Effectiveness of self-portraits used over personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic among patients and healthcare workers.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: George AJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8241416 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Effectiveness of self-portraits used over personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic among patients and healthcare workers.
George A J AJ Mathew D E DE Lazarus E E Chichra A A Singh B B Gaikwad P P
The British journal of surgery 20210801 8
Similar Datasets
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:In this paper, we examine the cost effectiveness of investment in personal protective equipment (PPE) for protecting health care workers (HCWs) against two infectious diseases: Ebola virus and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). This builds on similar work published for COVID-19 in 2020. We developed two separate decision-analytic models using a payer perspective to compare the costs and effects of multiple PPE use scenarios for protection of HCW against Ebola and MRSA. Bayesian multivariate sensitivity analyses were used to consider the uncertainty surrounding all key parameters for both diseases. We estimate the cost to provide adequate PPE for a HCW encounter with an Ebola patient is $13.04, which is associated with a 97% risk reduction in infections. The mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is $3.98 per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted. Because of lowered infection and disability rates, this investment is estimated to save $132.27 in averted health systems costs, a financial ROI of 1,014%. For MRSA, the cost of adequate PPE for one HCW encounter is $0.88, which is associated with a 53% risk reduction in infections. The mean ICER is $362.14 per DALY averted. This investment is estimated to save $20.18 in averted health systems costs, a financial ROI of 2,294%. In terms of total health savings per death averted, investing in adequate PPE is the dominant strategy for Ebola and MRSA, suggesting that it is both more costly and less clinically optimal to not fully invest in PPE for these diseases. There are many compelling reasons to invest in PPE to protect HCWs. This analysis examines the economic case, building on previous evidence that protecting HCWs with PPE is cost-effective for COVD-19. Ebola and MRSA scenarios were selected to allow assessment of both endemic and epidemic infectious diseases. While PPE is cost-effective for both conditions, compared to our analysis for COVID-19, PPE is relatively more cost-effective for Ebola and relatively less so for MRSA. Further research is needed to assess shortfalls in the PPE supply chain identified during the COVID-19 pandemic to ensure an efficient and resilient supply in the face of future pandemics.
| S-EPMC10286963 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesHealthcare workers (HCWs) worldwide have and are using personal protective equipment (PPE) as COVID-19 prevention measures, including gloves, gowns, goggles, masks and hand hygiene. Although several reviews have been published on the effectiveness of PPE, these often include studies on other inflectional diseases. This is problematic, because these diseases differ with regard to, e.g. the transmissibility and viral loads in the days after infection. Therefore, we assessed the effectiveness of PPE to protect HCWs from COVID-19 infections.DesignRapid review of literature.MethodsWe followed a practical guide to conduct the rapid review based on a protocol established by the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group. Meta-analyses have been conducted to synthesize the results. The confidence in the evidence was determined using the GRADE method.ResultsWe found 461 reviews and 208 primary studies, of which 16 systematic reviews included 11 observational studies of interest. Wearing PPE conferred significant protection against infection with COVID-19 as opposed to not wearing adequate PPE. Overall, the review results show that wearing face masks can significantly protect HCWs from infection. We found no effects for wearing gloves and gowns. Practicing thorough hand hygiene and having proper PPE, as compared to lacking proper PPE, showed a protective but not statistically significant effect. No studies reported the side effects of wearing PPE or acceptance rates.ConclusionThis evidence supports PPE use by HCW, and especially N95 masks, to reduce the risk of a COVID-19 infection.
| S-EPMC9190185 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9132790 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundA rapid review, guided by a protocol, was conducted to inform development of the World Health Organization's guideline on personal protective equipment in the context of the ongoing (2013-present) Western African filovirus disease outbreak, with a focus on health care workers directly caring for patients with Ebola or Marburg virus diseases.MethodsElectronic databases and grey literature sources were searched. Eligibility criteria initially included comparative studies on Ebola and Marburg virus diseases reported in English or French, but criteria were expanded to studies on other viral hemorrhagic fevers and non-comparative designs due to the paucity of studies. After title and abstract screening (two people to exclude), full-text reports of potentially relevant articles were assessed in duplicate. Fifty-seven percent of extraction information was verified. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework was used to inform the quality of evidence assessments.ResultsThirty non-comparative studies (8 related to Ebola virus disease) were located, and 27 provided data on viral transmission. Reporting of personal protective equipment components and infection prevention and control protocols was generally poor.ConclusionsInsufficient evidence exists to draw conclusions regarding the comparative effectiveness of various types of personal protective equipment. Additional research is urgently needed to determine optimal PPE for health care workers caring for patients with filovirus.
| S-EPMC4599797 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AbstractThe pandemic of the 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has caused an unprecedented mobilization of the United States' healthcare workforce. In addition to working extended hours under increased duress, healthcare professionals (HCP) of all stations have been making use of various types of personal protective equipment (PPE) with greatly increased frequency and duration. Current data regarding adverse skin reactions as a possible consequence of PPE use are, particularly in the United States, largely insufficient for policy-makers to make informed decisions regarding daily PPE use among HCP.The research vehicle employed by this study is a cross-sectional 25-item survey distributed via email to workers currently employed by a five-hospital system in southcentral Kentucky. This survey was used to collect information from hospital workers of all professional roles about their experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on reports of adverse dermatological reactions and associated risk factors.Out of 879 respondents, 54.4% reported some type of skin irritation reaction. Skin irritation was significantly more prevalent among medical and medical support staff than non-medical hospital workers, with the highest prevalence among Certified Nurse Assistant (CNAs). Among clinical workers, those in dedicated COVID-19 units reported the highest prevalence of adverse skin reaction. The most common complaint was dryness/scaling of the skin (306 out of 439, 69.7%), and the most common location was the facial cheeks (305 out of 516, 59.1%). Among those who reported skin irritation, the average self-reported severity of skin reaction (on a scale of 1-5) was 2.00 ± 0.05, and the mean total days of skin reaction per month was 11.70 ± 0.39 days. Total days of irritation per month was found to be significantly related to "total days of PPE use per month," "hours of PPE use per day," "frequency of hand washing," and "use of disinfecting UV irradiation." Severity of skin reaction was found to be significantly related to "hours per day of PPE use," "consecutive days of PPE use," and "female sex."Clinical workers that put in the most face-to-face time with patients, and those in dedicated COVID-19 units, had the highest risk of adverse skin reaction. Overall, skin reactions were found to be mild, even in those hospital workers with the heaviest PPE use. Because the widespread and consistent use of facial masks in public settings has become a key tool in our protracted struggle with SARS-CoV-2, these findings may help to ameliorate concerns that everyday facial mask and/or other PPE usage contributes to significant dermatologic morbidity among both medical professionals and public citizens.
| S-EPMC8896487 | 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:ObjectiveCoronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19), the cause of the ongoing pandemic, is an acute respiratory tract infection, which has made it necessary for healthcare personnel to use protective equipment such as N95 masks, protective goggles and visors. External compression headaches caused by the compression of the pericranial soft tissues by wearing hats, helmets, or goggles (worn during swimming or diving) have been previously described. In our study, we aimed to evaluate the presence and characteristics of personal protective equipment-associated headaches in healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic period and to determine the effects of such headaches.Materials and methodsA face-to-face questionnaire was delivered to 300 male and female healthcare personnel between the ages of 18-56 working in healthcare units where COVID-19 patients were evaluated and treated. The data from 296 completed questionnaires was evaluated.ResultsWe included 296 participants (166 females and 130 males) in our study; the mean age was 33.98 ± 8.52 years (range 18-56). One hundred ninety-six (66.22%) participants indicated that they had new onset personal protective equipment-associated headaches. Percentages of those with newly emergent headaches because of protective equipment were higher in the following participant groups: females (p = 0.045), those with COVID-19 disease history (p < 0.001), and those diagnosed with headaches before the pandemic (p = 0.001).ConclusionOur study showed the presence of new-onset headaches associated with personal protective equipment in healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Personal protective equipment-related headaches were associated with the following factors: female sex, a history of COVID-19 disease, and the presence of primary headaches diagnosed before the pandemic.
| S-EPMC10008808 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPersonal Protective Equipment (PPE) Portraits is a hybridized art and medical intervention that lessens the alienating appearance of PPE through wearable, smiling headshot pictures. During the pandemic, the use of these portraits was expanded, but Canadian initiatives offered portraits only to immediate stakeholders. PPE Portraits Canada (PPC) aimed to provide PPE portraits to any Canadian healthcare institution and surveyed healthcare workers (HCW) regarding these portraits' impact.MethodsUniversity student volunteers founded PPC via online platforms and coast-to-coast collaborations that allowed any HCW nationwide to request a free portrait via an accessible online form. PPC has gathered feedback from participating HCWs directly via an anonymous and bilingual survey.Results70% of HCWs wore their portraits "always" or "usually", 69% of HCWs "definitely would" recommend their portrait, 89.5% of HCWs found that the PPE portraits made a difference in their experiences with patients and 74% found the same for their colleagues. The pre- and post-effect of the portraits, led to a 37.5% greater likelihood that HCWs felt "connected" or "very connected" to patients/residents. For the thematic analysis, 70% or more of the comments were rated as positive, with less than 5% of comments being rated as negative.ConclusionThis model's logistical framework can be expanded beyond PPE portraits to other initiatives with limited resources, allowing them to reach and positively impact diverse populations. HCW feedback was predominantly positive. The optimal design and impact of PPE portraits on patients and HCWs should be studied further to improve portrait adoption.
| S-EPMC10889603 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7377698 | biostudies-literature