Adverse skin reactions among healthcare workers using face personal protective equipment during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: A cross‐sectional survey of six hospitals in Denmark

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jette G. Skiveren ◽  
Malene F. Ryborg ◽  
Britt Nilausen ◽  
Susan Bermark ◽  
Peter A. Philipsen
Keyword(s):  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Skin Reactions

scholarly journals COVID-19 infections among Healthcare Workers and Transmission within Households

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin L. Schwartz ◽  
Camille Achonu ◽  
Sarah A. Buchan ◽  
Kevin A. Brown ◽  
Brenda Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
General Population ◽  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Nosocomial Transmission ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Testing Bias

AbstractImportanceProtecting healthcare workers (HCWs) from COVID-19 is a priority to maintain a safe and functioning healthcare system. The risk of transmitting COVID-19 to family members is a source of stress for many.ObjectiveTo describe and compare HCW and non-HCW COVID-19 cases in Ontario, Canada, as well as the frequency of COVID-19 among HCWs’ household members.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsUsing reportable disease data at Public Health Ontario which captures all COVID-19 cases in Ontario, Canada, we conducted a population-based cross-sectional study comparing demographic, exposure, and clinical variables between HCWs and non-HCWs with COVID-19 as of 14 May 2020. We calculated rates of infections over time and determined the frequency of within household transmissions using natural language processing based on residential address.Exposures and OutcomesWe contrasted age, gender, comorbidities, clinical presentation (including asymptomatic and presymptomatic), exposure histories including nosocomial transmission, and clinical outcomes between HCWs and non-HCWs with confirmed COVID-19.ResultsThere were 4,230 (17.5%) HCW COVID-19 cases in Ontario, of whom 20.2% were nurses, 2.3% were physicians, and the remaining 77.4% other specialties. HCWs were more likely to be between 30-60 years of age and female. HCWs were more likely to present asymptomatically (8.1% versus 7.0%, p=0.010) or with atypical symptoms (17.8% versus 10.5%, p<0.001). The mortality among HCWs was 0.2% compared to 10.5% of non-HCWs. HCWs commonly had exposures to a confirmed case or outbreak (74.1%), however only 3.1% were confirmed to be nosocomial. The rate of new infections was 5.5 times higher in HCWs than non-HCWs, but mirrored the epidemic curve. We identified 391 (9.8%) probable secondary household transmissions and 143 (3.6%) acquisitions. Children < 19 years comprised 14.6% of secondary cases compared to only 4.2% of the primary cases.Conclusions and RelevanceHCWs represent a disproportionate number of COVID-19 cases in Ontario but with low confirmed numbers of nosocomial transmission. The data support substantial testing bias and under-ascertainment of general population cases. Protecting HCWs through appropriate personal protective equipment and physical distancing from colleagues is paramount.Key PointsQuestionWhat are the differences between healthcare workers and non-healthcare workers with COVID-19?FindingsIn this population-based cross-sectional study there were 4,230 healthcare workers comprising 17.5% of COVID-19 cases. Healthcare workers were diagnosed with COVID-19 at a rate 5.5 times higher than the general population with 0.8% of all healthcare workers, compared to 0.1% of non-healthcare workers.MeaningHigh healthcare worker COVID-19 burden highlights the importance of physical distancing from colleagues, appropriate personal protective equipment, as well as likely substantial testing bias and under-ascertainment of COVID-19 in the general population.

scholarly journals Stockpiled personal protective equipment and knowledge of pandemic plans as predictors of perceived pandemic preparedness among German general practitioners

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (8) ◽  
pp. e0255986
Author(s):  
Arno Stöcker ◽  
Ibrahim Demirer ◽  
Sophie Gunkel ◽  
Jan Hoffmann ◽  
Laura Mause ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
General Practitioners ◽  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Explanatory Power ◽  
Vital Role ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Linear Regression Models ◽  
Pandemic Preparedness ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Determining Factor

Background The COVID-19 pandemic significantly changed the work of general practitioners (GPs). At the onset of the pandemic in March 2020, German outpatient practices had to adapt quickly. Pandemic preparedness (PP) of GPs may play a vital role in their management of a pandemic. Objectives The study aimed to examine the association in the stock of seven personal protective equipment (PPE) items and knowledge of pandemic plans on perceived PP among GPs. Methods Three multivariable linear regression models were developed based on an online cross-sectional survey for the period March–April 2020 (the onset of the pandemic in Germany). Data were collected using self-developed items on self-assessed PP and knowledge of a pandemic plan and its utility. The stock of seven PPE items was queried. For PPE items, three different PPE scores were compared. Control variables for all models were gender and age. Results In total, 508 GPs were included in the study; 65.16% believed that they were very poorly or poorly prepared. Furthermore, 13.83% of GPs were aware of a pandemic plan; 40% rated those plans as beneficial. The stock of FFP-2/3 masks, protective suits, face shields, safety glasses, and medical face masks were mostly considered completely insufficient or insufficient, whereas disposable gloves and disinfectants were considered sufficient or completely sufficient. The stock of PPE was significantly positively associated with PP and had the largest effect on PP; the association of the knowledge of a pandemic plan was significant but small. PPE scores did not vary considerably in their explanatory power. The assessment of a pandemic plan as beneficial did not significantly affect PP. Conclusion The stock of PPE seems to be the determining factor for PP among German GPs; for COVID-19, sufficient masks are the determining factor. Knowledge of a pandemic plans play a secondary role in PP.

scholarly journals Impact of enhanced personal protective equipment on the physical and mental well-being of healthcare workers during COVID-19

2020 ◽  
pp. postgradmedj-2020-139150 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ramanathan Swaminathan ◽  
Bimantha Perera Mukundadura ◽  
Shashi Prasad
Keyword(s):  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Mental Well Being

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated the use of enhanced personal protective equipment (PPE) in healthcare workers in patient-facing roles. We describe the impact on the physical and mental well-being of healthcare professionals who use enhanced PPE consistently.MethodsWe conducted a single-centre, cross-sectional study among healthcare professionals who use enhanced PPE. A web-based questionnaire was disseminated to evaluate the effects on individuals’ physical and mental well-being. Physical and mental impact was assessed through a visual analogue scale.ResultsProspective analysis of the views of 72 respondents is reported. 63.9% were women and 36.1% were men. Physical impact included exhaustion, headache, skin changes, breathlessness and a negative impact on vision. Communication difficulties, somnolence, negative impact on overall performance and difficulties in using surgical instrumentation were reported.ConclusionOur study demonstrates the undeniable negative impact on the front-line healthcare workers using enhanced PPE and lays the ground for larger multicentric assessments given for it to potentially be the norm for the foreseeable future.

scholarly journals Practices of Healthcare Workers regarding Infection Prevention in Bale Zone Hospitals, Southeast Ethiopia

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Demisu Zenbaba ◽  
Biniyam Sahiledengle ◽  
Daniel Bogale
Keyword(s):  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Infection Prevention ◽  
Simple Random Sampling ◽  
Healthcare Services ◽  
Good Knowledge ◽  
Work Place ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Bale Zone

Introduction. In Ethiopia, infection prevention to protect patients, healthcare workers, and visitors from healthcare-acquired infections is one of a number of nationwide transformational initiatives to ensure the provision of quality healthcare services. The aim of this research was to assess the practice of healthcare workers regarding infection prevention and its associated factors in Bale zone Hospitals. Methods. A cross-sectional study targeted 402 healthcare workers using simple random sampling to learn about their practices related to infection prevention. Data were collected in interviews using pretested, structured questionnaires. Returned questionnaires were checked for completeness and then data were entered into a database and analyzed using SPSS Version 20. Adjusted odd ratio (AOR) with a 95% confidence interval was calculated to determine the strength of association, and variables with a p value <0.05 in the final model were considered as statistically significant. Results. Three hundred ninety-four healthcare workers participated in the study. Of these; 145 (36.8%, 95% CI 32, 42%) of them were found to have self-reported good infection prevention practice. Good knowledge towards infection prevention (AOR = 1.84, 95% CI 1.02, 3.31), availability of personal protective equipment (AOR = 1.96, 95% CI 1.16, 3.32), and water (AOR = 4.42, 95% 2.66, 7.34) at workplace were found to have a statistically significant association with healthcare workers self-reported good infection prevention practices. Conclusions. In this study, slightly more than one-third of the healthcare workers reported to have good infection prevention practice. Good knowledge towards infection prevention, working in departments, availability of personal protective equipment, and water at work place were found to have statistically significant association with self-reported good infection prevention practices.

Personal Protective Equipment Management and Policies: European Network for Highly Infectious Diseases Data from 48 Isolation Facilities in 16 European Countries

2012 ◽  
Vol 33 (10) ◽  
pp. 1008-1016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giuseppina De Iaco ◽  
Vincenzo Puro ◽  
Francesco Maria Fusco ◽  
Stefan Schilling ◽  
Helena C. Maltezou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Infectious Diseases ◽  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
European Countries ◽  
Assessment Process ◽  
Positive Pressure ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Sudden Increase ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Isolation Facilities

Objective.To collect data about personal protective equipment (PPE) management and to provide indications for improving PPE policies in Europe.Design.Descriptive, cross-sectional survey.Setting and Participants.Data were collected in 48 isolation facilities in 16 European countries nominated by National Health Authorities for the management of highly infectious diseases (HIDs).Methods.Data were collected through standardized checklists at on-site visits during February-November 2009. Indications for adequate PPE policies were developed on the basis of a literature review, partners' expert opinions, and the collected data.Results.All facilities have procedures for the selection of PPE in case of HID, and 44 have procedures for the removal of PPE. In 40 facilities, different levels of PPE are used according to a risk assessment process, and in 8 facilities, high-level PPE (eg, positive-pressure complete suits or Trexler units) is always used. A fit test is performed at 25 of the 40 facilities at which it is applicable, a seal check is recommended at 25, and both procedures are used at 17. Strategies for promoting and monitoring the correct use of PPE are available at 42 facilities. In case of a sudden increase in demand, 44 facilities have procedures for rapid supply of PPE, whereas 14 facilities have procedures for decontamination and reuse of some PPE.Conclusions.Most isolation facilities devote an acceptable level of attention to PPE selection and removal, strategies for the promotion of the correct use of PPE, and ensuring adequate supplies of PPE. Fit test and seal check procedures are still not widely practiced. Moreover, policies vary widely between and within European countries, and the development of common practice procedures is advisable.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2012;33(10):1008-1016

scholarly journals Utilization of Personal Protective Equipment and Associated Factors among Building Construction Workers in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 2019

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meseret Yitayew ◽  
Aklilu Azazeh ◽  
Sofia Kebede ◽  
Addisu Alehegn
Keyword(s):  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Associated Factors ◽  
Occupational Safety ◽  
Safety Management ◽  
Occupational Injuries ◽  
Addis Ababa ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Construction Site ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional

Abstract BackgroundPersonal Protective Equipment (PPE) is a material, device, equipment or clothing which is used or worn by a worker to protect them from exposure or contact with any harmful material or energy which may cause injury, disease or even death. The use of personal protective equipment is a universal legal requirement to protect workers against occupational injuries and illnesses in their workplace. The international labor office estimates that every year there are some 125 million work-related accidents, 220, 000 of them are fatal. This study assessed personal protective equipment utilization and associated factors among building construction workers in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 2019.MethodsInstitution based cross-sectional survey was conducted on the selected construction sites in April 2019. Data was collected by using pre-tested Amharic questioner from 206 study subjects with a response rate of 100% via face to face interviews. Epi info version 7.1 and SPSS version 25 were used for data cleaning and analysis respectively. Independent variables with P<0.2 were transformed from bivariate to multivariate logistic regression. P<0.05 and was declared as an associated factor.ResultsThis study showed that (38.3%) of construction site workers were used at least one personal protective equipment. Presence of safety training, safety brief before commencing work and the availability of governmental visits were associated factors for utilization of personal protective equipment. Regarding, the type of injuries that occur on a majority of workers were abrasion (35%) and climbing at high was the common cause of injury. ConclusionsPPE utilization and safety measure in construction industries is insignificant and construction site workers are not adapted to take care of themselves as it manifested by low use of PPE. An effort for occupational safety assurance should be put in practice to avoid accidents on building a site with an unconditional commitment to all the projects. Riddance of hazards and deterrence of accidents on-site should be within the proficiency of each site. The client should be involved in safety management coupled with having a great craving for safety.

scholarly journals Associations between personal protective equipment and nursing staff stress during the COVID-19 pandemic

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manuela Hoedl ◽  
Doris Eglseer ◽  
Silvia Bauer
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Nursing Staff ◽  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Snowball Sampling ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Work Related ◽  
Stress Levels ◽  
High Level

Background: The results of several projects on the effects of personal protective equipment (PPE) have been published since the outbreak of COVID-19. It is known that wearing PPE, and specifically face masks, has physcial consequences like headache and pain, which can increase stress among nursing staff. However, none of these studies placed a focus on PPE and nursing staff, although nurses are the only members of the health care profession who are at the patients bedsides 24/7, and PPE is the only way to protect them from a COVID-19 infection. Therefore, this study was carried out to investigate the association between the use of PPE and stress among nursing staff during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods An online, cross-sectional survey was conducted, which we distributed using snowball sampling techniques. The questionnaire was developed on the basis of (inter-)national recommendations as well as the international literature. We used the perceived level of stress scale to measure the nursing staff members stress levels. Results We included data collected from 2600 nurses in this analysis. Nearly all nursing staff wore face masks. We showed that more than two-thirds of the nurses had moderate to high levels of stress. No statistically significant association between the use of PPE and stress was detected. However, we show a statistically significant association between the duration of mask usage and stress. Discussion and conclusions Nearly all participating nurses wore face masks or FFP masks to protect themselves from COVID-19 infection. This observation might indicate that Austrian nurses display a high level of compliance with national and international regulations and play a key role in such pandemics. Our results also show that increased mask-wearing time led to increased stress levels. These results suggest that (inter-)national regulations on how and when to use PPE should include a maximum duration of time for wearing each type of mask. Such regulations could help to prevent work-related stress, particularly in the case of future epidemics, and avoid burnout among nursing staff or even nurses leaving their jobs. The consequences of both of these negative outcomes should be considered in light of the predicted expected future shortage of health care workers.

scholarly journals Use of personal protective equipment during infectious disease outbreak and nonoutbreak conditions: a survey of emergency medical technicians

CJEM ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 11 (01) ◽  
pp. 44-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura M. Visentin ◽  
Susan J. Bondy ◽  
Brian Schwartz ◽  
Laurie J. Morrison
Keyword(s):  
Airway Management ◽  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Intermediate Frequency ◽  
Emergency Medical Technicians ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Mandatory Training ◽  
Emergency Medical ◽  
Open Face

ABSTRACTObjective:We sought to assess the knowledge of, use of and barriers to the use of personal protective equipment for airway management among emergency medical technicians (EMTs) during and since the 2003 Canadian outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS).Methods:Using a cross-sectional survey, EMTs in Toronto, Ont., were surveyed 1 year after the SARS outbreak during mandatory training on the use of personal protective equipment in airway management during the outbreak and just before taking the survey. Practices that were addressed reflected government directives on the use of this equipment. Main outcome measures included the frequency of personal protective equipment use and, as applicable, why particular items were not always used.Results:The response rate was 67.3% (n= 230). During the SARS outbreak, an N95-type particulate respirator was reported to bealwaysused by 91.5% of respondents. Conversely, 72.9% of the respondents reported that theyneverused the open face hood. Equipment availability and vision impairment were often cited as impediments to personal protective equipment use. In nonoutbreak conditions, only the antimicrobial airway filter was most often reported to bealwaysused (52.0%), while other items were used at an intermediate frequency. The most common reason for notalwaysdonning equipment was that paramedics deemed it unnecessary for the situation.Conclusion:Personal protective equipment is not consistently employed as per medical directives. Reasons given for nonuse included nonavailability, judgment of nonnecessity or technical difficulties. There are important public health implications of noncompliance.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document