A global cross-sectional survey of personal protective equipment practices from 125 institutions in 37 countries during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Iyer RS
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9080221 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
A global cross-sectional survey of personal protective equipment practices from 125 institutions in 37 countries during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Iyer Rajeev Subramanyam RS Matava Clyde C Alessandro Vittori V Drum Elizabeth T ET Dalal Priti G PG Evans Faye F Griffis Heather H Liu Hongyan H Kajal Kamal K Puri Goverdhan D GD Varghese Elsa E Fiadjoe John E JE
Journal of clinical anesthesia 20220508
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:During the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) necessitated unprecedented and non-validated approaches to conserve PPE at healthcare facilities, especially in high income countries where single-use disposable PPE was ubiquitous. Our team conducted a systematic literature review to evaluate historic approaches for conserving single-use PPE, expecting that lower-income countries or developing contexts may already be uniquely conserving PPE. However, of the 50 included studies, only 3 originated from middle-income countries and none originated from low-income countries. Data from the included studies suggest PPE remained effective with extended use and with multiple or repeated use in clinical settings, as long as donning and doffing were performed in a standard manner. Multiple decontamination techniques were effective in disinfecting single use PPE for repeated use. These findings can inform healthcare facilities and providers in establishing protocols for safe conservation of PPE supplies and updating existing protocols to improve sustainability and overall resilience. Future studies should evaluate conservation practices in low-resource settings during non-pandemic times to develop strategies for more sustainable and resilient healthcare worldwide.
| S-EPMC9915410 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV-2) virus is challenging healthcare providers across the world. Current best practices for personal protective equipment (PPE) during this time are rapidly evolving and fluid due to the novel and acute nature of the pandemic and the dearth of high-level evidence. Routine infection control practices augmented by airborne precautions are paramount when treating the COVID-19-positive patient. Best practices for PPE use in patients who have unknown COVID-19 status are a highly charged and emotional issue. The variables to be considered include protection of patients and healthcare providers, accuracy and availability of testing, and responsible use of PPE resources. This article also explores the concerns of surgeons regarding possible transmission to their own family members as a result of caring for COVID-19 patients.
| S-EPMC7169903 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeIn the absence of vaccine, proper use of personal protective equipment (PPE) is the most important strategy to protect healthcare workers against COVID-19 infection. The recommendations on pharmacological prophylaxis against COVID-19 infection are controversial. The aim of current study was to assess PPE practices during surgery on COVID-19 negative gynecological cancer patients and use of pharmacologic prophylaxis by clinicians practicing gynecologic oncology.MethodsWe disbursed a survey questionnaire through various social media platforms among clinicians practicing gynecologic oncology. The survey consisted of 37 questions divided into five subgroups evaluating demographic details, use of pharmacological prophylaxis against COVID-19, preoperative COVID-19 screening protocol, details on PPE usage and associated discomfort, if any.ResultsTwo hundred twenty oncologists from 13 countries responded to the survey. Pharmacological prophylaxis was being used by 85 (38.6%) respondents; most common agent was hydroxychloroquin (HCQ) by 24.5% respondents. Routine preoperative screening for COVID-19 was performed by 214 (97.3%) respondents. Some degree of discomfort during surgery due to PPE use was reported by 170 (77.3%) respondents, which was moderate to severe in 73 (33.2%) respondents. Most common difficulties associated with face mask/shield were problems in communication (69.5%) and breathing (58.1%). Eye protection was associated with poor visibility, fogging and headache. Unusual fatigue attributed to PPE use was experienced by 143(65%) respondents.ConclusionUse of pharmacological prophylaxis against COVID-19 is controversial and the same is reflected in our survey. Most respondents adhered to PPE use despite experiencing some physical discomfort.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40944-021-00500-4.
| S-EPMC7847240 | 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:BackgroundAvailability and appropriate use of personal protective equipment (PPE) is of particular importance in Low and Middle-Income countries (LMICs) where disease outbreaks other than COVID-19 are frequent and health workers are scarce. This study assesses the availability of necessary PPE items during the COVID-19 pandemic at health facilities in seven LMICs.MethodsData were collected using a rapid-cycle survey among 1554 health facilities in seven LMICs via phone-based surveys between August 2020 and December 2021. We gathered data on the availability of World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended PPE items and the use of items when examining patients suspected to be infected with COVID-19. We further investigated the implementation of service adaptation measures in a severe shortage of PPE.ResultsThere were major deficiencies in PPE availability at health facilities. Almost 3 out of 10 health facilities reported a stock-out of medical masks on the survey day. Forty-six percent of facilities did not have respirator masks, and 16% did not have any gloves. We show that only 43% of health facilities had sufficient PPE to comply with WHO guidelines. Even when all items were available, healthcare workers treating COVID-19 suspected patients were reported to wear all the recommended equipment in only 61% of health facilities. We did not find a statistically significant difference in implementing service adaptation measures between facilities experiencing a severe shortage or not.ConclusionAfter more than a year into the COVID-19 pandemic, the overall availability of PPE remained low in our sample of low and middle-income countries. Although essential, the availability of PPE did not guarantee the proper use of the equipment. The lack of PPE availability and improper use of available PPE enable preventable COVID-19 transmission in health facilities, leading to greater morbidity and mortality and risking the continuity of service delivery by healthcare workers.
| S-EPMC10351736 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study investigates the forces that contributed to severe shortages in personal protective equipment in the US during the COVID-19 crisis. Problems from a dysfunctional costing model in hospital operating systems were magnified by a very large demand shock triggered by acute need in healthcare and panicked marketplace behavior that depleted domestic PPE inventories. The lack of effective action on the part of the federal government to maintain and distribute domestic inventories, as well as severe disruptions to the PPE global supply chain, amplified the problem. Analysis of trade data shows that the US is the world's largest importer of face masks, eye protection, and medical gloves, making it highly vulnerable to disruptions in exports of medical supplies. We conclude that market prices are not appropriate mechanisms for rationing inputs to health because health is a public good. Removing the profit motive for purchasing PPE in hospital costing models, strengthening government capacity to maintain and distribute stockpiles, developing and enforcing regulations, and pursuing strategic industrial policy to reduce US dependence on imported PPE will help to better protect healthcare workers with adequate supplies of PPE.
| S-EPMC7531934 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7255297 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic has raised awareness about the importance of personal protective equipment (PPE). We aimed to study and compare PPE practices among Canadian endoscopists before and after the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsA 74-item questionnaire was emailed from June 2020 to September 2020 to practicing endoscopists in Canada. Survey questions collected basic demographics and differences between PPE practices pre- and post-COVID-19. PPE practices were categorized into four endoscopic procedure types including upper or lower endoscopy and diagnostic or interventional. Outcomes for specific procedures were reported as rates, with ranges shown when evaluating all procedure types together.ResultsA total of 77 respondents completed the survey with the majority of respondents aged 40 to 49 (44%) and identifying as Gastroenterologists (70%). Gender was evenly split (49% females versus 51% males). In the pre-pandemic era, the majority of endoscopists wore gowns (91 to 94%) and all endoscopists wore gloves (100%). However, the majority of endoscopists did not wear surgical masks (21 to 31%), face shields (13 to 34%), eye protection (13 to 21%), hair protection (11 to 13%), or N95 respirators (2 to 3%). In the post-pandemic era, more surgeons plan on wearing face shields (33 to 47%, P = 0.001 to 0.045), goggles (38.5 to 58.7%, P < 0.001), hair protection (33 to 36%, P = 0.011 to 0.024), and a trend suggests more surgeons will wear surgical masks (51 to 61%, P = 0.163 to 0.333). More endoscopists also plan on wearing N95 respirators during lower endoscopy (6 to 7%, P < 0.005).ConclusionThe COVID-19 pandemic has changed the attitudes of many endoscopists regarding future PPE use in routine endoscopy. Ongoing studies are needed to inform new post-pandemic PPE consensus guidelines.
| S-EPMC9157297 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThis study aimed to compare the costs incurred and saved from universal use of N95 respirators with surgical masks for operating room providers in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsWe built a decision analytic model to compare direct medical costs of healthcare workers (HCWs) infected with COVID-19 during operating room procedures from expected transmission when using an N95 respirator relative to a surgical mask. We also examined quarantine costs.ResultsResults varied depending upon prevalence and false-negative rates of tests, but if N95 respirators reduce transmission by 2.8%, prevalence is at 1%, and testing yields 20% false negatives, providers should be willing to pay an additional $0.64 per HCW for the additional protection. Under this scenario, approximately 11 COVID-19 cases would be averted among HCWs per day.ConclusionsPotential savings depend on disease prevalence, rate of asymptomatic patients with COVID-19, accuracy of testing, the marginal cost of respirators, and the quarantine period. We provide a range of calculations to show under which conditions N95 respirators are cost saving.
| S-EPMC9042416 | biostudies-literature