Dataset Information

Dispatched nurses' experience of wearing full gear personal protective equipment to care for COVID-19 patients in China-A descriptive qualitative study.

ABSTRACT:

Aims and objectives

We explored dispatched nurses' experiences of wearing full gear personal protective equipment to care for patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) in Wuhan, China.

Background

Full gear personal protective equipment is the primary and foremost measure to prevent the contact and transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2); however, working in full gear personal protective equipment may hinder nursing care activities and thus negatively affect patients' and nurses' health.

Design

This descriptive qualitative inquiry followed the COREQ guidelines.

Methods

Individual semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted in a purposive sample of 15 frontline nurses who were dispatched to the outbreak epicentre from March to April 2020. Verbatim transcripts were content analysed.

Results

Four themes emerged from the data: inadequate preparedness for working with full gear personal protective equipment, full gear personal protective equipment stimulated stress responses, coping strategies and professional growth. Participants learned a great deal from problem-focussed and emotion-focussed strategies to tackle challenges related to the prolonged wearing of full gear personal protective equipment for quality nursing care and reduced risk of exposure. They became more vigilant to the adherence to evolving protocols and appropriate training concerning full gear personal protective equipment use.

Conclusions

Frontline nurses confronted various but diminishing challenges related to the use of full gear personal protective equipment when caring for patients with COVID-19 across the approximate 40-day period. Consistent use of coverall personal protective equipment to protect from SARS-CoV-2 in high exposure settings would be feasible if nurses were better prepared; therefore, scenario-based skill training concerning the prolonged use of full gear personal protective equipment should be offered regularly and intensively.

Relevance to clinical practice

This study informs future decisions concerning improved full gear personal protective equipment-related psychomotor training and promoting ways for nurses to cope with the stress that comes from working in highly contiguous environments.

SUBMITTER: Chen F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8251170 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTracheal intubation in patients with coronavirus disease-19 is a high-risk procedure that should be performed with personal protective equipment (PPE). The influence of PPE on operator's performance during tracheal intubation remains unclear.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of simulation studies to evaluate the influence of wearing PPE as compared to standard uniform regarding time-to-intubation (TTI) and success rate. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to device used and operator's experience.ResultsThe TTI was prolonged when wearing PPE (eight studies): Standard Mean Difference (SMD) -0.54, 95% Confidence Interval [-0.75, -0.34], p < 0.0001. Subgroup analyses according to device used showed similar findings (direct laryngoscopy, SMD -0.63 [-0.88, -0.38], p < 0.0001; videolaryngoscopy, SMD -0.39 [-0.75, -0.02], p = 0.04). Considering the operator's experience, non-anesthesiologists had prolonged TTI (SMD -0.75 [-0.98, -0.52], p < 0.0001) while the analysis on anesthesiologists did not show significant differences (SMD -0.25 [-0.51, 0.01], p = 0.06). The success rate of tracheal intubation was not influenced by PPE: Risk Ratio (RR) 1.02 [1.00, 1.04]; p = 0.12). Subgroup analyses according to device demonstrated similar results (direct laryngoscopy, RR 1.03 [0.99, 1.07], p = 0.15, videolaryngoscopy, RR 1.01 [0.98, 1.04], p = 0.52). Wearing PPE had a trend towards negative influence on success rate in non-anesthesiologists (RR 1.05 [1.00, 1.10], p = 0.05), but not in anesthesiologists (RR 1.00 [0.98, 1.03], p = 0.84). Trial-sequential analyses for TTI and success rate indicated robustness of both results.ConclusionsUnder simulated conditions, wearing PPE delays the TTI as compared to dressing standard uniform, with no influence on the success rate. However, certainty of evidence is very low. Performing tracheal intubation with direct laryngoscopy seems influenced to a greater extent as compared to videolaryngoscopy. Similarly, wearing PPE affects more the non-anesthesiologists subgroup as compared to anesthesiologists.

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.