Dataset Information

Safe On-Boat Resuscitation by Lifeguards in COVID-19 Era: A Pilot Study Comparing Three Sets of Personal Protective Equipment.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

On-boat resuscitation can be applied by lifeguards in an inflatable rescue boat (IRB). Due to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-COV-2) and recommendations for the use of personal protective equipment (PPE), prehospital care procedures need to be re-evaluated. The objective of this study was to determine how the use of PPE influences the amount of preparation time needed before beginning actual resuscitation and the quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR; QCPR) on an IRB.

Methods

Three CPR tests were performed by 14 lifeguards, in teams of two, wearing different PPE: (1) Basic PPE (B-PPE): gloves, a mask, and protective glasses; (2) Full PPE (F-PPE): B-PPE + a waterproof apron; and (3) Basic PPE + plastic blanket (B+PPE). On-boat resuscitation using a bag-valve-mask (BVM) and high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter was performed sailing at 20km/hour.

Results

Using B-PPE takes less time and is significantly faster than F-PPE (B-PPE 17 [SD = 2] seconds versus F-PPE 69 [SD = 17] seconds; P = .001), and the use of B+PPE is slightly higher (B-PPE 17 [SD = 2] seconds versus B+PPE 34 [SD = 6] seconds; P = .002). The QCPR remained similar in all three scenarios (P >.05), reaching values over 79%.

Conclusion

The use of PPE during on-board resuscitation is feasible and does not interfere with quality when performed by trained lifeguards. The use of a plastic blanket could be a quick and easy alternative to offer extra protection to lifeguards during CPR on an IRB.

SUBMITTER: Barcala-Furelos R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7900657 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (COVID19) pandemic has pushed health workers to find creative solutions to a global shortage of personal protection equipment (PPE). 3D-printing technology is having an essential role during the pandemic providing solutions for this problem, for instance, modifying full-face snorkel masks or creating low-cost face shields to use as PPE (Ishack and Lipner, 2020 [1]). Otolaryngologists are at increased occupational risk to COVID19 infection due to the exposure to respiratory droplets and aerosols, especially during the routine nose and mouth examinations where coughing and sneezing happen regularly (Rna et al., 2017 [2]; Tysome and Bhutta, 2020 [3]). The use of a headlight is essential during these examinations. However, to our knowledge, none of the commercially available or 3D-printable face shields are compatible with a headlight. Hence, using a face shield and a headlight at the same time can be very uncomfortable and sometimes impossible. To solve this problem, we have designed a 3D-printable adapter for medical headlights, which can hold a transparent sheet to create a face shield as an effective barrier protection that can be used comfortably with the headlight. The adapter can be printed in different materials with the most commonly used nowadays being the cost-efficient PLA (Polylactic Acid) used for this prototype. The resulting piece weighs only 7 g and has an estimated cost of $0.15 USD. The transparent sheets, typically made from polyester and used for laser printing, can be purchased in any office material store with a standard price of 0.4 USD per unit. After use, the transparent sheet can be easily removed. We trialed the adapter in 7 different headlights. All of these headlights accommodated the printed blocks extremely well. The headlights were used in many different settings, including the ENT clinic, the operating room, the emergency room, the ENT ward and the COVID19 intensive care unit (ICU) for a two weeks period. All doctors using the headlight felt they were fully protected from respiratory droplets, blood, sputum and other fluids. The face shield with the headlight has been found very useful for treating epistaxis, changing tracheostomy cannulas and during routine nasal and oral examinations. The headlight face shield adapter was designed to solve a specific problem among the ENT community; however other specialist can find it useful as well. Nonetheless, manufacturers should take care of specifics problems like this and provide commercially available products to protect the ENT workforce in this new era.

Project description:BackgroundandObjectives: This retrospective study evaluated the clinical impact of enhanced personal protective equipment (PPE) on the clinical outcomes in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Moreover, by focusing on the use of a powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR), we investigated the medical personnel's perceptions of wearing PAPR during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Materialsand Methods: According to the arrival time at the emergency department, the patients were categorized into a conventional PPE group (1 August 2019 to 20 January 2020) and an enhanced PPE group (21 January 2020, to 31 August 2020). The primary outcomes of this analysis were the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) rate. Additionally, subjective perception of the medical staff regarding the effect of wearing enhanced PPE during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) was evaluated by conducting a survey. Results: This study included 130 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients, with 73 and 57 patients in the conventional and enhanced PPE groups, respectively. The median time intervals to first intubation and to report the first arterial blood gas analysis results were longer in the enhanced PPE group than in the conventional PPE group (3 min vs. 2 min; p = 0.020 and 8 min vs. 3 min; p < 0.001, respectively). However, there were no significant differences in the ROSC rate (odds ratio (OR) = 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.38-1.67; p = 0.542) and 1 month survival (OR 0.38, 95% CI: 0.07-2.10; p = 0.266) between the two groups. In total, 67 emergent department (ED) professionals responded to the questionnaire. Although a significant number of respondents experienced inconveniences with PAPR use, they agreed that PAPR was necessary during the CPR procedure for protection and reduction of infection transmission. Conclusion: The use of enhanced PPE, including PAPR, affected the performance of CPR to some extent but did not alter patient outcomes. PAPR use during the resuscitation of OHCA patients might positively impact the psychological stability of the medical staff.