Dataset Information

Availability and use of personal protective equipment and satisfaction of healthcare professionals during COVID-19 pandemic in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Healthcare professionals (HCPs) are at the frontline in the fight against COVID-19 and are at an increased risk of becoming infected with coronavirus. Risk of infection can be minimized by use of proper personal protective equipment (PPE). The aim of this study was to assess the availability and use of PPE, and satisfaction of HCPs with PPE in six public hospitals in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted among 1134 HCPs in June 2020. A systematic random sampling and consecutive sampling techniques were used to select the study participants. Data were collected using a self-administered questionnaire. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the data and Chi-square test was used to assess the association between the groups. Bivariate and multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess factors associated with satisfaction of healthcare workers.

Results

The mean (±SD) age of the participants was 30.26 ± 6.43 year and 52.6% were females. Nurses constituted about 40% of the overall sample, followed by physicians (22.2%), interns (10.8%), midwives (10.3%) and others (16.7%). The majority (77%) of the HCPs reported that their hospital did not have adequate PPE. A critical shortage of N95 respirators was particularly reported, it only increased from 13 to 24% before and during COVID-19, respectively. The use of N95 increased from 9 to 21% before and during COVID-19, respectively. Almost 72% of the respondents were dissatisfied with the availability and use of PPE in their hospital. The independent predictors of the respondents' satisfaction level about PPE were healthcare workers who reported that PPE was adequately available in the hospital (adjusted OR = 7.65, 95% CI:5.09-11.51), and preparedness to provide care to COVID-19 cases (adjusted OR = 2.07, 95% CI:1.42-3.03).

Conclusions

A critical shortage of appropriate PPE and high level of dissatisfaction with the availability and use of PPE were identified. Therefore, urgent efforts are needed to adequately supply the healthcare facilities with appropriate PPE to alleviate the challenges.

SUBMITTER: Deressa W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8369137 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Healthcare professionals are at higher risk of contracting the new coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Although appropriate preventive measures are the most important interventions to prevent coronavirus infection among healthcare workers, they are also highly concerned about the consequences of the pandemic. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to assess preventive practices, perceived risk and worry about COVID-19 crisis among healthcare professionals at six public hospitals in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. A systematic random sampling technique was used to select 1,134 respondents (52.6% females). Data were collected between 9th and 20th June 2020 using self-administered questionnaires. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. A multiple linear regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with worry about COVID-19 crisis. The highest percentage of respondents were nurses (39.3%) and physicians (22.2%), followed by interns (10.8%) and midwives (10.3%). Wearing facemask (93%) and frequent hand washing (93%) were the commonly reported preventive practices. Perceived risk of becoming infected with coronavirus (88%) and the potential risk of infection to their family (91%) were very high. The mean (median) worry score about COVID-19 crisis was 2.37 (3.0), on 1 to 3 scale, with 1 (not worried) and 3 (highly worried). The majority worried a lot about the health system being overwhelmed by COVID-19 patients (92%), the health of their loved ones (90%) and losing someone due to COVID-19 (89%). Respondents who had previously provided clinical care to Ebola, SARS and cholera patients had significantly lower levels of worry about COVID-19 crisis than participants who had not (β = -1.38, P<0.001). Our findings reveal respondents' widespread practice of preventive measures, highest levels of perceived risk and worry about the COVID-19 crisis. Increased perceived risk and worry about COVID-19 might enable healthcare workers to adopt appropriate preventive measures more effectively against the disease.

Project description:BackgroundAccess to life-saving medicines for maternal health remains a major challenge in numerous developing nations. Periodic and continuous assessment of access to lifesaving commodities is of enormous importance to measure progress and ensure sustainable supply. This study aimed to assess the availability and affordability of priority lifesaving maternal medicines in Addis Ababa in January 2021.MethodsAn institutional-based cross-sectional study design was employed to assess 33 representative private pharmacies, public health facilities, NGO and private hospitals providing maternal health care and dispensing medicines from January 12 to 27, 2021 in Addis Ababa, the capital city of Ethiopia. WHO and Health Action International procedures were followed to determine sample size, sampling of health facilities, and data collection. WHO and UNFPA priority lifesaving maternal health medicines included in the Ethiopia essential medicine list were included in the study. Data were cleaned and entered into SPSS version 25 for analysis.ResultThe overall mean availability of maternal health medicines was fairly high, 59% (range 6%-94%), as per the WHO availability index. Among the four sectors, the private pharmacy had the lowest availability (40%), while the mean availability in private hospitals, public and NGO/mission sector facilities were 70%, 72% and 72% respectively. Medicines used only for the management of maternal health conditions had lower availability (47%) compared to commodities used for the broader indication (65%). Compared based on source, the average availability of maternal health medicines which could be sourced locally was (68%) higher than imported medicines (55%). Affordability was not an issue in the public sector, public facilities offered maternal health medicines at no cost to the client. On the other hand, the private hospitals dispensed only 13% of the medicines at affordable prices followed by the private pharmacies (17%) and NGO/Mission facilities (29%). Furthermore, key challenges to access maternal health medicines were frequent stockouts in the public sector and the high cost of medicines in the private sector.ConclusionEven though it was below the recommended 80% availability, fairly high availability with variabilities across sectors was observed. Except in the public sector, maternal health medicines were unaffordable in Addis Ababa.

Project description:ObjectiveTo examine the protective effects of appropriate personal protective equipment for frontline healthcare professionals who provided care for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).DesignCross sectional study.SettingFour hospitals in Wuhan, China.Participants420 healthcare professionals (116 doctors and 304 nurses) who were deployed to Wuhan by two affiliated hospitals of Sun Yat-sen University and Nanfang Hospital of Southern Medical University for 6-8 weeks from 24 January to 7 April 2020. These study participants were provided with appropriate personal protective equipment to deliver healthcare to patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 and were involved in aerosol generating procedures. 77 healthcare professionals with no exposure history to covid-19 and 80 patients who had recovered from covid-19 were recruited to verify the accuracy of antibody testing.Main outcome measuresCovid-19 related symptoms (fever, cough, and dyspnoea) and evidence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, defined as a positive test for virus specific nucleic acids in nasopharyngeal swabs, or a positive test for IgM or IgG antibodies in the serum samples.ResultsThe average age of study participants was 35.8 years and 68.1% (286/420) were women. These study participants worked 4-6 hour shifts for an average of 5.4 days a week; they worked an average of 16.2 hours each week in intensive care units. All 420 study participants had direct contact with patients with covid-19 and performed at least one aerosol generating procedure. During the deployment period in Wuhan, none of the study participants reported covid-19 related symptoms. When the participants returned home, they all tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 specific nucleic acids and IgM or IgG antibodies (95% confidence interval 0.0 to 0.7%).ConclusionBefore a safe and effective vaccine becomes available, healthcare professionals remain susceptible to covid-19. Despite being at high risk of exposure, study participants were appropriately protected and did not contract infection or develop protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2. Healthcare systems must give priority to the procurement and distribution of personal protective equipment, and provide adequate training to healthcare professionals in its use.

Project description:BackgroundHealthcare waste produced in healthcare activities entails higher risk of infection and injuries than municipal waste. In developing countries healthcare waste has not received much attention and has been disposed of together with municipal wastes. Modern method of disposal of healthcare waste have been introduced to most healthcare institutions mismanagement and increased in production in public health centres in Ethiopia is important issues. The aim of the study was to assess the type of healthcare waste generation and quantification in selected public health centres in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.MethodsAn institution based cross-sectional study were conducted from January to February 2018. Fifteen health centres in Addis Ababa City Administration were selected for this study. Data were collected by using by different color plastic bags (Black plastic bags for non-hazardous wastes, Yellow plastic bags for hazardous wastes and Yellow safety box for needles and Red bags for pharmaceutical wastes and toxic wastes). The collected wastes were measured by weighing scale and were written to data entry sheet. To assure the data quality calibration of weighing scale was made by the standard weight every morning. EPI INFO TM7 and IBM SPSS were used for data entry, cleaning and analysis.ResultsThe mean healthcare waste generation was 10.64+5.79Kg/day of which 37.26% (3.96+2.20Kg/day) was general waste and 62.74% (6.68+4.29) was hazardous waste from the studies health centres. Total hazardous waste; sharps, infectious, pathological and pharmaceutical wastes constitutes mean (±SD) 0.97 ±1.03, 3.23 ± 2.60, 2.17±1.92 and 0.25 ±0.34 kg/day respectively. Healthcare waste 29.93% and 0.32% were generated from delivery and post-natal case team and nutrition and growth monitoring case team respectively. The annual mean+ SD of healthcare waste generation rate per health centres were 3807.53+ 2109.84 Kg/year.ConclusionThe finding in this study showed there was an increased in hazardous healthcare waste in amount as compared to the WHO standard 85% non-hazardous waste and 10% hazardous waste and 5% toxic wastes. The healthcare waste management practices about segregation, collection, transportation and disposal at the source is crucial to decrease in quantity. Generally unselective handling and disposal of healthcare wastes is a concern.

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.