scholarly journals Cutaneous manifestations of new coronavirus infection (COVID-19)

2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 85-95
Author(s):  
Olga Yu. Olisova ◽  
E. S. Snarskaya ◽  
E. M. Anpilogova
Keyword(s):  
Erythema Multiforme ◽  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Erythematous Rash ◽  
Cutaneous Manifestations ◽  
Pityriasis Rosea ◽  
Occupational Dermatoses ◽  
Coronavirus Infection

This article presents the recently published data on the pathogenesis and cutaneous manifestations of the new coronavirus infection (COVID-19). The main symptoms of COVID-19 have already been well studied. However, recently, some reports on cutaneous manifestations (urticaria, papulae and vesicles, erythematous rash, purpura, livedo-angiitis, eruptive angioma, chilblain-like rash, pityriasis rosea, erythema multiforme, and periorbital dyschromia) in patients with COVID-19 have been made. Moreover, the healthcare professionals using personal protective equipment more frequently may develop occupational dermatoses.

scholarly journals New coronavirus infection (COVID-19): from the dermatologist’s view

2020 ◽  
Vol 75 (4) ◽  
pp. 292-299
Author(s):  
Olga Yu. Olisova ◽  
Ekaterina M. Anpilogova
Keyword(s):  
Biologic Therapy ◽  
Skin Lesions ◽  
Mechanisms Of Action ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Erythematous Rash ◽  
Biologic Drugs ◽  
Cutaneous Manifestations ◽  
Phosphodiesterase 4 ◽  
Phosphodiesterase 4 Inhibitors ◽  
Coronavirus Infection

Recently published data on the pathogenesis and cutaneous manifestations of a new coronavirus infection (COVID-19) are presented. The most described lesions are urticarial, papulo-vesicular, erythematous rash, purpura, livedo-angiitis, as well as chilblains. Eruptions mainly appear together with main COVID-19 symptoms or a few days later. The treatment of new coronavirus infection may lead to a quick regression of skin lesions along with improvement of the general state of the patient. The review also provides data on the fact that COVID-19 patients with severe psoriasis and atopic dermatitis receiving biologic therapy (guselkumab, ustekinumab, adalimumab, secukinumab, ixekizumab, etanercept, dupilumab) and phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors experience mild or asymptomatic COVID-19. Moreover, such patients do not develop cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19. The specific COVID-19 treatment has not been developed yet. We think that these findings might provide better understanding of mechanisms of action of biologic drugs in COVID-19.

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 COVID-19 pandemic challenges for dermatology

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-17
Author(s):  
Evgenia Dvoryankova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Medical Care ◽  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Medical Community ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Occupational Dermatitis ◽  
Medical Assistance ◽  
Coronavirus Infection ◽  
Quality Medical Care

COVID-19 pandemic posed a number of new formidable challenges to medical community. Dermatologists have not only to detect, define and reverse the new coronavirus infection cutaneus manifestations, but also to provide medical assistance to colleagues with occupational dermatitis due to personal protective equipment use. Moreover, it is necessary to provide quality medical care to patients with acute and chronic dermatosis given the limitations of present pandemic situation.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document