Pediatric intravascular access in simulated COVID-19 patients among paramedics wearing personal protective equipment.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ruetzler K
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7833352 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Pediatric intravascular access in simulated COVID-19 patients among paramedics wearing personal protective equipment.
Ruetzler Kurt K Drozd Anna A Gasecka Aleksandra A Bielski Karol K Wieczorek Wojciech W Al-Jeabory Mahdi M Hernik Jacek J Szarpak Lukasz L
Resuscitation plus 20201229
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundEndotracheal intubation (ETI) is still the gold standard of airway management, but in cases of sudden cardiac arrest in patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, ETI is associated with risks for both the patient and the medical personnel. We hypothesized that the Vie Scope® is more useful for endotracheal intubation of suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cardiac arrest patients than the conventional laryngoscope with Macintosh blade when operators are wearing personal protective equipment (PPE).MethodsStudy was designed as a prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical trial performed by Emergency Medical Services in Poland. Patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis who needed cardiopulmonary resuscitation in prehospital setting were included. Patients under 18 years old or with criteria predictive of impossible intubation under direct laryngoscopy, were excluded. Patients were randomly allocated 1:1 to Vie Scope® versus direct laryngoscopy with a Macintosh blade. Study groups were compared on success of intubation attempts, time to intubation, glottis visualization and number of optimization maneuvers.ResultsWe enrolled 90 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients, aged 43-92 years. Compared to the VieScope® laryngoscope, use of the Macintosh laryngoscope required longer times for tracheal intubation with an estimated mean difference of -48 s (95%CI confidence interval [CI], -60.23, -35.77; p < 0.001). Moreover VieScope® improved first attempt success rate, 93.3% vs. 51.1% respectively (odds ratio [OR] = 13.39; 95%CI: 3.62, 49.58; p < 0.001).ConclusionsThe use of the Vie Scope® laryngoscope in OHCA patients improved the first attempt success rate, and reduced intubation time compared to Macintosh laryngoscope in paramedics wearing PPE for against aerosol generating procedures.Trial registrationClinicalTrials registration number NCT04365608.
| S-EPMC8731221 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe COVID-19 pandemic has brought forth new challenges for health care workers, such as the daily use of personal protective equipment, including reusable facial respirators. Poor communication while wearing respirators may have fatal complications for patients, and no solution has been proposed to date.ObjectiveTo examine whether use of an in-ear communication device is associated with improved communication while wearing different personal protective equipment (N95 mask, half-face elastomeric respirator, and powered air-purifying respirator [PAPR]) in the operating room.Design, setting, and participantsThis quality improvement study was conducted in June 2020. Surgical residents from the Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery at McGill University in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, were recruited. All participants had normal hearing, were fluent in English, and had access to the operating rooms at the Royal Victoria Hospital.ExposuresAll participants performed the speech intelligibility tasks with and without an in-ear communication device.Main outcomes and measuresSpeech intelligibility was measured using a word recognition task (Modified Rhyme Test) and a sentence recognition task (AzBio Sentence Test). A percentage correct score (0% to 100%) was obtained for each speech intelligibility test. Listening effort was assessed using the NASA Task Load Index. An overall workload score, ranging from 0 points (low workload) to 100 points (high workload), was obtained.ResultsA total of 12 participants were included (mean [SD] age, 31.2 [1.9] years; 8 women [66.7%]). AzBio Sentence Test results revealed that, while wearing the N95 mask, the mean (SD) speech intelligibility was 98.8% (1.8%) without the in-ear device vs 94.3% (7.4%) with the device. While wearing the half-face elastomeric respirator, the mean speech intelligibility was 58.5% (12.4%) without the in-ear device vs 90.8% (8.9%) with the device. While wearing the PAPR, the mean speech intelligibility was 84.6% (9.8%) without the in-ear device vs 94.5% (5.5%) with the device. Use of the in-ear device was associated with a significant improvement in speech intelligibility while wearing the half-face elastomeric respirator (32.3%; 95% CI, 23.8%-40.7%; P < .001) and the PAPR (9.9%; 95% CI, 1.4%-18.3%; P = .01). Furthermore, use of the device was associated with decreased listening effort. The NASA Task Load Index results reveal that, while wearing the N95 mask, the mean (SD) overall workload score was 12.6 (10.6) points without the in-ear device vs 17.6 (9.2) points with the device. While wearing the half-face elastomeric respirator, the mean overall workload score was 67.7 (21.6) points without the in-ear device vs 29.3 (14.4) points with the in-ear device. While wearing the PAPR, the mean overall workload score was 42.2 (18.2) points without the in-ear device vs 23.8 (12.8) points with the in-ear device. Use of the in-ear device was associated with a significant decrease in overall workload score while wearing the half-face elastomeric respirator (38.4; 95% CI, 23.5-53.3; P < .001) and the PAPR (18.4; 95% CI, 0.4-36.4; P = .04).Conclusions and relevanceThis study found that among participants using facial respirators that impaired communication, a novel in-ear device was associated with improved communication and decreased listening effort. Such a device may be a feasible solution for protecting health care workers in the operating room while allowing them to communicate safely, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.
| S-EPMC8056284 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPersonal Protective Equipment (PPE) Portraits is a hybridized art and medical intervention that lessens the alienating appearance of PPE through wearable, smiling headshot pictures. During the pandemic, the use of these portraits was expanded, but Canadian initiatives offered portraits only to immediate stakeholders. PPE Portraits Canada (PPC) aimed to provide PPE portraits to any Canadian healthcare institution and surveyed healthcare workers (HCW) regarding these portraits' impact.MethodsUniversity student volunteers founded PPC via online platforms and coast-to-coast collaborations that allowed any HCW nationwide to request a free portrait via an accessible online form. PPC has gathered feedback from participating HCWs directly via an anonymous and bilingual survey.Results70% of HCWs wore their portraits "always" or "usually", 69% of HCWs "definitely would" recommend their portrait, 89.5% of HCWs found that the PPE portraits made a difference in their experiences with patients and 74% found the same for their colleagues. The pre- and post-effect of the portraits, led to a 37.5% greater likelihood that HCWs felt "connected" or "very connected" to patients/residents. For the thematic analysis, 70% or more of the comments were rated as positive, with less than 5% of comments being rated as negative.ConclusionThis model's logistical framework can be expanded beyond PPE portraits to other initiatives with limited resources, allowing them to reach and positively impact diverse populations. HCW feedback was predominantly positive. The optimal design and impact of PPE portraits on patients and HCWs should be studied further to improve portrait adoption.
| S-EPMC10889603 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe correct use of personal protective equipment (PPE) limits transmission of serious communicable diseases to healthcare workers, which is critically important in the era of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, prior studies illustrated that healthcare workers frequently err during application and removal of PPE. The goal of this study was to determine whether a simulation-based, mastery learning intervention with deliberate practice improves correct use of PPE by physicians during a simulated clinical encounter with a COVID-19 patient.MethodsThis was a pretest-posttest study performed in the emergency department at a large, academic tertiary care hospital between March 31-April 8, 2020. A total of 117 subjects participated, including 56 faculty members and 61 resident physicians. Prior to the intervention, all participants received institution-mandated education on PPE use via an online video and supplemental materials. Participants completed a pretest skills assessment using a 21-item checklist of steps to correctly don and doff PPE. Participants were expected to meet a minimum passing score (MPS) of 100%, determined by an expert panel using the Mastery Angoff and Patient Safety standard-setting techniques. Participants that met the MPS on pretest were exempt from the educational intervention. Testing occurred before and after an in-person demonstration of proper donning and doffing techniques and 20 minutes of deliberate practice. The primary outcome was a change in assessment scores of correct PPE use following our educational intervention. Secondary outcomes included differences in performance scores between faculty members and resident physicians, and differences in performance during donning vs doffing sequences.ResultsAll participants had a mean pretest score of 73.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70.9-75.3%). Faculty member and resident pretest scores were similar (75.1% vs 71.3%, p = 0.082). Mean pretest doffing scores were lower than donning scores across all participants (65.8% vs 82.8%, p<0.001). Participant scores increased 26.9% (95% CI of the difference 24.7-29.1%, p<0.001) following our educational intervention resulting in all participants meeting the MPS of 100%.ConclusionA mastery learning intervention with deliberate practice ensured the correct use of PPE by physician subjects in a simulated clinical encounter of a COVID-19 patient. Further study of translational outcomes is needed.
| S-EPMC7514383 | 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:BackgroundThe aim of the study was to evaluate various methods of chest compressions in patients with suspected/confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection conducted by medical students wearing full personal protective equipment (PPE) for aerosol generating procedures (AGP).MethodsThis was prospective, randomized, multicenter, single-blinded, crossover simulation trial. Thirty-five medical students after an advanced cardiovascular life support course, which included performing 2-min continuous chest compression scenarios using three methods: (A) manual chest compression (CC), (B) compression with CPRMeter, (C) compression with LifeLine ARM device. During resuscitation they are wearing full personal protective equipment for aerosol generating procedures.ResultsThe median chest compression depth using manual CC, CPRMeter and LifeLine ARM varied and amounted to 40 (38-45) vs. 45 (40-50) vs. 51 (50-52) mm, respectively (p = 0.002). The median chest compression rate was 109 (IQR; 102-131) compressions per minute (CPM) for manual CC, 107 (105-127) CPM for CPRMeter, and 102 (101-102) CPM for LifeLine ARM (p = 0.027). The percentage of correct chest recoil was the highest for LifeLine ARM - 100% (95-100), 80% (60-90) in CPRMeter group, and the lowest for manual CC - 29% (26-48).ConclusionsAccording to the results of this simulation trial, automated chest compression devices (ACCD) should be used for chest compression of patients with suspected/confirmed COVID-19. In the absence of ACCD, it seems reasonable to change the cardiopulmonary resuscitation algorithm (in the context of patients with suspected/confirmed COVID-19) by reducing the duration of the cardiopulmonary resuscitation cycle from the current 2-min to 1-min cycles due to a statistically significant reduction in the quality of chest compressions among rescuers wearing PPE AGP.
| S-EPMC8078983 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The personal protective equipment (PPE) used to minimize exposure to hazards can hinder healthcare workers from performing sophisticated procedures. We retrospectively reviewed 77,535 blood cultures (202,012 pairs) performed in 28,502 patients from January 2020 to April 2022. The contamination rate of all blood cultures was significantly elevated in the coronavirus disease 2019 ward at 4.68%, compared to intensive care units at 2.56%, emergency rooms at 1.13%, hematology wards at 1.08%, and general wards at 1.07% (All of P < 0.001). This finding implies that wearing PPE might interfere with adherence to the aseptic technique. Therefore, a new PPE policy is needed that considers the balance between protecting healthcare workers and medical practices.
| S-EPMC10261706 | 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: Not available
| S-EPMC7228687 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe use of personal protective equipment (PPE) decreased the probability of viral transmission during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, some drawbacks have been observed with its extensive use, such as headaches, anxiety, and stress among physicians, which could affect decision-making processes, the performance of physicians, and consequently patients' safety. Few articles have studied the impact of PPE on physicians from different specialties. This study assessed the effect of wearing PPE on the performance and decision-making of physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic and compared the effects of wearing PPE on physicians from different specialties.MethodsA descriptive cross-sectional study was carried out through an anonymous 39-item online questionnaire. The physicians were divided according to the probability and frequency of performing invasive procedures. Group 1 included emergency medicine and critical care physicians, intensivists, and anesthetists, group 2 included physicians from different surgical subspecialties, and group 3 included physicians from different medical fields.ResultsThis study included 272 physicians; group 1 included 54, group 2 included 120, and group 3 included 98 physicians. Approximately, 90.4% of the participants aged between 30 and -40 years, and 72.8% of the participants were specialists. Results indicated that the comfort, vision, and communication were significantly reduced in all groups (81.1%, 88.7%, and 75.5%, respectively). In contrast, the handling of instruments was not significantly affected in the second group only. In addition, the decision-making and the rate of complications were not significantly affected.ConclusionThere was a negative impact of wearing PPE on the non-technical skills (vision, communication and overall comfort), and the technical skills of the physicians. The decision-making and patients' safety were not significantly affected. Recommendations include additional improvement of the PPE design due to its crucial effect on both non-technical and technical skills of physicians.
| S-EPMC8189734 | biostudies-literature