Air, Surface Environmental, and Personal Protective Equipment Contamination by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) From a Symptomatic Patient.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ong SWX
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7057172 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Air, Surface Environmental, and Personal Protective Equipment Contamination by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) From a Symptomatic Patient.
Ong Sean Wei Xiang SWX Tan Yian Kim YK Chia Po Ying PY Lee Tau Hong TH Ng Oon Tek OT Wong Michelle Su Yen MSY Marimuthu Kalisvar K
JAMA 20200401 16
Similar Datasets
Project description:Firefighters' personal protective equipment (PPE) is a potential source of chronic exposure to toxic contaminants commonly released from fires. These contaminants have also been found in fire stations. However, little research characterises the routes via which fire contaminants travel back to fire stations. The UK Firefighter Contamination Survey provides information on firefighters' PPE provision, decontamination, and storage practices. All serving UK firefighters were eligible to take part in the survey, which comprised 64 questions. A total of 10,649 responses were included for analysis, accounting for roughly 24% of the UK's firefighting workforce. Results revealed that most firefighters (84%) de-robe contaminated PPE/workwear after re-entering the appliance cab. There was a significant decreasing tendency to send PPE for cleaning after every incident with increasing seniority of role, length of service, and fire attendance frequency. Around one third of firefighters cleaned PPE after every incident. A number of issues were linked to external professional cleaning services, e.g. shrinkage, fit, turn-around time, and stock of reserve/pooled PPE. PPE storage was found to be a potential source of cross contamination, with almost half of firefighters (45%) indicating clean and dirty PPE is not stored separately. More than half of firefighters (57%) stored fire gloves (an item sent for professional decontamination by only 19% of firefighters, and never cleaned by 20%) within other items of PPE such as helmets, boots and tunic/trouser pockets. The survey's results can be used to target gaps in decontamination measures within UK Fire and Rescue Services.
| S-EPMC9832125 | 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: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:BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to spread around the world. In addition to community-acquired infections, nosocomial infections are also a major social concern. The likelihood of environmental contamination and transmission of the virus based on disease severity is unknown.MethodsWe collected nasopharyngeal, environmental and air samples from patients with COVID-19 admitted to the National Centre for Global Health and Medicine between January 29th and February 29th, 2020. The patients were classified by severity of disease. The collected samples were tested using severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (real-time RT-PCR).ResultsSARS-CoV-2 was not detected in a subset of 11 air samples. Of the 141 environmental samples collected from three patient bays and two single rooms, four samples tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by real-time RT-PCR. Detections were made on the surface of a stethoscope used in the care of a patient with severe disease, on the intubation tube of a patient classified as critical (and on ventilator management), and on the surface of a gown worn by the nurse providing care.ConclusionsRegardless of the patients' disease severity, SARS-CoV-2 was detected on very few environmental surfaces. However, detection of SARS-CoV-2 on stethoscopes used in the care of multiple patients and on the surface of gowns worn by clinical staff indicates that medical devices may be linked to the spread of infection.
| S-EPMC7550981 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) global outbreak and its continued growth and
| S-EPMC8713394 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Personal protective equipment (PPE) has long been a high priority in dental aerosol-producing treatments. Since COVID-19 pandemic, its importance has increased yet again. While importance of PPE in preventing transmission and thus possible infection of pathogens is well known, contamination potential of PPE after treatment itself is less investigated. This review aims to give an overview of the current literature and contamination potential (viral, blood, bacterial) of components of protective equipment itself. The literature search was performed using the Medline database; furthermore, a hand search was conducted. Last search took place on 23 November 2022. Two categories of hygiene-related keywords were formed (category A: mask, face shield, goggles, eyewear, personal protective equipment; category B: contamination, aerosol). Each keyword from one category was combined with all keywords from the other one. In addition, the keyword "dental" was always added. First, a title and abstract screening was performed. Afterward, a full-text analysis was followed for the included studies. A total of 648 search hits were found in the Medline database. 47 were included after title and abstract screening. 22 studies were excluded after full-text analysis, 25 studies were included. The hand search resulted in 4 studies that were included. Bacterial contamination of PPE after treatment has been adequately studied, contamination with blood less. Microorganisms mainly originate from the oral and cutaneous flora; however, a transmission of potential pathogens like Staphylococcus aureus or Escherichia coli was also described. Studies showing transmission pathways starting from PPE and its various components are lacking. No measures have yet been described that fully protect the protective equipment from contamination. There is growing awareness that PPE itself can be a source of pathogen transmission, and thus possible infection. Therefore, not only wearing of protective clothing, but also conscious handling of it is crucial for transmission and possible infection prevention. However, studies showing transmission pathways starting from PPE and its various components are lacking. Several studies have investigated what measures can be taken to protect the protective equipment itself. So far, none of the methods evaluated can prevent contamination of PPE.
| S-EPMC10925564 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7273160 | 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:Healthcare workers (HCWs) not fulfilling the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) case definition underwent severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) screening. Risk of exposure, adherence to personal protective equipment (PPE), and symptoms were assessed. In total, 2,000 HCWs were screened: 5.5% were positive for SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). There were no differences in PPE use between SARS-CoV-2-positive and -negative HCWs (adherence, >90%). Nursing and kitchen staff were independently associated with positive SARS-CoV-2 results.
| S-EPMC8111176 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundandObjectives: This retrospective study evaluated the clinical impact of enhanced personal protective equipment (PPE) on the clinical outcomes in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Moreover, by focusing on the use of a powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR), we investigated the medical personnel's perceptions of wearing PAPR during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Materialsand Methods: According to the arrival time at the emergency department, the patients were categorized into a conventional PPE group (1 August 2019 to 20 January 2020) and an enhanced PPE group (21 January 2020, to 31 August 2020). The primary outcomes of this analysis were the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) rate. Additionally, subjective perception of the medical staff regarding the effect of wearing enhanced PPE during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) was evaluated by conducting a survey. Results: This study included 130 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients, with 73 and 57 patients in the conventional and enhanced PPE groups, respectively. The median time intervals to first intubation and to report the first arterial blood gas analysis results were longer in the enhanced PPE group than in the conventional PPE group (3 min vs. 2 min; p = 0.020 and 8 min vs. 3 min; p < 0.001, respectively). However, there were no significant differences in the ROSC rate (odds ratio (OR) = 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.38-1.67; p = 0.542) and 1 month survival (OR 0.38, 95% CI: 0.07-2.10; p = 0.266) between the two groups. In total, 67 emergent department (ED) professionals responded to the questionnaire. Although a significant number of respondents experienced inconveniences with PAPR use, they agreed that PAPR was necessary during the CPR procedure for protection and reduction of infection transmission. Conclusion: The use of enhanced PPE, including PAPR, affected the performance of CPR to some extent but did not alter patient outcomes. PAPR use during the resuscitation of OHCA patients might positively impact the psychological stability of the medical staff.
| S-EPMC8708039 | biostudies-literature