Personal protective equipment utilization practice and psychological preparedness of health care workers against COVID-19 pandemic in Eastern Ethiopia
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objectives:
Effective implementation of prevention and control actions by health
SUBMITTER: Birhanu A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8511914 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundWork in the wood industry is often associated with exposure to wood dust and formaldehyde. The aims of this study were to describe the Knowledge, Attitude and Practice (KAP) concerning chemical health hazards among particleboard workers and to compare the KAP among temporary and permanent workers.MethodsA cross-sectional study design was used to collect data by structured questionnaires in two particleboard factories in Ethiopia. A total of 159 workers and 13 management personnel participated in this study. Both closed-ended and open-ended questions were included in the interviews. Chi-square tests, T tests and correlation analyses were used for categorical and continuous data. Total knowledge score (range 0-8) was calculated as the sum score of 8 items weighing one point each. Multiple linear regression was applied to estimate the impact of employment status on total knowledge score adjusted for level of education. Content analysis was applied to analyse collected data from open-ended questions.ResultsThe mean age of the respondents was 28 (SD = 6) years and on average they had 3.7 [3] years of service. The permanent workers were older than the temporary workers (29 vs 26 years, p = 0.001), and a considerably high fraction of the permanent workers had vocational education (90%) compared to the temporary workers (11%). Permanent workers had higher proportion of response on knowledge of 10 of 12 topics regarding chemical hazards and attitudes on 6 of 11 of these topics than temporary workers. Permanent workers had higher knowledge scores (3.7) compared to temporary workers (1.3) (p < 0.001), also after adjusting for education (p = 0.011). Permanent workers were provided with personal protective equipment (PPE) while temporary workers were not. The qualitative data helps to understand the workers and administrative personnel attitude and thinking regarding chemical hazards and PPE.ConclusionsThe findings revealed that permanent workers have higher proportion of positive response on knowledge and attitude towards chemical health hazards than temporary workers. However, practice in use of PPE depended on access to PPE. Few temporary workers were provided with PPE.
| S-EPMC6487067 | biostudies-literature
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: Not available
| S-EPMC10569216 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background The need to reduce the transmission of infectious diseases makes the use of personal protective equipment and safety medical devices compulsory among hospital laundry staff. The practice, however, remains to be low among hospital laundry staff members. Globally, not many studies seem to have been carried out to sufficiently tell us about the barriers to personal protective equipment use among hospital laundry workers. Related studies in Ethiopia are even fewer. This study assessed the barriers to personal protective equipment use among laundry staff of government hospitals in Hawassa City, Southern Ethiopia, 2019. Methods Two qualitative data-gathering methods—focus group discussions and key informant interviews—were used to collect data for this study. Eight focus group discussions were conducted with hospital laundry workers. Similarly, six key informant interviews were held with Infection Prevention and Patient Safety Officers. Thematic analysis was performed using Open Code 4.02. Result Organizational- and individual-level barriers such as unavailability of essential personal protective equipment, a disharmonious work environment, low perception of susceptibility, and belief about personal protective equipment interference with work performance were identified as the major barriers to personal protective equipment use in the present study. Conclusion Organizational- and individual-level barriers have been identified as causes for the low level of personal protective equipment use among hospital laundry workers. Therefore, improving institutional supplies in quantity and quality may have a positive implication for the improvement of infection prevention practices in the study area. Also, designing sustainable strategies and raising laundry workers' awareness of a safe work environment may lead to the improvement of infection prevention practices.
| S-EPMC7528124 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background270 million workplace accidents occur annually. In Uganda, Kampala district has the highest workplace injury and fatality rates. However, information on personal protective equipment (PPE)-hand gloves, hardhats, overalls, safety boots, earplugs, safety harness with lanyard, and face shields-utilization among building construction workers remains scarce. We assessed PPE utilization and determinants among building construction workers in Kampala, Uganda.MethodsThis cross-sectional study involved 385 respondents. Data collected by structured questionnaire was double-entered in EpiData and analyzed in STATA at 5% significance level. Independent determinants of PPE use were established by a stepwise backward logistic regression analysis.Results305 (79.2%) respondents were males, 290 (75.3%) were 18-30 years, 285 (74.0%) completed secondary education, and 197 (51.2%) were temporary employees. 60 (15.6%) respondents used PPE. Female sex (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 6.64; 95% CI: 1.55-28.46; P = 0.011), temporary (AOR = 0.05; 95% CI: 0.01-0.27; P < 0.001) and casual (AOR = 0.01; 95% CI: 0.001-0.071; P < 0.001) employment, and previous knowledge of safety measures (AOR = 100.72; 95% CI: 26.00-390.16; P < 0.001) were associated with PPE use.ConclusionPPE use was low in Kampala, Uganda. Building construction companies should implement measures of the Uganda Occupational Health and Safety Act.
| S-EPMC5672632 | 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:IntroductionThe purpose of this study was to rapidly quantify the safety measures regarding donning and doffing personal protective equipment, complaints of discomfort caused by wearing personal protective equipment, and the psychological perceptions of health care workers in hospitals in Wuhan, China, responding to the outbreak.MethodsA cross-sectional online questionnaire design was used Data were collected from March 14, 2020, to March 16, 2020, in Wuhan, China. Descriptive statistics and χ2 analyses testing were used.ResultsStandard nosocomial infection training could significantly decrease the occurrence of infection (3.6% vs 13.0%, χ2 = 4.47, P < 0.05). Discomfort can be classified into 7 categories. Female sex (66.0% vs 50.5%, χ2 = 6.37), occupation (62.7% vs 30.8%, χ2 = 5.33), working at designated hospitals (44.8% vs 26.7%, χ2 = 5.17) or in intensive care units (70.4% vs 57.9%, χ2 = 3.88), and working in personal protective equipment for > 4 hours (62.2% vs 39.2%, χ2 = 9.17) led to more complaints about physical discomfort or increased occurrence of pressure sores (all P < 0.05). Psychologically, health care workers at designated hospitals (60.0% vs 42.1%, χ2 = 4.97) or intensive care units (55.9% vs 41.5%, χ2 = 4.40) (all P < 0.05) expressed different rates of pride.DiscussionActive training on infection and protective equipment could reduce the infection risk. Working for long hours increased the occurrence of discomfort and skin erosion. Reducing the working hours and having adequate protective products and proper psychological interventions may be beneficial to relieve discomfort.
| S-EPMC7522005 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6303998 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo determine whether hydroxychloroquine when used with personal protective equipment reduces the proportion of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 among healthcare workers in comparison to the use of personal protective equipment alone.DesignMulticentre, parallel-group, open-label randomised trial. Enrolment started on 29 June 2020 and stopped on 4 February 2021. Participants randomised in HydrOxychloroquine Prophylaxis Evaluation were followed for 6 months.Setting9 hospitals across India.ParticipantsHealthcare workers in an environment with exposure to COVID-19 were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to hydroxychloroquine plus use of personal protective equipment or personal protective equipment alone. 886 participants were screened and 416 randomised (213 hydroxychloroquine arm and 203 personal protective equipment).InterventionParticipants in intervention arm received 800 mg of hydroxychloroquine on day of randomisation and then 400 mg once a week for 12 weeks in addition to the use of personal protective equipment. In the control arm, participants continued to use personal protective equipment alone.Main outcomeProportion of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in the 6 months after randomisation.ResultsParticipants were young (mean age 32.1 years, SD 9.1 years) with low-comorbid burden. 47.4% were female. In the 6 months after randomisation (primary analysis population=413), 11 participants assigned to the hydroxychloroquine group and 12 participants assigned to the standard practice group met the primary endpoint (5.2% vs 5.9%; OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.07, p=0.72). There was no heterogeneity of treatment effect in any prespecified subgroup. There were no significant differences in the secondary outcomes. The adverse event rates were 9.9% and 6.9% in the hydroxychloroquine and standard practice arms, respectively. There were no serious adverse events in either group.Conclusions and relevanceHydroxychloroquine along with personal protective equipment was not superior to personal protective equipment alone on the proportion of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. Definitive conclusions are precluded as the trial stopped early for futility, and hence was underpowered.Trial registration numberCTRI/2020/05/025067.
| S-EPMC9160584 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8061624 | biostudies-literature