Dataset Information

Personal protective equipment for COVID-19 among healthcare workers in an emergency department: An exploratory survey of workload, thermal discomfort and symptoms of heat strain.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To examine workload, thermal discomfort and heat-related symptoms among healthcare workers (HCWs) in an Australian ED during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

A cross-sectional study design was employed among HCWs in an ED at a metropolitan hospital in Brisbane, Australia. Respondents provided demographic information including their self-reported age, sex, height, weight, role (e.g. doctor, nurse), and whether they wore personal protective equipment (PPE) during their shift, rated as either Full PPE, Partial PPE, or usual uniform or scrubs. The workload of HCWs was assessed with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's task load index (NASA-TLX). Thermal discomfort was evaluated using scales from the International Organisation for Standardisation. Responders rated their subjective heat illness using the Environmental Symptoms Questionnaire.

Results

Fifty-nine HCWs completed the survey (27 male, 31 female, one prefer not to answer). Overall workload from the NASA-TLX was 64.6 (interquartile range [IQR] 56.5-73.3) for doctors, 72.5 (IQR 63.3-83.3) for nurses and 66.7 (IQR 58.3-74.17) for other staff, representing moderate to high ratings. Eighty-one percent reported thermal sensation to be slightly warm, warm, or hot, and 88% reported being uncomfortable, ranging from slightly to extremely. Ninety-seven percent reported at least one heat-strain symptom. More than 50% reported light-headedness or headache and approximately 30% reported feeling dizzy, faint, or weak.

Conclusions

ED HCWs experience thermal discomfort when wearing PPE. Combined with their workloads, HCWs experienced symptoms related to heat strain. Therefore, careful consideration should be given to managing heat strain among HCWs when wearing PPE in an ED.

SUBMITTER: Hunt A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9877975 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Personal protective equipment for COVID-19 among healthcare workers in an emergency department: An exploratory survey of workload, thermal discomfort and symptoms of heat strain.

Hunt Andrew A Ting Joseph J Schweitzer Daniel D Laakso E-Liisa EL Stewart Ian I

Emergency medicine Australasia : EMA 20221220 3

<h4>Objectives</h4>To examine workload, thermal discomfort and heat-related symptoms among healthcare workers (HCWs) in an Australian ED during the COVID-19 pandemic.<h4>Methods</h4>A cross-sectional study design was employed among HCWs in an ED at a metropolitan hospital in Brisbane, Australia. Respondents provided demographic information including their self-reported age, sex, height, weight, role (e.g. doctor, nurse), and whether they wore personal protective equipment (PPE) during their shif ...[more]

PMID: 36478390

Similar Datasets

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 for COVID-19 among healthcare workers in an emergency department: An exploratory survey of workload, thermal discomfort and symptoms of heat strain.

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Personal protective equipment for COVID-19 among healthcare workers in an emergency department: An exploratory survey of workload, thermal discomfort and symptoms of heat strain.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets