Dataset Information

A comparison of droplet and contact contamination using 3 simulated barrier techniques for COVID-19 intubation: a quality assurance study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The intubation of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) puts health care workers at risk of infection through aerosol, droplet and contact contamination. We evaluated the risk of droplet and contact contamination for health care workers using 3 intubation barrier techniques as part of a quality assurance study at our institution.

Methods

This randomized quality assurance study was completed at a tertiary academic hospital in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, on Apr. 4, 2020. Participants in personal protective equipment performed simulated intubations on a manikin with (a) no barrier, (b) a clear plastic sheet covering the manikin and (c) a plexiglass intubation box over the manikin, in random order. Fluorescein was ejected from inside the manikin's mouth to simulate droplet and contact spread during a standard intubation sequence. Two blinded independent assessors evaluated the location and degree of contamination on the intubator and assistant using an ultraviolet light. Contamination severity was rated in a standard fashion (0 = none; 1 = minor; 2 = major). The primary outcome was total contamination score and secondary outcomes were scores between intubator and assistant, anatomic areas contaminated and qualitative feedback on ease of intubation.

Results

Five participants completed this study. Total contamination score was different between the 3 groups for the intubator (p = 0.02) but not the assistant (p = 0.2). For the intubator, the total contamination score was higher when the sheet was used (median 29 [interquartile range (IQR) 25-34]) than when the box was used (median 17 [IQR 15-22]) or when no barrier was used (median 18 [IQR 13-21]). All 5 participants reported challenges during intubation using the sheet.

Interpretation

Use of a plastic sheet while intubating patients with COVID-19 may increase the risk of droplet and contact contamination during intubation and impede intubation. Further study should be undertaken before implementing barrier techniques in practice.

SUBMITTER: Rose P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7641175 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jul-Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A comparison of droplet and contact contamination using 3 simulated barrier techniques for COVID-19 intubation: a quality assurance study.

Rose Peter P Veall John J Chima Navraj N Vowels Elena E Chitnis Shruti S Flexman Alana A Tang Raymond R

CMAJ open 20200701 3

<h4>Background</h4>The intubation of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) puts health care workers at risk of infection through aerosol, droplet and contact contamination. We evaluated the risk of droplet and contact contamination for health care workers using 3 intubation barrier techniques as part of a quality assurance study at our institution.<h4>Methods</h4>This randomized quality assurance study was completed at a tertiary academic hospital in Vancouver, British Columbia, Cana ...[more]

PMID: 32873584

Similar Datasets

Project description:Airborne coal dust generated during mining can deposit and accumulate on mine surfaces, presenting a dust explosion hazard. When assessing dust hazard mitigation strategies for airborne dust reduction, sampling is done in high-velocity ventilation air, which is used to purge the mining face and gallery tunnel. In this environment, the sampler inlet velocity should be matched to the air stream velocity (isokinetic sampling) to prevent oversampling of coarse dust at low sampler-to-air velocity ratios. Low velocity ratios are often encountered when using low flow rate, personal sampling pumps commonly used in underground mines. In this study, with a goal of employing mine-ready equipment, a personal sampler was adapted for area sampling of coarse coal dust in high-velocity ventilation air. This was done by adapting an isokinetic nozzle to the inlet of an Institute of Occupational Medicine (Edinburgh, Scotland) sampling cassette (IOM). Collected dust masses were compared for the modified IOM isokinetic sampler (IOM-MOD), the IOM without the isokinetic nozzle, and a conventional dust sampling cassette without the cyclone on the inlet. All samplers were operated at a flow rate typical of personal sampling pumps: 2 L/min. To ensure differences between collected masses that could be attributed to sampler design and were not influenced by artifacts from dust concentration gradients, relatively uniform and repeatable dust concentrations were demonstrated in the sampling zone of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health experimental mine gallery. Consistent with isokinetic theory, greater differences between isokinetic and non-isokinetic sampled masses were found for larger dust volume-size distributions and higher ventilation air velocities. Since isokinetic sampling is conventionally used to determine total dust concentration, and isokinetic sampling made a difference in collected masses, the results suggest when sampling for coarse coal dust the IOM-MOD may improve airborne coarse dust assessments over "off-the-shelf" sampling cassettes.

Project description:Development and comparison of spine-shaped phantoms generated by two different 3D-printing technologies, digital light processing (DLP) and Polyjet has been purposed to utilize in patient-specific quality assurance (QA) of stereotactic body radiation treatment. The developed 3D-printed spine QA phantom consisted of an acrylic body phantom and a 3D-printed spine shaped object. DLP and Polyjet 3D printers using a high-density acrylic polymer were employed to produce spine-shaped phantoms based on CT images. Image fusion was performed to evaluate the reproducibility of our phantom, and the Hounsfield units (HUs) were measured based on each CT image. Two different intensity-modulated radiotherapy plans based on both CT phantom image sets from the two printed spine-shaped phantoms with acrylic body phantoms were designed to deliver 16 Gy dose to the planning target volume (PTV) and were compared for target coverage and normal organ-sparing. Image fusion demonstrated good reproducibility of the developed phantom. The HU values of the DLP- and Polyjet-printed spine vertebrae differed by 54.3 on average. The PTV Dmax dose for the DLP-generated phantom was about 1.488 Gy higher than that for the Polyjet-generated phantom. The organs at risk received a lower dose for the 3D printed spine-shaped phantom image using the DLP technique than for the phantom image using the Polyjet technique. Despite using the same material for printing the spine-shaped phantom, these phantoms generated by different 3D printing techniques, DLP and Polyjet, showed different HU values and these differently appearing HU values according to the printing technique could be an extra consideration for developing the 3D printed spine-shaped phantom depending on the patient's age and the density of the spinal bone. Therefore, the 3D printing technique and materials should be carefully chosen by taking into account the condition of the patient in order to accurately produce 3D printed patient-specific QA phantom.

Dataset Information

A comparison of droplet and contact contamination using 3 simulated barrier techniques for COVID-19 intubation: a quality assurance study.

Background

Methods

Results

Interpretation

Publications

A comparison of droplet and contact contamination using 3 simulated barrier techniques for COVID-19 intubation: a quality assurance study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure