaluate the presence and characteristics of personal protective equipment-associated headaches in healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic period and to determine the effects of such headaches.Materials and methodsA face-to-face questionnaire was delivered to 300 male and female healthcare personnel between the ages of 18-56 working in healthcare units where COVID-19 patients were evaluated and treated. The data from 296 completed questionnaires was evaluated.ResultsWe included 296 participants (166 females and 130 males) in our study; the mean age was 33.98 ± 8.52 years (range 18-56). One hundred ninety-six (66.22%) participants indicated that they had new onset personal protective equipment-associated headaches. Percentages of those with newly emergent headaches because of protective equipment were higher in the following participant groups: females (p = 0.045), those with COVID-19 disease history (p < 0.001), and those diagnosed with headaches before the pandemic (p = 0.001).ConclusionOur study showed the presence of new-onset headaches associated with personal protective equipment in healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Personal protective equipment-related headaches were associated with the following factors: female sex, a history of COVID-19 disease, and the presence of primary headaches diagnosed before the pandemic.
| S-EPMC10008808 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHealthcare workers (HCWs) employed personal protective equipment (PPE) during the COVID-19 pandemic, crucial to protecting themselves from infection. To highlight the efficacy of PPE in preventing environmental infection among HCWs, a systematic review was conducted in line with PRISMA guidance.MethodsA search of the PubMed and Web of Science databases was conducted from January 2019 to April 2021 using pre-defined search terms. Articles were screened by three researchers. The approved papers were read in full and included in this review if relevance was mutually agreed upon. Data were extracted by study design and types of PPEs.Results47 of 108 identified studies met the inclusion criteria, with seven reviews and meta-analyses, seven cohort, nine case-control, fifteen cross-sectional studies, four before and after, four case series, and one modeling studies. Wearing PPE offered COVID-19 protection in HCWs but required adequate training. Wearing surgical masks provided improved protection over cloth masks, while the benefit of powered air-purifying respirators is less clear, as are individual gowns, gloves, and/or face shields.ConclusionsWearing PPE, especially facial masks, is necessary among HCWs, while training in proper use of PPE is also important to prevent COVID-19 infection.
| S-EPMC9845060 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe association between inadequate personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic and an increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in frontline healthcare workers has been proven. However, frontline healthcare workers with an adequate supply of personal protective equipment still showed an increased risk of contracting COVID-19. Research on the use of personal protective equipment could provide insight into handling present and future pandemics.ObjectivesThis study aims to investigate the impact of the availability, training and correct selection of personal protective equipment on the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection or positive suspect cases in healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic in Belgium.DesignThis was a prospective cohort study involving Belgian healthcare workers: nurses, nursing aides, and midwives working in hospitals, home care services, and residential care services.MethodsRespondents were invited from May to July 2020 (period 1) followed by a second time in October 2020 (period 2) to complete a digital survey on personal protective equipment availability, training, personal protective equipment selection, screening ability, COVID-19 testing and status, and symptoms corresponding with the COVID-19 suspect case definition. The main outcome was a composite of COVID-19 status change (from negative to positive) during the study or a positive suspect case definition in period 2.ResultsFull data were available for 617 participants. The majority of respondents were nurses (93%) employed in a hospital (83%). In total, 379 respondents provided frontline care for COVID-19 patients (61%) and were questioned on personal protective equipment availability and personal protective equipment selection. Nurses were more likely to select the correct personal protective equipment compared with nursing aides and midwives. Respondents working in residential care settings were least likely to choose personal protective equipment correctly. Of all healthcare workers, 10% tested positive for COVID-19 during the course of the study and a composite outcome was reached in 54% of all respondents. Working experience and sufficient personal protective equipment training showed an inverse relation with the composite outcome. The relationship between personal protective equipment availability and the composite outcome was fully mediated by personal protective equipment training (-0.105 [95% confidence interval -0.211 - -0.020]).ConclusionsProper training in personal protective equipment usage is critical to reduce the risk of COVID infection in healthcare workers. During a pandemic, rapid dissemination of video guidelines could improve personal protective equipment knowledge in practitioners. Tweetable abstract: Proper training in personal protective equipment usage is critical to reduce the risk of COVID infection in healthcare workers.
| S-EPMC8578024 | biostudies-literature