Dataset Information

Frontline healthcare workers' experiences with personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: a rapid qualitative appraisal.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To report frontline healthcare workers' (HCWs) experiences with personal protective equipment (PPE) during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. To understand HCWs' fears and concerns surrounding PPE, their experiences following its guidance and how these affected their perceived ability to deliver care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Design

A rapid qualitative appraisal study combining three sources of data: semistructured in-depth telephone interviews with frontline HCWs (n=46), media reports (n=39 newspaper articles and 145?000 social media posts) and government PPE policies (n=25).

Participants

Interview participants were HCWs purposively sampled from critical care, emergency and respiratory departments as well as redeployed HCWs from primary, secondary and tertiary care centres across the UK.

Results

A major concern was running out of PPE, putting HCWs and patients at risk of infection. Following national level guidance was often not feasible when there were shortages, leading to reuse and improvisation of PPE. Frequently changing guidelines generated confusion and distrust. PPE was reserved for high-risk secondary care settings and this translated into HCWs outside these settings feeling inadequately protected. Participants were concerned about differential access to adequate PPE, particularly for women and Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic HCWs. Participants continued delivering care despite the physical discomfort, practical problems and communication barriers associated with PPE use.

Conclusion

This study found that frontline HCWs persisted in caring for their patients despite multiple challenges including inappropriate provision of PPE, inadequate training and inconsistent guidance. In order to effectively care for patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, frontline HCWs need appropriate provision of PPE, training in its use as well as comprehensive and consistent guidance. These needs must be addressed in order to protect the health and well-being of the most valuable healthcare resource in the COVID-19 pandemic: our HCWs.

SUBMITTER: Hoernke K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7818840 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Frontline healthcare workers' experiences with personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: a rapid qualitative appraisal.

Hoernke Katarina K Djellouli Nehla N Andrews Lily L Lewis-Jackson Sasha S Manby Louisa L Martin Sam S Vanderslott Samantha S Vindrola-Padros Cecilia C

BMJ open 20210120 1

<h4>Objectives</h4>To report frontline healthcare workers' (HCWs) experiences with personal protective equipment (PPE) during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. To understand HCWs' fears and concerns surrounding PPE, their experiences following its guidance and how these affected their perceived ability to deliver care during the COVID-19 pandemic.<h4>Design</h4>A rapid qualitative appraisal study combining three sources of data: semistructured in-depth telephone interviews with frontline HCWs (n= ...[more]

PMID: 33472794

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:Aims and objetivesExplore nurses' experiences and perception of risk regarding the use of personal protective equipment during the first wave of the pandemic in Spain.BackgroundThe contribution of our study is to use qualitative methods to understand nurses' experiences and perceptions of the risk of the contagion linked to the shortage of PPE during the first wave of the pandemic, whose explosive start strained health systems around the globe.DesignQualitative descriptive design according to the Rapid Research Evaluation and Appraisal model.MethodsSemi-structured videoconference interviews were conducted to explore the experiences of 29 nurses including staff nurses, nursing supervisors and nursing directors from hospital and community services of the Spanish health system. Interviews lasted 30-45 min and were conducted in May 2020. We carried out a thematic analysis using Dedoose. The COREQ checklist was used to report findings.ResultsWe identified the following themes and subthemes: 1. Experiences with personal protective equipment: scarcity, inequality, reutilization, self-protection, delegation of responsibility, and gap between protocols and reality; 2. Perception of the risk of contagion: lack of credibility, lack of trust, lack of support, and meeting subjective needs.ConclusionsThe scarcity of personal protective equipment and inequality in its distribution led nurses to take initiatives to feel more protected. Mid-ranking supervisors were caught between the responsibility of monitoring and rationing personal protective equipment and providing the necessary protection to nurses. The disjuncture between protocols and the available supply of personal protective equipment caused confusion. Lack of credibility, lack of trust and lack of support from management influenced participants' perception of the risk of contagion. Mid-ranking supervisors were often responsible for trying to alleviate fear among nursing staff.Relevance to clinical practiceUnderstanding the factors involved in risk perception can be helpful to decision-makers who help protect nurses in clinical practice. These results can help administrators and policymakers because they point to the need for nurses to feel that their departments and centers look after their safety at work. Transparent communication and emotional support may contribute to their well-being in the face of risk.

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has had a well-documented negative impact on the mental health and wellbeing of frontline healthcare workers (HCWs). Whilst no research has to date been carried out to explore the challenges experienced by the families of HCWs, some previous research has been conducted with military families, demonstrating that family members of deployed military personnel may also be affected seriously and negatively.ObjectivesThis study aimed to explore the experiences, views, and mental health impact on frontline HCWs' families during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK and what support the families of frontline HCWs may need.MethodClose family members and friends of HCWs were interviewed. Transcripts were analysed in line with the principles of reflexive thematic analysis.ResultsWe completed fourteen interviews with three siblings, one mother, one friend, and nine spouses of HCWs. Family members were highly motivated to support healthcare workers and felt an intense sense of pride in their work. However, they also experienced increased domestic responsibilities and emotional burden due to anxiety about their loved ones' work. The fact that sacrifices made by family members were not noticed by society, the anxiety they felt about their family's physical health, the impact of hearing about traumatic experiences, and the failure of healthcare organisations to meet the needs of the HCWs all negatively affected the family members.ConclusionsWe have an ethical responsibility to attend to the experiences and needs of the families of healthcare professionals. This study emphasises the experiences and needs of family members of healthcare professionals, which have hitherto been missing from the literature. Further research is needed to hear from more parents, siblings and friends, partners in same sex relationships, as well as children of HCWs, to explore the variety of family members and supporters' experiences more fully.Highlights• COVID19 has impacted families of HCWs as well as workers themselves. They have experienced more anxiety, increased practical burden, significant physical health risks and been exposed vicariously to workers' traumatic experiences. We must ensure HCW families are better supported.

Project description:BackgroundHealthcare workers (HCWs) use personal protective equipment (PPE) in Ebola virus disease (EVD) situations. However, preventing the contamination of HCWs and the environment during PPE removal crucially requires improved strategies. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of three PPE ensembles, namely, Hospital Authority (HA) Standard Ebola PPE set (PPE1), Dupont Tyvek Model, style 1422A (PPE2), and HA isolation gown for routine patient care and performing aerosol-generating procedures (PPE3) to prevent EVD transmission by measuring the degree of contamination of HCWs and the environment.MethodsA total of 59 participants randomly performed PPE donning and doffing. The trial consisted of PPE donning, applying fluorescent solution on the PPE surface, PPE doffing of participants, and estimation of the degree of contamination as indicated by the number of fluorescent stains on the working clothes and environment. Protocol deviations during PPE donning and doffing were monitored.ResultsPPE2 and PPE3 presented higher contamination risks than PPE1. Environmental contaminations such as those originating from rubbish bin covers, chairs, faucets, and sinks were detected. Procedure deviations were observed during PPE donning and doffing, with PPE1 presenting the lowest overall deviation rate (%) among the three PPE ensembles (p < 0.05).ConclusionContamination of the subjects' working clothes and surrounding environment occurred frequently during PPE doffing. Procedure deviations were observed during PPE donning and doffing. Although PPE1 presented a lower contamination risk than PPE2 and PPE3 during doffing and protocol deviations, the design of PPE1 can still be further improved. Future directions should focus on designing a high-coverage-area PPE with simple ergonomic features and on evaluating the doffing procedure to minimise the risk of recontamination. Regular training for users should be emphasised to minimise protocol deviations, and in turn, guarantee the best protection to HCWs.

Dataset Information

Frontline healthcare workers' experiences with personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: a rapid qualitative appraisal.

Objectives

Design

Participants

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Frontline healthcare workers' experiences with personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: a rapid qualitative appraisal.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets