Personal protective equipment portraits in the era of COVID-19.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Hansen-Barkun C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9132790 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7833267 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8241416 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Confronted with an emerging infectious disease at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the medical community faced concerns regarding the safety of autopsies on those who died of the disease. This attitude has changed, and autopsies are now recognized as indispensable tools for understanding COVID-19, but the true risk of infection to autopsy staff is nevertheless still debated. To clarify the rate of SARS-CoV-2 contamination in personal protective equipment (PPE), swabs were taken at nine points in the PPE of one physician and one assistant after each of 11 full autopsies performed at four centers. Swabs were also obtained from three minimally invasive autopsies (MIAs) conducted at a fifth center. Lung/bronchus swabs of the deceased served as positive controls, and SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected by real-time RT-PCR. In 9 of 11 full autopsies, PPE samples tested RNA positive through PCR, accounting for 41 of the 198 PPE samples taken (21%). The main contaminated items of the PPE were gloves (64% positive), aprons (50% positive), and the tops of shoes (36% positive) while the fronts of safety goggles, for example, were positive in only 4.5% of the samples, and all the face masks were negative. In MIAs, viral RNA was observed in one sample from a glove but not in other swabs. Infectious virus isolation in cell culture was performed on RNA-positive swabs from the full autopsies. Of all the RNA-positive PPE samples, 21% of the glove samples, taken in 3 of 11 full autopsies, tested positive for infectious virus. In conclusion, PPE was contaminated with viral RNA in 82% of autopsies. In 27% of autopsies, PPE was found to be contaminated even with infectious virus, representing a potential risk of infection to autopsy staff. Adequate PPE and hygiene measures, including appropriate waste deposition, are therefore essential to ensure a safe work environment.
| S-EPMC8735722 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn the COVID-19 era physicians have to face with need to perform office procedures maintaining the maximum safety for both the patient and the Doctor himself. The purpose of this paper was to suggest some equipment useful to perform outpatient visits in an ENT setting.MethodsA simple modification of the standard headlight used during an ENT visit provides the operator a better face protection without any impairment in vision and comfort. In addition, in order to perform a safer ENT examination, a droplet protective barrier has been adapted to the patient's chair.ResultsBoth the devices have been texted with success during a period of 2 months in our ENT clinic. No cases of contamination have been registered among physicians.ConclusionA simple modification to a device used in the routine ENT activity implemented its protective efficacy with low costs. On the other hand, a more structured tool permitted to obtain a more protected environment during patient examination.
| S-EPMC7333584 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7228687 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The supply of personal protective equipment (PPE) is inadequate throughout the United States and the world. This is especially true of N95 respirators. The cost of PPE is high. There are numerous cases of providers working with inadequate PPE and being disciplined on complaining. In the United States, thousands of providers have contracted COVID-19, in part due to inadequate PPE. Extended use and reuse of N95 respirators has been permitted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The N95 respirators can be sterilized utilizing vaporized hydrogen peroxide, ultraviolet germicidal irradiation, or dry heat at 70°C-80°C. The risk to providers due to inadequate PPE increases with their age and presence of comorbidities. African-Americans and Latinos are at a greater risk. CDC recommends that in the absence of appropriate PPE, "exclude healthcare personnel at higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19 from contact with known or suspected COVID-19 patients." Providing care without appropriate PPE should not be a condition of employment for any provider, especially for the ones in high-risk category.
| S-EPMC7386059 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionOn-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.MethodsThree 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.ResultsUsing 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%.ConclusionThe 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.
| S-EPMC7900657 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo survey healthcare workers (HCW) on availability and use of personal protective equipment (PPE) caring for COVID-19 patients in the intensive care unit (ICU).Materials and methodA web-based survey distributed worldwide in April 2020.ResultsWe received 2711 responses from 1797 (67%) physicians, 744 (27%) nurses, and 170 (6%) Allied HCW. For routine care, most (1557, 58%) reportedly used FFP2/N95 masks, waterproof long sleeve gowns (1623; 67%), and face shields/visors (1574; 62%). Powered Air-Purifying Respirators were used routinely and for intubation only by 184 (7%) and 254 (13%) respondents, respectively. Surgical masks were used for routine care by 289 (15%) and 47 (2%) for intubations. At least one piece of standard PPE was unavailable for 1402 (52%), and 817 (30%) reported reusing single-use PPE. PPE was worn for a median of 4 h (IQR 2, 5). Adverse effects of PPE were associated with longer shift durations and included heat (1266, 51%), thirst (1174, 47%), pressure areas (1088, 44%), headaches (696, 28%), Inability to use the bathroom (661, 27%) and extreme exhaustion (492, 20%).ConclusionsHCWs reported widespread shortages, frequent reuse of, and adverse effects related to PPE. Urgent action by healthcare administrators, policymakers, governments and industry is warranted.
| S-EPMC7293450 | biostudies-literature
Project description:During the COVID-19 pandemic, people used personal protective equipment (PPE) to lessen the spread of the virus. The release of microplastics (MPs) from discarded PPE is a new threat to the long-term health of the environment and poses challenges that are not yet clear. PPE-derived MPs have been found in multi-environmental compartments, e.g., water, sediments, air, and soil across the Bay of Bengal (BoB). As COVID-19 spreads, healthcare facilities use more plastic PPE, polluting aquatic ecosystems. Excessive PPE use releases MPs into the ecosystem, which aquatic organisms ingest, distressing the food chain and possibly causing ongoing health problems in humans. Thus, post-COVID-19 sustainability depends on proper intervention strategies for PPE waste, which have received scholarly interest. Although many studies have investigated PPE-induced MPs pollution in the BoB countries (e.g., India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Myanmar), the ecotoxicity impacts, intervention strategies, and future challenges of PPE-derived waste have largely gone unnoticed. Our study presents a critical literature review covering the ecotoxicity impacts, intervention strategies, and future challenges across the BoB countries (e.g., India (162,034.45 tons), Bangladesh (67,996 tons), Sri Lanka (35,707.95 tons), and Myanmar (22,593.5 tons). The ecotoxicity impacts of PPE-derived MPs on human health and other environmental compartments are critically addressed. The review's findings infer a gap in the 5R (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Redesign, and Restructure) Strategy's implementation in the BoB coastal regions, hindering the achievement of UN SDG-12. Despite widespread research advancements in the BoB, many questions about PPE-derived MPs pollution from the perspective of the COVID-19 era still need to be answered. In response to the post-COVID-19 environmental remediation concerns, this study highlights the present research gaps and suggests new research directions considering the current MPs' research advancements on COVID-related PPE waste. Finally, the review suggests a framework for proper intervention strategies for reducing and monitoring PPE-derived MPs pollution in the BoB countries.
| S-EPMC10182863 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has revealed vulnerabilities in healthcare systems worldwide, emphasizing the importance of healthcare worker safety through adequate utilization of personal protective equipment (PPE). This study aims to assess the impact of pre-pandemic PPE training on the practices and other associated factors among frontline healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic in Pakistan and provide insights into the implications of such training programs for future initiatives.MethodsA cross-sectional study from May 9th to June 5th, 2020 was conducted among the frontline healthcare workers against COVID-19 in Pakistan, utilizing an online structured questionnaire shared via WhatsApp and Facebook by using purposive sampling. Statistical analyses, including chi-square tests for proportion and logistic regression for the association while multi-logistic regression for potential confounders, were performed using SPSS version 22.ResultsA total of 453 healthcare staff participated, with 68.9% (n = 312) reporting no prior PPE training and 31.1% (n = 141) having received training. Significant associations were found between prior training and healthcare group distribution (p = 0.006), with doctors exhibiting the highest proportion of training 82 (37.61%), followed by nurses 50 (27.32%) and paramedics 9 (17.31%). Those who didn't receive any prior training in PPEs showed a higher perceived professional risk of 216 (69.23%) compared to those who received prior PPE training 96 (30.77%, p-value 0.005). Similarly, a higher frequency 137 (63.72%) of Perceived Personal risk was observed in those who didn't receive training, labeled as "high risk" compared to those who were trained 78 (36.28%, P value 0.02). Multi-logistic regression analysis identified paramedics as 0.26 times less likely to have received prior PPE training (Adjusted OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.10-0.65, p = 0.01) compared to medical doctors. Healthcare workers in tertiary care hospitals were 0.46 times less likely to undergo PPE training (Adjusted OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.25-0.87,p = 0.01) compared to those working at COVID-19 facilities/hospitals/quarantine centers. Likewise, individuals who doffed disposable gowns [Adjusted OR 3.86, (95% CI, 1.23-12.08, p = 0.02] were 3.86 times more interested in getting prior training in PPE compared to those who don't have skills to wear them.ConclusionOur findings highlight that healthcare levels, type of healthcare, and doffing skills are important predictors of whether healthcare workers have taken prior training in PPE. These findings imply developing effective training programs for healthcare workers to ensure safety while providing care during pandemics like COVID-19.
| S-EPMC10647151 | biostudies-literature