Dataset Information

Personal protective equipment (PPE) related adverse skin reactions among healthcare workers at the main COVID-19 isolation center in Barbados.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The use of personal protective equipment (PPE) reduces the risk of transmission of infectious agents significantly among healthcare workers (HCWs). The study aimed to investigate the prevalence and characteristics of PPE-related adverse skin reactions among HCWs working at the main COVID-19 isolation center in Barbados.

Methods

A cross-sectional web-based online survey was conducted during April to June 2021 which recorded demographic information, details of PPE use and adverse skin reactions including severity and duration of onset of symptoms.

Results

Most of the respondents used PPE for consecutive days (77.9%), 1-6 h/day (59.2%), and more than a year (62.5%). Fewer than half of the participants (45.6%) experienced adverse skin reactions from the use of PPE. The reactions were mostly observed in the cheeks (40.4%) and nose bridges (35.6%). Females had more reactions than their male counterparts (p = 0.003). The use of N95 masks and a combination of surgical and N95 masks produced adverse effects predominantly in the ears (60%) and cheeks (56.4%). Binary logistic regression showed that female HCWs (OR = 5.720 95% CI: 1.631, 20.063), doctors (OR = 5.215 95% CI: 0.877, 31.002), and longer duration of PPE use (>1 year) (OR = 2.902 95% CI: 0.958, 8.787) caused a significantly higher prevalence of adverse skin reactions.

Conclusion

The PPE-related skin reactions were common among HCWs which mainly occurred due to prolonged use. Preventive measures inclusive of appropriate training of HCWs on the use of PPE are recommended to minimize these adverse events.

SUBMITTER: Bharatha A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9592812 | biostudies-literature | 2022

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Personal protective equipment (PPE) related adverse skin reactions among healthcare workers at the main COVID-19 isolation center in Barbados.

Bharatha Ambadasu A Krishnamurthy Kandamaran K Cohall Damian D Rahman Sayeeda S Forde Corey A CA Corbin-Harte Rhea R Ojeh Nkemcho N Kabir Russell R Parsa Ali Davod AD Rabbi Ahbab Mohammad Fazle AMF Majumder Md Anwarul Azim MAA

Frontiers in public health 20221011

<h4>Background</h4>The use of personal protective equipment (PPE) reduces the risk of transmission of infectious agents significantly among healthcare workers (HCWs). The study aimed to investigate the prevalence and characteristics of PPE-related adverse skin reactions among HCWs working at the main COVID-19 isolation center in Barbados.<h4>Methods</h4>A cross-sectional web-based online survey was conducted during April to June 2021 which recorded demographic information, details of PPE use and ...[more]

PMID: 36304246

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has revealed vulnerabilities in healthcare systems worldwide, emphasizing the importance of healthcare worker safety through adequate utilization of personal protective equipment (PPE). This study aims to assess the impact of pre-pandemic PPE training on the practices and other associated factors among frontline healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic in Pakistan and provide insights into the implications of such training programs for future initiatives.MethodsA cross-sectional study from May 9th to June 5th, 2020 was conducted among the frontline healthcare workers against COVID-19 in Pakistan, utilizing an online structured questionnaire shared via WhatsApp and Facebook by using purposive sampling. Statistical analyses, including chi-square tests for proportion and logistic regression for the association while multi-logistic regression for potential confounders, were performed using SPSS version 22.ResultsA total of 453 healthcare staff participated, with 68.9% (n = 312) reporting no prior PPE training and 31.1% (n = 141) having received training. Significant associations were found between prior training and healthcare group distribution (p = 0.006), with doctors exhibiting the highest proportion of training 82 (37.61%), followed by nurses 50 (27.32%) and paramedics 9 (17.31%). Those who didn't receive any prior training in PPEs showed a higher perceived professional risk of 216 (69.23%) compared to those who received prior PPE training 96 (30.77%, p-value 0.005). Similarly, a higher frequency 137 (63.72%) of Perceived Personal risk was observed in those who didn't receive training, labeled as "high risk" compared to those who were trained 78 (36.28%, P value 0.02). Multi-logistic regression analysis identified paramedics as 0.26 times less likely to have received prior PPE training (Adjusted OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.10-0.65, p = 0.01) compared to medical doctors. Healthcare workers in tertiary care hospitals were 0.46 times less likely to undergo PPE training (Adjusted OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.25-0.87,p = 0.01) compared to those working at COVID-19 facilities/hospitals/quarantine centers. Likewise, individuals who doffed disposable gowns [Adjusted OR 3.86, (95% CI, 1.23-12.08, p = 0.02] were 3.86 times more interested in getting prior training in PPE compared to those who don't have skills to wear them.ConclusionOur findings highlight that healthcare levels, type of healthcare, and doffing skills are important predictors of whether healthcare workers have taken prior training in PPE. These findings imply developing effective training programs for healthcare workers to ensure safety while providing care during pandemics like COVID-19.

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 (PPE) related adverse skin reactions among healthcare workers at the main COVID-19 isolation center in Barbados.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Personal protective equipment (PPE) related adverse skin reactions among healthcare workers at the main COVID-19 isolation center in Barbados.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets