Policies and procedures for personal protective equipment: Does inconsistency increase risk of contamination and infection?
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Peters MDJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7273160 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Policies and procedures for personal protective equipment: Does inconsistency increase risk of contamination and infection?
Peters Micah D J MDJ Marnie Casey C Butler Annie A
International journal of nursing studies 20200605
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: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:Background:Doffing protocols for personal protective equipment (PPE) are critical for keeping healthcare workers (HCWs) safe during care of patients with Ebola virus disease. We assessed the relationship between errors and self-contamination during doffing. Methods:Eleven HCWs experienced with doffing Ebola-level PPE participated in simulations in which HCWs donned PPE marked with surrogate viruses (ɸ6 and MS2), completed a clinical task, and were assessed for contamination after doffing. Simulations were video recorded, and a failure modes and effects analysis and fault tree analyses were performed to identify errors during doffing, quantify their risk (risk index), and predict contamination data. Results:Fifty-one types of errors were identified, many having the potential to spread contamination. Hand hygiene and removing the powered air purifying respirator (PAPR) hood had the highest total risk indexes (111 and 70, respectively) and number of types of errors (9 and 13, respectively). ɸ6 was detected on 10% of scrubs and the fault tree predicted a 10.4% contamination rate, likely occurring when the PAPR hood inadvertently contacted scrubs during removal. MS2 was detected on 10% of hands, 20% of scrubs, and 70% of inner gloves and the predicted rates were 7.3%, 19.4%, 73.4%, respectively. Fault trees for MS2 and ɸ6 contamination suggested similar pathways. Conclusions:Ebola-level PPE can both protect and put HCWs at risk for self-contamination throughout the doffing process, even among experienced HCWs doffing with a trained observer. Human factors methodologies can identify error-prone steps, delineate the relationship between errors and self-contamination, and suggest remediation strategies.
| S-EPMC6927873 | biostudies-literature
Project description:An outbreak of avian influenza (H7N3) among poultry resulted in laboratory-confirmed disease in 1 of 103 exposed persons. Incomplete use of personal protective equipment (PPE) was associated with conjunctivitis and influenza-like symptoms. Rigorous use of PPE by persons managing avian influenza outbreaks may reduce exposure to potentially hazardous infected poultry materials.
| S-EPMC2662632 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background COVID-19 is considered to be very contagious as it can be spread through multiple ways. Therefore, exposure risk of healthcare workers (HCWs) treating COVID-19 patients is a highly salient topic in exposure risk management. From a managerial perspective, wearing personal protective equipment and the risk of accidents occurring during aerosol generating procedures applied to COVID-19 patients are two interconnected issues encountered in all COVID-19 hospitals. Objective The study was conducted to understand the realistic impact of exposure risk management on HCWs exposed to risks of SARS-CoV-2 virus infection in a healthcare unit. In particular, this study discusses the role of personal protective equipment (PPEs) used in aerosol generating procedures (AGPs) to protect HCWs, and the related risk of accidents occurring when performing AGPs. Methodology This is a cross-sectional single-hospital study conducted at the “Sf. Ioan cel Nou” Hospital in Suceava, Romania, that had to ensure safety of healthcare workers (HCWs) getting in contact with COVID-19 cases. Data used in the study were collected between 10.12.2020–19.03.2021 by means of a questionnaire that collected information on risk assessment and healthcare workers’ exposure management, and which was translated and adapted from the World Health Organization (WHO) and applied to respondents online. For this purpose, ethical approval was obtained, doctors and nurses from all hospital departments being invited to complete the questionnaire. Data processing, as well as descriptive, correlation and regression analyses have been done by using the 21.0 version of the Statistical Package for Social Sciences software. Results Most of the 312 HCWs reported having always used disposable gloves (98.13%), medical masks N95 (or equivalent) (92.86%), visors or googles (91.19%), disposable coverall (91.25%) and footwear protection (95.00%) during AGPs. The waterproof apron had always been worn only by 40% of the respondents, and almost 30% of staff had not used it at all during AGPs. Over the last three months, the period when the questionnaire was completed, 28 accidents were reported while performing AGPs: 11 accidents with splashing of biological fluids/ respiratory secretions in the eyes, 11 with splashing of biological fluids/ respiratory secretions on the non-idemn skin, 3 with splashing of biological fluids/ respiratory secretions in the oral/ nasal mucosa and 3 with puncture/ sting with any material contaminated with biological fluids/ respiratory secretions. Also, 84.29% of respondents declared having changed their routine, at least, moderately due to COVID-19. Conclusion An effective risk exposure management is based on wearing protective equipment. The only protection offered by the disposable coverall, as it results from our analysis, is related to splashing of biological fluids/ respiratory secretions on the non-idemn skin. In addition, the results show that the number of accidents should decrease due to the fact that disposable gloves and footwear protection are used while performing AGPs on patients with COVID-19 and hand hygiene is practised before and after touching a patient with COVID-19 (regardless of glove wearing).
| S-EPMC9990922 | 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: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:The COVID-19 outbreak put healthcare systems across the globe under immense pressure to meet the unprecedented demand for critical supplies and personal protective equipment (PPE). The traditional cost-effective supply chain paradigm failed to respond to the increased demand, putting healthcare workers (HCW) at a much higher infection risk relative to the general population. Recognizing PPE shortages and high infection risk for HCWs, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends allocations based on ethical principles. In this paper, we model the infection risk for HCWs as a function of usage and use it as the basis for distribution planning that balances government procurement decisions, hospitals' PPE usage policies, and WHO ethical allocation guidelines. We propose an infection risk model that integrates PPE allocation decisions with disease progression estimates to quantify infection risk among HCWs. The proposed risk function is used to derive closed-form allocation decisions under WHO ethical guidelines in both deterministic and stochastic settings. The modelling is then extended to dynamic distribution planning. Although nonlinear, we reformulate the resulting model to make it solvable using off-the-shelf software. The risk function successfully accounts for virus prevalence in space and in time and leads to allocations that are sensitive to the differences between regions. Comparative analysis shows that the allocation policies lead to significantly different levels of infection risk, especially under high virus prevalence. The best-outcome allocation policy that aims to minimize the total infected cases outperforms other policies under this objective and that of minimizing the maximum number of infections per period.
| S-EPMC10091728 | biostudies-literature