scholarly journals Factors that affect the duration of wearing disposable personal protective equipment by healthcare professionals in Wuhan during treatment of COVID ‐19 patients: An epidemiological study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fanglin Li ◽  
Tongtong Jiang ◽  
Tieying Shi ◽  
Yongning Liu ◽  
Xiumei Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Epidemiological Study ◽  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Protective Equipment

Recomendações de equipamentos de proteção individual no combate ao COVID-19

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (31) ◽  
pp. 87-95
Author(s):  
Nicole Maria Miyamoto Bettini ◽  
Fabiana Tomé Ramos ◽  
Priscila Masquetto Vieira de Almeida
Keyword(s):  
World Health Organization ◽  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Health Personnel ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
World Health ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Effective Strategy ◽  
The World ◽  
Health Organization

A Organização Mundial da Saúde - OMS confirmou a circulação internacional do novo Coronavírus em janeiro de 2020, nomeando-o como COVID-19 e, declarando uma pandemia. É de extrema importância que durante a pandemia, os profissionais de saúde tenham acesso e conhecimento sobre o uso correto dos Equipamentos de Proteção Individual (EPIs) e suas indicações, tomando assim, as devidas precauções na prevenção de infecções. O presente estudo buscou identificar a padronização mundial quanto ao uso dos EPIs utilizados no atendimento a pacientes suspeitos e/ou confirmados de COVID-19 no Brasil, EUA, China, Espanha, Itália e demais países europeus. Os guidelines apresentam a padronização quanto ao uso dos EPIs utilizados no atendimento a suspeitos e/ou confirmados de COVID-19, indo ao encontro das recomendações fornecidas pela OMS. Até o momento, o uso de EPIs é sem dúvida a estratégia mais importante e eficaz para proteger os profissionais de saúde durante a assistência ao paciente com COVID-19.Descritores: Infecções por Coronavírus, Equipamento de Proteção Individual, Pessoal de Saúde, Enfermagem. Recommendations for personal protective equipment to combat COVID-19Abstract: The World Health Organization - WHO confirmed the international circulation of the new Coronavirus in January 2020, naming it as COVID-19 and declaring a pandemic. It is extremely important that during the pandemic, health professionals have access and knowledge about the correct use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and its indications, thus taking appropriate precautions to prevent infections. The present study sought to identify the worldwide standardization regarding the use of PPE utilized to take care of suspected and confirmed patients with COVID-19 in Brazil, USA, China, Spain, Italy and other European countries. The guidelines present a standardization regarding the use of PPE utilized to take care of suspected and confirmed with COVID-19, in line with the recommendations provided by WHO. To date, the use of PPE is undoubtedly the most important and effective strategy to protect healthcare professionals during care for patients with COVID-19.Descriptors: Coronavirus Infections, Personal Protective Equipment, Health Personnel, Nursing. Recomendaciones para el equipo de protección personal para combatir COVID-19Resumen: La Organización Mundial de la Salud - La OMS confirmó la circulación internacional del nuevo Coronavirus en enero de 2020, nombrándolo COVID-19 y declarando una pandemia. Es extremadamente importante que durante la pandemia, los profesionales de la salud tengan acceso y conocimiento sobre el uso correcto del Equipo de Protección Personal (EPP) y sus indicaciones, tomando así las precauciones adecuadas para prevenir infecciones. El presente estudio buscó identificar la estandarización mundial con respecto al uso de EPP utilizado para atender a pacientes sospechosos y/o confirmados con COVID-19 en Brasil, Estados Unidos, China, España, Italia y otros países europeos. Las pautas presentan la estandarización con respecto al uso de EPP utilizado para cuidar COVID-19 sospechoso y/o confirmado, de acuerdo con las recomendaciones proporcionadas por la OMS. Hasta la fecha, el uso de EPP es, sin duda, la estrategia más importante y efectiva para proteger a los profesionales de la salud durante la atención de pacientes con COVID-19.Descriptores: Infecciones por Coronavirus, Equipo de Protección Personal, Personal de Salud, Enfermería.

scholarly journals Adverse Effects of Personal Protective Equipment Among Intensive Care Unit Healthcare Professionals During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Scoping Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 237796082110261
Author(s):  
Takeshi Unoki ◽  
Hideaki Sakuramoto ◽  
Ryuhei Sato ◽  
Akira Ouchi ◽  
Tomoki Kuribara ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care ◽  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
World Health ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Medical Database ◽  
Publication Type ◽  
Skin Injuries

Introduction To avoid exposure to SARS-COV-2, healthcare professionals use personal protective equipment (PPE) while treating COVID-19 patients. Prior studies have revealed the adverse effects (AEs) of PPE on healthcare workers (HCWs); however, no review has focused on the AEs of PPE on HCWs in intensive care units (ICUs). This review aimed to identify the AEs of PPE on HCWs working in ICUs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods A scoping review was conducted. MEDLINE, CINAHL, the World Health Organization (WHO) global literature on COVID-19, and Igaku-chuo-zasshi (a Japanese medical database), Google Scholar, medRxiv, and Health Research Board (HRB) open research were searched from January 25–28, 2021. The extracted data included author(s) name, year of publication, country, language, article title, journal name, publication type, study methodology, population, outcome, and key findings. Results The initial search identified 691 articles and abstracts. Twenty-five articles were included in the analysis. The analysis comprised four key topics: studies focusing on PPE-related headache, voice disorders, skin manifestations, and miscellaneous AEs of PPE. The majority of AEs for HCWs in ICUs were induced by prolonged use of masks. Conclusion The AEs of PPE among HCWs in ICUs included heat, headaches, skin injuries, chest discomfort, and dyspnea. Studies with a focus on specific diseases were on skin injuries. Moreover, many AEs were induced by prolonged use of masks.

scholarly journals Using surgical wrapping material for the fabrication of respirator masks

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johanna H Meijer ◽  
Joric Oude Vrielink
Keyword(s):  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Hospital Staff ◽  
Clinical Staff ◽  
Surgical Instruments ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Bottom Up ◽  
Filter Efficiency

AbstractGiven the current shortage of respirator masks and the resulting lack of personal protective equipment for use by clinical staff, we examined bottom-up solutions that would allow hospitals to fabricate respirator masks that: (i) meet requirements in terms of filtering capacities, (ii) are easy to produce rapidly and locally, and (iii) can be constructed using materials commonly available in hospitals worldwide. We found that Halyard H300 material used for wrapping of surgical instruments and routinely available in hospitals, met these criteria. Specifically, three layers of material achieved a filter efficiency of 94%, 99%, and 100% for 0.3 μm, 0.5 μm, and 3.0 μm particles, respectively; importantly, these values are close to the efficiency provided by FFP2 and N95 masks. After re-sterilization up to 5 times, the filter’s efficiency remains sufficiently high for use as an FFP1 respirator mask. Finally, using only one layer of the material satisfies the criteria for use as a ‘surgical mask’. This material can therefore be used to help protect hospital staff and other healthcare professionals who require access to suitable masks but lack commercially available solutions.

scholarly journals Recommendations from the Brazilian Society of Nephrology regarding the use of cloth face coverings, by chronic kidney patients in dialysis, during the new coronavirus pandemic (Covid-19)

2020 ◽  
Vol 42 (2 suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 9-11
Author(s):  
Andrea Pio de Abreu ◽  
José Andrade Moura Neto ◽  
Vinicius Daher Alvares Delfino ◽  
Lilian Monteiro Pereira Palma ◽  
Marcelo Mazza do Nascimento
Keyword(s):  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Ministry Of Health ◽  
Public Places ◽  
Brazilian Society ◽  
New Evidence

ABSTRACT These recommendations were created after the publication of informative note 3/2020- CGGAP/DESF/SAPS/MS, of April 4, 2020, in which the Brazilian Ministry of Health recommended the use of a cloth mask by the population, in public places. Taking into account the necessary prioritization of the provision of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for patients with suspected or confirmed disease, as well as for healthcare professionals, the SBN is favorable concerning the wear of cloth masks by chronic kidney patients in dialysis, in public settings, except in the dialysis setting. The present recommendations have eleven items, related to this rationale, the procedures, indications, contraindications, as well as appropriate fabrics for the mask, and hygiene care to be adopted. These recommendations may change, at any time, in the light of new evidence.

scholarly journals The headache and adverse events due to the use of personal protective equipment to combat Covid-19

2020 ◽  
pp. 55-56
Author(s):  
Erlene Roberta Ribeiro dos Santos
Keyword(s):  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Work Disability ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Soft Tissues ◽  
Extended Period ◽  
External Pressure ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Primary Headaches ◽  
Continued Use ◽  
Object Of Study

Personal protective equipment such as a mask, face shield, and glasses for healthcare professionals has never been more widespread during is the occurrence of the Covid-19 pandemic. These devices compress the scalp tissue circumferentially and often leave pressure marks after its removal, as is often observed in the case of the mask. This situation has affected the work environment of professionals who have been at the forefront of combating Covid-19 since December 2019, in units dedicated to the care of infected patients. Therefore, we wonder about the need and importance of exploring the adverse event of prolonged use of personal protective equipment such as mask, face shield, and goggles associated with the triggering of external pressure headaches. The etiology of this type of headache is triggered by external pressure resulting from the sustained compression of the soft tissues of the epicrania, associated with the use of the equipment on the head, which can lead to work disability. For those who already suffer from primary headaches such as migraines, the damage can be greater, as the continued use of the accessory by pressing on sensitive areas for an extended period can increase the chance of triggering a crisis. Based on these notes, it is recommended that greater attention be paid to the care with the improvement of protective equipment as an object of study, in the search for alternatives that can minimize the damage caused.

scholarly journals Knowledge, Attitude and Practice of Personal Safety Measures Adopted by Medical Practioners during the Covid-19 Pandemic

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. 883-887
Author(s):  
Hemapriya L ◽  
Maureen Prativa Tigga ◽  
Anil Kumar M.R ◽  
Prathap T ◽  
Neha Wali ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Urban Areas ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Well Being ◽  
World Health ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Personal Safety ◽  
Safety Measures

BACKGROUND A novel coronavirus (now termed as SARS-CoV-2) was detected as the causative agent of severe pneumonia in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China, in December 2019. Declared by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a global pandemic in March 2020, it has created profound changes in global economy and healthcare systems. This study evaluates the knowledge and practice with regard to various personal safety measures used by the healthcare professionals. METHODS We conducted a questionnaire study after obtaining approval, from the Institutional ethical committee. An online survey was conducted using a preformatted questionnaire consisting of multiple-choice questions which assessed the knowledge and practices adopted by various healthcare professionals. The survey was done between 1st and 30th of June 2020 and a total of 536 responses was analysed. RESULTS 58.4 % of the participants were females, 66 % of the healthcare workers worked at a private hospital / private medical college with 82.1 % being located in urban areas. Of the 536 respondents, 90.1 % practiced bathing immediately after returning home and 86.8 % sanitized their accessories. 86.9 % of the professionals used frequent sanitization with use of mask and gloves whereas only 12.3 % used full personal protective equipment. 58 % of females had used hydroxychloroquine as prophylaxis whereas only 41 % of males used it (statistically significant, P = 0.005). Healthcare workers in younger age group (23 - 40 years) were more likely to maintain distance with family members, and government doctors were significantly more likely to do so (P < 0.001) as compared to private practitioners. CONCLUSIONS With the medical professionals being at high risk for contracting the infection, the need to provide the healthcare professionals with adequate personal protective equipment is of utmost importance. There is also a need to maintain the well-being of the healthcare professionals as they are the weakest link in the chain. KEY WORDS Medical Practitioners, Personal Protective Equipment, Safety Measures

scholarly journals What healthcare professionals owe us: why their duty to treat during a pandemic is contingent on personal protective equipment (PPE)

2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (7) ◽  
pp. 432-435 ◽  
Author(s):  
Udo Schuklenk
Keyword(s):  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Healthcare Delivery ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Short Supply ◽  
Universal Precautions ◽  
Tax Regimes ◽  
Global North ◽  
Allocation Decisions

Healthcare professionals’ capacity to protect themselves, while caring for infected patients during an infectious disease pandemic, depends on their ability to practise universal precautions. In turn, universal precautions rely on the availability of personal protective equipment (PPE). During the SARS-CoV2 outbreak many healthcare workers across the globe have been reluctant to provide patient care because crucial PPE components are in short supply. The lack of such equipment during the pandemic was not a result of careful resource allocation decisions in the global north, where the short supply could be explained through their high cost. Instead, they were the result of democratically elected governments prioritising low tax regimes over an adequate resourcing of their healthcare delivery systems. Such decisions were made despite global health experts warning about the high probability of pandemics like SARS-CoV2 occurring during our lifetimes. Avoidable allocation decisions by democratically elected political leaders resulted in a lack of sufficient PPE for healthcare professionals. After discussing and discounting various ethical arguments in support of a professional obligation to treat, even without or with suboptimal PPE, I conclude that these policy decisions were sufficiently grave that they provide a sound ethical rationale to justify healthcare workers’ refusal to provide care to infected patients.

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 70 Availability of Personal Protective Equipment in NHS Hospitals During COVID-19: A National Survey

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_6) ◽  
Author(s):  
A Mantelakis ◽  
H Spiers ◽  
C W Lee ◽  
A Chambers ◽  
A Joshi
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care ◽  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Professional Groups ◽  
Safe Level ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Question Survey ◽  
Full Body

Abstract Introduction The continuous supply of personal protective equipment (PPE) in the National Health Service (NHS) is paramount in order to sustain a safe level of staffing and to reduce transmission of COVID-19 to patients, public and staff. Method A 16-question survey was created to assess the availability and personal thoughts of healthcare professionals regarding PPE supply in England. The survey was distributed via social media (Facebook © and Twitter ©) to all UK COVID-19 healthcare professional groups, with responses collected over 3 weeks in March 2020 during the beginning of the pandemic. Results A total of 121 responses from physicians in 35 different hospitals were collected (105 inpatient wards, 16 from intensive care units). In inpatient wards, eye and face protection were unavailable to 19.1% of respondents. Masks were available to 97.7% of respondents and gloves in all respondents (100%). Body protection was available primarily as a plastic apron (83.8%). All of respondents working in intensive care had access to full-body PPE, except FFP3 respirator masks (available in 87.5%). PPE is ‘Always’ available for 29.8% of all respondents, and ‘Never’ or ‘Almost Never’ in 11.6%. There was a statistically significant difference between London and non-London responders that ‘Always’ had PPE available (43.9% versus 19.0%, p = 0.003). Conclusions This is the first survey to evaluate PPE supply in England during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our survey demonstrated an overall lack of PPE volume supply in the UK, with preferential distribution in London. Eye and full body protection are in most lack of supply.

scholarly journals Blood biomarkers for assessing headaches in healthcare workers after wearing biological personal protective equipment in a COVID-19 field-hospital

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francisco Martín-Rodríguez ◽  
Raquel M. Portillo Rubiales ◽  
Laura N. Fadrique Millán ◽  
Virginia Carbajosa Rodríguez ◽  
Ancor Sanz-García ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
De Novo ◽  
Blood Analysis ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Blood Biomarkers ◽  
Field Hospital ◽  
Treatment Unit ◽  
Baseline Creatinine

Abstract The consequences of wearing biosafety equipment by healthcare professionals during their work and the prediction of such consequences need to be assessed. To analyze the role played by different blood biomarkers in predicting the appearance of headaches in healthcare workers wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) in a COVID-19 treatment unit, a Prospective cohort study of 38 healthcare workers from a convalescence unit of patients with COVID-19 in a field hospital was performed during April 2020. Blood analysis was carried out before the start of the 4 hours shift of the volunteers equipped with PPE. After decontamination, there were asked if they had suffered from headache, obtaining the binary outcome. This study included 38 participants with a median age of 29 years (25th-75th percentile: 26-44 years old), 73.7% female (28 cases). 44.7% (17 cases) had a headache after wearing PPE for 4 hours. The baseline creatinine value reflected a specific odds ratio in the regression model of 241.36 (95% CI: 2.50-23,295.43; p=0.019), and an AUC of 0.737 (95%CI: 0.57-0.90; p<0.01). Blood creatinine is a good candidate for predicting the appearance of a de novo headache in healthcare workers after wearing PPE for 4 hours in a COVID – 19 unit.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document