Effectiveness of self-portraits used over personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic among patients and healthcare workers.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: George AJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8241416 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
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: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.
| S-EPMC10286963 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesHealthcare workers (HCWs) worldwide have and are using personal protective equipment (PPE) as COVID-19 prevention measures, including gloves, gowns, goggles, masks and hand hygiene. Although several reviews have been published on the effectiveness of PPE, these often include studies on other inflectional diseases. This is problematic, because these diseases differ with regard to, e.g. the transmissibility and viral loads in the days after infection. Therefore, we assessed the effectiveness of PPE to protect HCWs from COVID-19 infections.DesignRapid review of literature.MethodsWe followed a practical guide to conduct the rapid review based on a protocol established by the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group. Meta-analyses have been conducted to synthesize the results. The confidence in the evidence was determined using the GRADE method.ResultsWe found 461 reviews and 208 primary studies, of which 16 systematic reviews included 11 observational studies of interest. Wearing PPE conferred significant protection against infection with COVID-19 as opposed to not wearing adequate PPE. Overall, the review results show that wearing face masks can significantly protect HCWs from infection. We found no effects for wearing gloves and gowns. Practicing thorough hand hygiene and having proper PPE, as compared to lacking proper PPE, showed a protective but not statistically significant effect. No studies reported the side effects of wearing PPE or acceptance rates.ConclusionThis evidence supports PPE use by HCW, and especially N95 masks, to reduce the risk of a COVID-19 infection.
| S-EPMC9190185 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9132790 | 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:BackgroundPersonal protective equipment (PPE) is essential to protect healthcare workers (HCWs). The practice of reusing PPE poses high levels of risk for accidental contamination by HCWs. Scarce medical literature compares practical means or methods for safe reuse of PPE while actively caring for patients.MethodsIn this study, observations were made of 28 experienced clinical participants performing five donning and doffing encounters while performing simulated full evaluations of patients with coronavirus disease 2019. Participants' N95 respirators were coated with a fluorescent dye to evaluate any accidental fomite transfer that occurred during PPE donning and doffing. Participants were evaluated using blacklight after each doffing encounter to evaluate new contamination sites, and were assessed for the cumulative surface area that occurred due to PPE doffing. Additionally, participants' workstations were evaluated for contamination.ResultsAll participants experienced some contamination on their upper extremities, neck and face. The highest cumulative area of fomite transfer risk was associated with the hook and paper bag storage methods, and the least contamination occurred with the tabletop storage method. Storing a reused N95 respirator on a tabletop was found to be a safer alternative than the current recommendation of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to use a paper bag for storage. All participants donning and doffing PPE were contaminated.ConclusionPPE reusage practices pose an unacceptably high level of risk of accidental cross-infection contamination to healthcare workers. The current design of PPE requires complete redesign with improved engineering and usability to protect healthcare workers.
| S-EPMC9172254 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7377698 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo assess prevalence of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)-related symptoms and adverse reactions during Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemics.MethodsWe conducted an observational study among people exposed to various degree of infectious risk. Data were collected with a self-administered online questionnaire.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsGiven 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.
| S-EPMC7864606 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHealthcare workers (HCW) were amongst the front-liners in the mission to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic and thus bore a huge risk of infection. Therefore, personal protective equipment (PPE) is of vital importance. There are several methods described in the literature to increase compliance with PPE use and reduce occupational infections. One of those methods is the institution of PPE inspectors that ensure proper adherence to PPE protocols and ultimately improve the outcomes of many HCWs.MethodsA team of PPE inspectors was introduced in a tertiary care university hospital, where they randomly evaluated and reinforced PPE use in accordance with the guidelines set by the local health authority. The study period was from the 10th of May 2020 until the 31st of August 2020. The evaluations were divided into three categories; appropriate, missing, or unnecessary use of PPE and were compared to trends in healthcare workers' COVID-19 infection rates.ResultsA total of 720 HCWs were evaluated from the 10th of May 2020 until the 31st of August 2020. The appropriate use of PPE increased from 56% to 89% during the study period. Meanwhile, the incidence of COVID-19 infection among HCWs, which has peaked to 31 cases per day on the 18th of May 2020, has been declining to below 5 cases per day towards the end of the study period.ConclusionPPE inspectors' team served a positive role in increasing compliance with PPE use and was associated with a reduction in the transmission of SARS-Cov-2 among HCWs.
| S-EPMC8005379 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo 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.DesignA 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).ParticipantsInterview 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.ResultsA 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.ConclusionThis 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.
| S-EPMC7818840 | biostudies-literature