Dataset Information

Personal protective equipment-related dermatoses in COVID-19 frontline health workers. A lesson learned from 1-year single center in the UAE.

ABSTRACT: Since COVID-19 was declared a pandemic in March 2020, frontline health care workers wear personal protective equipment (PPE, surgical masks, N95 or similar respirators, gloves, goggles, face shields, and gowns). Alcohol-based sanitizers and wipes were recommended. Such measures lead to disruption of the natural skin habitat and skin barrier and various cutaneous reactions. The aim was to assess the prevalence and characteristics of PPE-related dermatoses among health care workers in Sheikh Khalifa Medical City (SKMC), a COVID-19 facility, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. We conducted a voluntary, cross-sectional anonymous survey among first-line health care workers addressing types of PPE used, dermatoses classified as PPE related, and factors that influence them. Facial, nasal, and hand dermatoses were the most prevalent with 40.2%, 19.9%, and 14.1%, respectively. The changes are primarily attributed to surgical masks, N-95 masks, and gloves. The shift duration is a contributing factor correlating with the severity of skin damage. Results of this study encouraged decision makers to recognize PPE-related dermatoses as a continuously growing burden, reorganized the shift duration and PPE exposure, animated the personal to apply preventive measures, and promoted the well-being of medical professionals in new waves of the pandemic.

SUBMITTER: Al Zaabi A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9347744 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Personal protective equipment-related dermatoses in COVID-19 frontline health workers. A lesson learned from 1-year single center in the UAE.

Al Zaabi Amna A Abdelhadi Shaden S Ruszczak Zbigniew Z

Dermatologic therapy 20220629 8

Since COVID-19 was declared a pandemic in March 2020, frontline health care workers wear personal protective equipment (PPE, surgical masks, N95 or similar respirators, gloves, goggles, face shields, and gowns). Alcohol-based sanitizers and wipes were recommended. Such measures lead to disruption of the natural skin habitat and skin barrier and various cutaneous reactions. The aim was to assess the prevalence and characteristics of PPE-related dermatoses among health care workers in Sheikh Khali ...[more]

PMID: 35674680

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo report frontline healthcare workers' (HCWs) experiences with personal protective equipment (PPE) during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. To understand HCWs' fears and concerns surrounding PPE, their experiences following its guidance and how these affected their perceived ability to deliver care during the COVID-19 pandemic.DesignA rapid qualitative appraisal study combining three sources of data: semistructured in-depth telephone interviews with frontline HCWs (n=46), media reports (n=39 newspaper articles and 145 000 social media posts) and government PPE policies (n=25).ParticipantsInterview participants were HCWs purposively sampled from critical care, emergency and respiratory departments as well as redeployed HCWs from primary, secondary and tertiary care centres across the UK.ResultsA major concern was running out of PPE, putting HCWs and patients at risk of infection. Following national level guidance was often not feasible when there were shortages, leading to reuse and improvisation of PPE. Frequently changing guidelines generated confusion and distrust. PPE was reserved for high-risk secondary care settings and this translated into HCWs outside these settings feeling inadequately protected. Participants were concerned about differential access to adequate PPE, particularly for women and Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic HCWs. Participants continued delivering care despite the physical discomfort, practical problems and communication barriers associated with PPE use.ConclusionThis study found that frontline HCWs persisted in caring for their patients despite multiple challenges including inappropriate provision of PPE, inadequate training and inconsistent guidance. In order to effectively care for patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, frontline HCWs need appropriate provision of PPE, training in its use as well as comprehensive and consistent guidance. These needs must be addressed in order to protect the health and well-being of the most valuable healthcare resource in the COVID-19 pandemic: our HCWs.

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.

Dataset Information

Personal protective equipment-related dermatoses in COVID-19 frontline health workers. A lesson learned from 1-year single center in the UAE.

Publications

Personal protective equipment-related dermatoses in COVID-19 frontline health workers. A lesson learned from 1-year single center in the UAE.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets