Adherence to personal protective equipment use among healthcare workers caring for confirmed COVID-19 and alleged non-COVID-19 patients.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Neuwirth MM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7726598 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesTo determine whether hydroxychloroquine when used with personal protective equipment reduces the proportion of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 among healthcare workers in comparison to the use of personal protective equipment alone.DesignMulticentre, parallel-group, open-label randomised trial. Enrolment started on 29 June 2020 and stopped on 4 February 2021. Participants randomised in HydrOxychloroquine Prophylaxis Evaluation were followed for 6 months.Setting9 hospitals across India.ParticipantsHealthcare workers in an environment with exposure to COVID-19 were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to hydroxychloroquine plus use of personal protective equipment or personal protective equipment alone. 886 participants were screened and 416 randomised (213 hydroxychloroquine arm and 203 personal protective equipment).InterventionParticipants in intervention arm received 800 mg of hydroxychloroquine on day of randomisation and then 400 mg once a week for 12 weeks in addition to the use of personal protective equipment. In the control arm, participants continued to use personal protective equipment alone.Main outcomeProportion of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in the 6 months after randomisation.ResultsParticipants were young (mean age 32.1 years, SD 9.1 years) with low-comorbid burden. 47.4% were female. In the 6 months after randomisation (primary analysis population=413), 11 participants assigned to the hydroxychloroquine group and 12 participants assigned to the standard practice group met the primary endpoint (5.2% vs 5.9%; OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.07, p=0.72). There was no heterogeneity of treatment effect in any prespecified subgroup. There were no significant differences in the secondary outcomes. The adverse event rates were 9.9% and 6.9% in the hydroxychloroquine and standard practice arms, respectively. There were no serious adverse events in either group.Conclusions and relevanceHydroxychloroquine along with personal protective equipment was not superior to personal protective equipment alone on the proportion of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. Definitive conclusions are precluded as the trial stopped early for futility, and hence was underpowered.Trial registration numberCTRI/2020/05/025067.
| S-EPMC9160584 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7377698 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Study objectiveDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, health care workers have had the highest risk of infection among essential workers. Although personal protective equipment (PPE) use is associated with lower infection rates, appropriate use of PPE has been variable among health care workers, even in settings with COVID-19 patients. We aimed to evaluate the patterns of PPE adherence during emergency department resuscitations that included aerosol-generating procedures.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective, video-based review of pediatric resuscitations involving one or more aerosol-generating procedures during the first 3 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States (March to June 2020). Recommended adherence (complete, inadequate, absent) with 5 PPE items (headwear, eyewear, masks, gowns, gloves) and the duration of potential exposure were evaluated for individuals in the room after aerosol-generating procedure initiation.ResultsAmong the 345 health care workers observed during 19 resuscitations, 306 (88.7%) were nonadherent (inadequate or absent adherence) with the recommended use of at least 1 PPE type at some time during the resuscitation, 23 (6.7%) of whom had no PPE. One hundred and forty health care workers (40.6%) altered or removed at least 1 type of PPE during the event. The aggregate time in the resuscitation room for health care workers across all events was 118.7 hours. During this time, providers had either absent or inadequate eyewear for 46.4 hours (39.1%) and absent or inadequate masks for 35.2 hours (29.7%).ConclusionFull adherence with recommended PPE use was limited in a setting at increased risk for SARS-CoV-2 virus aerosolization. In addition to ensuring appropriate donning, approaches are needed for ensuring ongoing adherence with PPE recommendations during exposure.
| S-EPMC8164378 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFrontline workers (FLWs) are at a higher risk of COVID-19 infection during care interactions than the general population. Personal protective equipment (PPE) is regarded as an effective intervention for limiting the transmission of airborne viruses. However, research examining FLWs' intention to use PPE is limited.ObjectivesThis study addresses this research gap and also contributes by expanding the conceptual mechanism of planned behavior theory by incorporating three novel dimensions (perceived benefits of PPE, risk perceptions of the epidemic, and unavailability of PPE) in order to gain a better understanding of the factors that influence FLWs' intentions to use PPE.MethodAnalysis is based on a sample of 763 FLWs in Pakistan using a questionnaire survey, and the structural equation modeling approach is employed to evaluate the suppositions.ResultsStudy results indicate that attitude, perceived benefits of PPE, and risk perceptions of the epidemic have positive influence on FLWs' intention to use PPE. In comparison, the unavailability of PPE and the cost of PPE have opposite effects. Meanwhile, environmental concern has a neutral effect.ConclusionsThe study results specify the importance of publicizing COVID-19's lethal impacts on the environment and society, ensuring cheap PPE, and simultaneously enhancing workplace safety standards.
| S-EPMC8855926 | biostudies-literature
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
Project description:BackgroundA rapid review, guided by a protocol, was conducted to inform development of the World Health Organization's guideline on personal protective equipment in the context of the ongoing (2013-present) Western African filovirus disease outbreak, with a focus on health care workers directly caring for patients with Ebola or Marburg virus diseases.MethodsElectronic databases and grey literature sources were searched. Eligibility criteria initially included comparative studies on Ebola and Marburg virus diseases reported in English or French, but criteria were expanded to studies on other viral hemorrhagic fevers and non-comparative designs due to the paucity of studies. After title and abstract screening (two people to exclude), full-text reports of potentially relevant articles were assessed in duplicate. Fifty-seven percent of extraction information was verified. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework was used to inform the quality of evidence assessments.ResultsThirty non-comparative studies (8 related to Ebola virus disease) were located, and 27 provided data on viral transmission. Reporting of personal protective equipment components and infection prevention and control protocols was generally poor.ConclusionsInsufficient evidence exists to draw conclusions regarding the comparative effectiveness of various types of personal protective equipment. Additional research is urgently needed to determine optimal PPE for health care workers caring for patients with filovirus.
| S-EPMC4599797 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8061624 | 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: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: Not available
| S-EPMC9132790 | biostudies-literature