scholarly journals The prevalence, characteristics, and related factors of pressure injury in medical staff wearing personal protective equipment against COVID ‐19 in China: A multicentre cross‐sectional survey

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (5) ◽  
pp. 1300-1309 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qixia Jiang ◽  
Yuxiu Liu ◽  
Wei Wei ◽  
Dongmei Zhu ◽  
Aihua Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Medical Staff ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Related Factors ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Pressure Injury

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.

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.

scholarly journals Personal protective equipment usage, recycling and disposal among spine surgeons: An Asia Pacific Spine Society survey

2021 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 230949902098817
Author(s):  
Chee Kidd Chiu ◽  
Chris Yin Wei Chan ◽  
Jason Pui Yin Cheung ◽  
Prudence Wing Hang Cheung ◽  
Siti Mariam Abd Gani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Asia Pacific ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Pacific Region ◽  
Asia Pacific Region ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Equipment Usage

Purpose: In this study we investigated on the personal protective equipment (PPE) usage, recycling, and disposal among spine surgeons in the Asia Pacific region. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was carried out among spine surgeons in Asia Pacific. The questionnaires were focused on the usage, recycling and disposal of PPE. Results: Two hundred and twenty-two surgeons from 19 countries participated in the survey. When we sub-analysed the differences between countries, the provision of adequate PPE by hospitals ranged from 37.5% to 100%. The usage of PPE was generally high. The most used PPE were surgical face masks (88.7%), followed by surgical caps (88.3%), gowns (85.6%), sterile gloves (83.3%) and face shields (82.0%). The least used PPE were powered air-purifying respirators (PAPR) (23.0%) and shoes/boots (45.0%). The commonly used PPE for surgeries involving COVID-19 positive patients were N95 masks (74.8%), sterile gloves (73.0%), gowns (72.1%), surgical caps (71.6%), face shields (64.4%), goggles (64.0%), shoe covers (58.6%), plastic aprons (45.9%), shoes/boots (45.9%), surgical face masks (36.5%) and PAPRs (21.2%). Most PPE were not recycled. Biohazard bins were the preferred method of disposal for all types of PPE items compared to general waste. Conclusions: The usage of PPE was generally high among most countries especially for surgeries involving COVID-19 positive patients except for Myanmar and Nepal. Overall, the most used PPE were surgical face masks. For surgeries involving COVID-19 positive patients, the most used PPE were N95 masks. Most PPE were not recycled. Biohazard bins were the preferred method of disposal for all types of PPE.

scholarly journals Occupational health and safety in mining: Predictive probabilities of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) use among artisanal goldminers in Ghana

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (9) ◽  
pp. e0257772
Author(s):  
Simon Appah Aram ◽  
Benjamin M. Saalidong ◽  
Augustine Appiah ◽  
Idongesit Bassey Utip
Keyword(s):  
Occupational Health ◽  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
Occupational Health And Safety ◽  
Good Health ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Artisanal Mining ◽  
Artisanal Miners

Artisanal goldminers in Ghana are exposed to various levels and forms of health, safety and environmental threats. Without the required legislation and regulations, artisanal miners are responsible for their own health and safety at work. Consequently, understanding the probabilities of self-protection at work by artisanal goldminers is crucial. A cross-sectional survey of 500 artisanal goldminers was conducted to examine the probabilities of personal protective equipment use among artisanal goldminers in Ghana. The data was subjected to both descriptive and inferential statistics. Initial findings showed that personal protective equipment use among artisanal miners was 77.4%. Overall, higher probabilities of personal protective equipment use was observed among artisanal goldminers who work in good health and safety conditions as compared to artisanal miners who work in poor health and safety conditions. Also, personal protective equipment use was more probable among the highly educated artisanal goldminers, miners who regularly go for medical screening and the most experienced miners. Additionally, personal protective equipment use was more probable among artisanal miners who work in non-production departments and miners who work in the medium scale subsector. Inversely, personal protective equipment use was less probable among female artisanal miners and miners who earn more monthly income ($174 and above). To increase self-care and safety consciousness in artisanal mining, there is the need for a national occupational health and safety legislation in Ghana. Also, interventions and health promotion campaigns for better occupational conditions in artisanal mining should target and revise the health and safety related workplace programs and conditions.

scholarly journals Optimized and Non-Optimized Personal Protective Equipment use During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Thailand: A National Cross-Sectional Survey in a Resource-Limited Setting

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Visal Moolasart ◽  
Weerawat Manosuthi ◽  
Varaporn Thienthong ◽  
Uajai Jaemsak ◽  
Pimonamorn Pantool ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Negative Pressure ◽  
Symptom Severity ◽  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
Education Level ◽  
Health Concern ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Infection Control Program

Abstract Background: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV2). COVID-19 is highly contagious, potentially fatal, and a global public health concern. Combining optimized personal protective equipment (PPE) use and hand hygiene is the best strategy for preventing COVID-19 in health care workers (HCWs).Methods: We conducted a national cross-sectional survey of HCWs in the infection control program in Thailand between May 5, 2020 and May 15, 2020. The primary objective was the prevalence of optimized PPE use amongst HCWs. The secondary objective was identification of the independent predictors of optimized PPE use. Results: Seven hundred and fifty-six HCWs responded. Five HCWs were excluded because of non responsible of care team, and 751 were included in the final analysis. The prevalence of optimized PPE use was 22 % (168/751), 78% (583/751) were non-optimized PPE use, 35% (263/751) over-used PPE, and 43% (320/751) under-used PPE. In univariate analysis, optimized PPE use was significantly associated with age, education level, knowledge of appropriate negative pressure room selection and knowledge of apparently milder symptom severity in children than adults. In multivariate analysis, independent predictors of optimized PPE use were knowledge of appropriate negative pressure room selection (aOR=1.95, 95% CI=1.18-3.22) , the difference in symptom severity between children and adults (aOR=0.55, 95% CI=0.37-0.81) and education level (aOR=1.54, 95% CI=1.04-2.27).Conclusion: The prevalence of optimized PPE use amongst HCWs was 22 %. Independent predictors of optimized PPE use were COVID-19 knowledge-based factors and education level.Continued education is advised among Thai HCWs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document