Dataset Information

3D printing of face shields to meet the immediate need for PPE in an anesthesiology department during the COVID-19 pandemic.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Anesthesia providers are at risk for contracting COVID-19 due to close patient contact, especially during shortages of personal protective equipment. We present an easy to follow and detailed protocol for producing 3D printed face shields and an effective decontamination protocol, allowing their reuse.

Methods

The University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC) produced face shields using a combination of 3D printing and assembly with commonly available products, and produced a simple decontamination protocol to allow their reuse. To evaluate the effectiveness of the decontamination protocol, we inoculated bacterial suspensions of E. coli and S. aureus on to the face shield components, performed the decontamination procedure, and finally swabbed and enumerated organisms onto plates that were incubated for 12-24 hours. Decontamination effectiveness was evaluated using the average log10 reduction in colony counts.

Results

Approximately 112 face shields were constructed and made available for use in 72 hours. These methods were successfully implemented for in-house production at UNMC and at Tripler Army Medical Center (Honolulu, Hawaii). Overall, the decontamination protocol was highly effective against both E. coli and S. aureus, achieving a ≥4 log10 (99.99%) reduction in colony counts for every replicate from each component of the face shield unit.

Discussion

Face shields not only act as a barrier against the soiling of N95 face masks, they also serve as more effective eye protection from respiratory droplets over standard eye shields. Implementation of decontamination protocols successfully allowed face shield and N95 mask reuse, offering a higher level of protection for anesthesiology providers at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Conclusions

In a time of urgent need, our protocol enabled the rapid production of face shields by individuals with little to no 3D printing experience, and provided a simple and effective decontamination protocol allowing reuse of the face shields.

SUBMITTER: Armijo PR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7402098 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: The study aimed to assess the mental well-being of healthcare professionals at a German department of anesthesiology and critical care with a specialized ICU for treatment of COVID-19 patients during the first two peaks of the 2020 pandemic, and identifying risk and protective factors. Methods: A single-center longitudinal, online-based survey was conducted in healthcare workers from a department of anesthesiology and critical care in Bavaria, the most affected federal state in Germany at the time of assessment. Validated scores for depression, anxiety, somatic disorders, burnout, resilience, and self-management were used and complemented by questions about perceived COVID-19-related stressors. In parallel, patient characteristics in the ICU were collected. Results: 24 and 23 critically ill COVID-19 patients were treated during both observation periods in April/May and November/December 2020, respectively. 87.5% and 78.2% of patients had moderate to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. From March 6, 2020 onwards, the hospital had switched to a command and control-based hospital incident command system (HICS) and increased work forces. Point prevalence of depression-like symptoms (13.6% and 12.8%) and burnout (21.6% and 17.4%) in the department's healthcare professionals was high. Exposure to SARS-CoV-2 did not increase psychological burden. Consequences of the lockdown were rated as highly distressing by a majority of all ICU personnel. High self-reported trait resilience was protective against signs of depression, generalized anxiety, and burnout. Conclusions: During the pandemic, healthcare professionals have been suffering from increased psychological distress compared to reference data for both the general population and ICU personnel. General effects of the lockdown appear more relevant than actual COVID-19 patient contact. High trait resilience has a protective effect, yet vulnerable individuals may require specific support. Prevention against potential after effects of the lockdown, and in particular measures allowing to avoid another lockdown, appear warranted.

Project description:Health care workers are exposed to potentially infectious airborne particles while providing routine care to coughing patients. However, much is not understood about the behavior of these aerosols and the risks they pose. We used a coughing patient simulator and a breathing worker simulator to investigate the exposure of health care workers to cough aerosol droplets, and to examine the efficacy of face shields in reducing this exposure. Our results showed that 0.9% of the initial burst of aerosol from a cough can be inhaled by a worker 46 cm (18 inches) from the patient. During testing of an influenza-laden cough aerosol with a volume median diameter (VMD) of 8.5 μm, wearing a face shield reduced the inhalational exposure of the worker by 96% in the period immediately after a cough. The face shield also reduced the surface contamination of a respirator by 97%. When a smaller cough aerosol was used (VMD = 3.4 μm), the face shield was less effective, blocking only 68% of the cough and 76% of the surface contamination. In the period from 1 to 30 minutes after a cough, during which the aerosol had dispersed throughout the room and larger particles had settled, the face shield reduced aerosol inhalation by only 23%. Increasing the distance between the patient and worker to 183 cm (72 inches) reduced the exposure to influenza that occurred immediately after a cough by 92%. Our results show that health care workers can inhale infectious airborne particles while treating a coughing patient. Face shields can substantially reduce the short-term exposure of health care workers to large infectious aerosol particles, but smaller particles can remain airborne longer and flow around the face shield more easily to be inhaled. Thus, face shields provide a useful adjunct to respiratory protection for workers caring for patients with respiratory infections. However, they cannot be used as a substitute for respiratory protection when it is needed. [Supplementary materials are available for this article. Go to the publisher's online edition of Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene for the following free supplemental resource: tables of the experiments performed, more detailed information about the aerosol measurement methods, photographs of the experimental setup, and summaries of the experimental data from the aerosol measurement devices, the qPCR analysis, and the VPA.].