Administering Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation to Personal Protective Equipment-Protected Health Care Worker During COVID-19.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Mahajan V
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7386682 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Administering Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation to Personal Protective Equipment-Protected Health Care Worker During COVID-19.
Mahajan Varun V Ray Ananya A Puri Goverdhan Dutt GD
Anesthesia and analgesia 20201001 4
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundHigh-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is a key element in the rescue of cardiac arrest patients but is difficult to achieve in circumstances involving aerosol transmission, such as the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsThis prospective randomized crossover trial included 30 experienced health care providers to evaluate the impact of personal protective equipment (PPE) on CPR quality and rescuer safety. Participants were asked to perform continuous CPR for 5 minutes on a manikin with three types of PPE: level D-PPE, level C-PPE, and PAPR. The primary outcome was effective chest compression per minute. Secondary outcomes were the fit factor by PortaCount, vital signs and fatigue scores before and after CPR, and perceptions related to wearing PPE. Repeated-measures ANOVA was used, and a two-tailed test value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant.ResultsThe rates of effective chest compressions for 5 minutes with level D-PPE, level C-PPE, and PAPRs were 82.0 ± 0.2%, 78.4 ± 0.2%, and 78.0 ± 0.2%, respectively (p = 0.584). The fit-factor test values of level C-PPE and PAPRs were 182.9 ± 39.9 vs. 198.9 ± 9.2 (p < 0.001). The differences in vital signs before and after CPR were not significantly different among the groups. In addition, the fatigue and total perception scores of wearing PPE were significantly higher for level C-PPE than PAPRs: 3.8 ± 1.6 vs. 3.0 ± 1.6 (p < 0.001) and 27.9 ± 5.4 vs. 26.0 ± 5.3 (p < 0.001), respectively.ConclusionPAPRs are recommended when performing CPR in situations where aerosol transmission is suspected. When PAPRs are in short supply, individual fit-tested N95 masks are an alternative. This trial is registered with NCT04802109.
| S-EPMC10703537 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe impact of wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) on CPR quality and patient outcomes is unclear. This systematic review aimed to examine whether wearing PPE during resuscitation affects patient outcomes, CPR quality and rescuer fatigue.MethodsIn this review registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022347746), we searched Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane library between 2000 and 2022. The inclusion criteria were studies: in actual or simulated cardiac arrest; comparing PPE with no PPE; and randomised controlled trials and observational studies with a English abstract. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane's Risk of Bias-2 and ROBINS-I tools and outcomes assessed with GRADE. We conducted a meta-analysis according to the study design. Quantitative data synthesis was done using a random-effect model incorporating the potential heterogeneity.ResultsA total of 17 simulation-based studies and 1 clinical study were included. All outcomes were judged to be very low certainty of evidence, subject to high risk of bias. The clinical study showed no difference in survival comparing enhanced and conventional PPE. Meta-analysis of 11 RCTs and 6 observational studies found no difference in CPR quality in rescuers wearing PPE compared with no PPE. Pooled rescuer fatigue was significantly worse in the PPE group (mean difference, 2.7 VAS score out of 10; 95% CI, 1.4-4.0).ConclusionsPPE was not associated with reduced CPR quality or lower cardiac arrest survival. Rescuers wearing PPE may report more fatigue. This finding was mainly derived from simulation studies, additional clinical studies are needed.
| S-EPMC10230254 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPersonal protective equipment (PPE) plays a critical role in protecting health care workers (HCWs). During the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, shortages of PPE supplies drastically changed the way PPE was obtained and used by HCWs.PurposeThe objective was to investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and patient isolation type on PPE compliance.MethodsThis investigation was a survey of HCWs at a level 1 trauma teaching hospital regarding PPE compliance patterns prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic.ResultsHCWs reported an increase in PPE compliance during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nearly half (48.6%) of respondents reported that isolation type impacted the decision to wear PPE, of which most were likely to forgo PPE with contact precautions.ConclusionsHCWs identified multiple barriers to compliance. The underutilization of PPE with contact precautions suggests that the risk of exposure is interpreted as low, and this could be a future target of education.
| S-EPMC8378415 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Study objectiveDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, health care workers have had the highest risk of infection among essential workers. Although personal protective equipment (PPE) use is associated with lower infection rates, appropriate use of PPE has been variable among health care workers, even in settings with COVID-19 patients. We aimed to evaluate the patterns of PPE adherence during emergency department resuscitations that included aerosol-generating procedures.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective, video-based review of pediatric resuscitations involving one or more aerosol-generating procedures during the first 3 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States (March to June 2020). Recommended adherence (complete, inadequate, absent) with 5 PPE items (headwear, eyewear, masks, gowns, gloves) and the duration of potential exposure were evaluated for individuals in the room after aerosol-generating procedure initiation.ResultsAmong the 345 health care workers observed during 19 resuscitations, 306 (88.7%) were nonadherent (inadequate or absent adherence) with the recommended use of at least 1 PPE type at some time during the resuscitation, 23 (6.7%) of whom had no PPE. One hundred and forty health care workers (40.6%) altered or removed at least 1 type of PPE during the event. The aggregate time in the resuscitation room for health care workers across all events was 118.7 hours. During this time, providers had either absent or inadequate eyewear for 46.4 hours (39.1%) and absent or inadequate masks for 35.2 hours (29.7%).ConclusionFull adherence with recommended PPE use was limited in a setting at increased risk for SARS-CoV-2 virus aerosolization. In addition to ensuring appropriate donning, approaches are needed for ensuring ongoing adherence with PPE recommendations during exposure.
| S-EPMC8164378 | 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:ObjectiveIn this study, we aimed to capture perspectives of healthcare workers (HCWs) on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and infection prevention and control (IPAC) measures implemented during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.DesignA cross-sectional survey of HCWs.ParticipantsHCWs from the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada.InterventionA self-administered survey was distributed to HCWs. We analyzed factors influencing HCW knowledge and self-reported use of personal protective equipment (PPE), concerns about contracting COVID-19 and acceptance of the recommended IPAC precautions for COVID-19.ResultsIn total, 175 HCWs completed the survey between March 6 and March 10: 35 staff physicians (20%), 24 residents or fellows (14%), 72 nurses (41%), 14 respiratory therapists (8%), 14 administration staff (8%), and 14 other employees (8%). Most of the respondents were from the emergency department (n = 58, 33%) and the intensive care unit (n = 58, 33%). Only 86 respondents (50%) identified the correct donning order; only 60 (35%) identified the correct doffing order; but the majority (n = 113, 70%) indicated the need to wash their hands immediately prior to removal of their mask and eye protection. Also, 91 (54%) respondents felt comfortable with recommendations for droplet and/or contact precautions for routine care of patients with COVID-19. HCW occupation and concerns about contracting COVID-19 outside work were associated with nonacceptance of the recommendations (P = .016 and P = .036 respectively).ConclusionAs part of their pandemic response plans, healthcare institutions should have ongoing training for HCWs that focus on appropriate PPE doffing and discussions around modes of transmission of COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7468688 | 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: Not available
| S-EPMC7228687 | 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-EPMC9132790 | biostudies-literature