Dataset Information

Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) in COVID 19 Pandemic: Related Symptoms and Adverse Reactions in Healthcare Workers and General Population.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To assess prevalence of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)-related symptoms and adverse reactions during Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemics.

Methods

We conducted an observational study among people exposed to various degree of infectious risk. Data were collected with a self-administered online questionnaire.

Results

The entire cohort complained about a wide range of adverse reactions: respiratory symptoms affected 80.3% of respondents, 68.5% referred pressure-related skin lesions, fewer manifested a dermatosis of different grade or ocular symptoms. Most of the affected individuals belonged to healthcare staff and manifestations were predicted by wearing time (more than 6?h/d). Moreover, symptoms were higher in the healthcare staff wearing N95/FFP2 respirator mask.

Conclusions

Given the crucial role of PPE to contain the pandemic infection, more attention has to be paid to exposed categories, establishing preventive measure of side effects to ensure total safety.

SUBMITTER: Battista RA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7864606 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) in COVID 19 Pandemic: Related Symptoms and Adverse Reactions in Healthcare Workers and General Population.

Battista Rosa Alessia RA Ferraro Milena M Piccioni Lucia Oriella LO Malzanni Giulia Elvira GE Bussi Mario M

Journal of occupational and environmental medicine 20210201 2

<h4>Objectives</h4>To assess prevalence of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)-related symptoms and adverse reactions during Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemics.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted an observational study among people exposed to various degree of infectious risk. Data were collected with a self-administered online questionnaire.<h4>Results</h4>The entire cohort complained about a wide range of adverse reactions: respiratory symptoms affected 80.3% of respondents, 68.5% referred pressure-r ...[more]

PMID: 33298757

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:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has revealed vulnerabilities in healthcare systems worldwide, emphasizing the importance of healthcare worker safety through adequate utilization of personal protective equipment (PPE). This study aims to assess the impact of pre-pandemic PPE training on the practices and other associated factors among frontline healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic in Pakistan and provide insights into the implications of such training programs for future initiatives.MethodsA cross-sectional study from May 9th to June 5th, 2020 was conducted among the frontline healthcare workers against COVID-19 in Pakistan, utilizing an online structured questionnaire shared via WhatsApp and Facebook by using purposive sampling. Statistical analyses, including chi-square tests for proportion and logistic regression for the association while multi-logistic regression for potential confounders, were performed using SPSS version 22.ResultsA total of 453 healthcare staff participated, with 68.9% (n = 312) reporting no prior PPE training and 31.1% (n = 141) having received training. Significant associations were found between prior training and healthcare group distribution (p = 0.006), with doctors exhibiting the highest proportion of training 82 (37.61%), followed by nurses 50 (27.32%) and paramedics 9 (17.31%). Those who didn't receive any prior training in PPEs showed a higher perceived professional risk of 216 (69.23%) compared to those who received prior PPE training 96 (30.77%, p-value 0.005). Similarly, a higher frequency 137 (63.72%) of Perceived Personal risk was observed in those who didn't receive training, labeled as "high risk" compared to those who were trained 78 (36.28%, P value 0.02). Multi-logistic regression analysis identified paramedics as 0.26 times less likely to have received prior PPE training (Adjusted OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.10-0.65, p = 0.01) compared to medical doctors. Healthcare workers in tertiary care hospitals were 0.46 times less likely to undergo PPE training (Adjusted OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.25-0.87,p = 0.01) compared to those working at COVID-19 facilities/hospitals/quarantine centers. Likewise, individuals who doffed disposable gowns [Adjusted OR 3.86, (95% CI, 1.23-12.08, p = 0.02] were 3.86 times more interested in getting prior training in PPE compared to those who don't have skills to wear them.ConclusionOur findings highlight that healthcare levels, type of healthcare, and doffing skills are important predictors of whether healthcare workers have taken prior training in PPE. These findings imply developing effective training programs for healthcare workers to ensure safety while providing care during pandemics like COVID-19.

Project description:BackgroundThe association between inadequate personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic and an increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in frontline healthcare workers has been proven. However, frontline healthcare workers with an adequate supply of personal protective equipment still showed an increased risk of contracting COVID-19. Research on the use of personal protective equipment could provide insight into handling present and future pandemics.ObjectivesThis study aims to investigate the impact of the availability, training and correct selection of personal protective equipment on the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection or positive suspect cases in healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic in Belgium.DesignThis was a prospective cohort study involving Belgian healthcare workers: nurses, nursing aides, and midwives working in hospitals, home care services, and residential care services.MethodsRespondents were invited from May to July 2020 (period 1) followed by a second time in October 2020 (period 2) to complete a digital survey on personal protective equipment availability, training, personal protective equipment selection, screening ability, COVID-19 testing and status, and symptoms corresponding with the COVID-19 suspect case definition. The main outcome was a composite of COVID-19 status change (from negative to positive) during the study or a positive suspect case definition in period 2.ResultsFull data were available for 617 participants. The majority of respondents were nurses (93%) employed in a hospital (83%). In total, 379 respondents provided frontline care for COVID-19 patients (61%) and were questioned on personal protective equipment availability and personal protective equipment selection. Nurses were more likely to select the correct personal protective equipment compared with nursing aides and midwives. Respondents working in residential care settings were least likely to choose personal protective equipment correctly. Of all healthcare workers, 10% tested positive for COVID-19 during the course of the study and a composite outcome was reached in 54% of all respondents. Working experience and sufficient personal protective equipment training showed an inverse relation with the composite outcome. The relationship between personal protective equipment availability and the composite outcome was fully mediated by personal protective equipment training (-0.105 [95% confidence interval -0.211 - -0.020]).ConclusionsProper training in personal protective equipment usage is critical to reduce the risk of COVID infection in healthcare workers. During a pandemic, rapid dissemination of video guidelines could improve personal protective equipment knowledge in practitioners. Tweetable abstract: Proper training in personal protective equipment usage is critical to reduce the risk of COVID infection in healthcare workers.

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

Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) in COVID 19 Pandemic: Related Symptoms and Adverse Reactions in Healthcare Workers and General Population.

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) in COVID 19 Pandemic: Related Symptoms and Adverse Reactions in Healthcare Workers and General Population.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets