scholarly journals Personal Protective Equipment Shortages During COVID-19—Supply Chain–Related Causes and Mitigation Strategies

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (5) ◽  
pp. e200553 ◽  
Author(s):  
Preeti Mehrotra ◽  
Preeti Malani ◽  
Prashant Yadav
2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (7) ◽  
pp. 71-89
Author(s):  
Amy Barber, BSc ◽  
Annaëlle Vinzent, BS ◽  
Imani Williams, BA

Background: The COVID-19 crisis placed extraordinary demands on the supply of personal protective equipment (PPE) at the beginning of 2020. These were coupled with shocks to the supply chain resulting from the disease. Many typically well-resourced health systems faced subsequent shortages of equipment and had to implement new strategies to manage their stocks. Stockpiles of protective equipment were held in both the United States and United Kingdom intended to prevent shortages. Method: Cross-comparative case study approach by applying Pettigrew and Whipp’s framework for change management. Setting: The health systems of England and New York state from January 2020 to the end of April 2020. Results: Both cases reacted slowly to their outbreaks and faced problems with supplying enough PPE to their health systems. Their stockpiles were not enough to prevent shortages, with many distribution problems resulting from inadequate governance mechanisms. No sustainable responses to supply disruptions were implemented during the study period in either case. Health systems planned interventions along each part of the supply chain from production and importing, to usage guidelines. Conclusion: Global supply chains are vulnerable to disruptions caused by international crises, and existing mitigation strategies have not been wholly successful. The existence of stockpiles is insufficient to preventing shortages of necessary equipment in clinical settings. Both the governance and quality of stockpiles, as well as distribution channels are important for preventing shortages. At the time of writing, it is not possible to judge the strength of strategies adopted in these cases.


2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-72 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kripa Rajak

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has swept across the globe overwhelming health care systems and disrupting supply chain of personal protective equipment (PPE) like gloves, surgical face masks, goggles, face shields, N95 respirators and gowns. Surging demand, panic buying, hoarding, and misuse of PPE has led to substantial jump in its demand. Despite the terrible impact of COVID-19, if there’s any silver lining to this crisis, it is the rapidity at which communities are moving toward innovation in not just medicine and remote work but also in ways to mitigate the growing PPE shortages.


2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ferran Fillat-Gomà ◽  
Sergi Coderch-Navarro ◽  
Laia Martínez-Carreres ◽  
Núria Monill-Raya ◽  
Toni Nadal-Mir ◽  
...  

Abstract Background To cope with shortages of equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic, we established a nonprofit end-to-end system to identify, validate, regulate, manufacture, and distribute 3D-printed medical equipment. Here we describe the local and global impact of this system. Methods Together with critical care experts, we identified potentially lacking medical equipment and proposed solutions based on 3D printing. Validation was based on the ISO 13485 quality standard for the manufacturing of customized medical devices. We posted the design files for each device on our website together with their technical and printing specifications and created a supply chain so that hospitals from our region could request them. We analyzed the number/type of items, petitioners, manufacturers, and catalogue views. Results Among 33 devices analyzed, 26 (78·8%) were validated. Of these, 23 (88·5%) were airway consumables and 3 (11·5%) were personal protective equipment. Orders came from 19 (76%) hospitals and 6 (24%) other healthcare institutions. Peak production was reached 10 days after the catalogue was published. A total of 22,135 items were manufactured by 59 companies in 18 sectors; 19,212 items were distributed to requesting sites during the busiest days of the pandemic. Our online catalogue was also viewed by 27,861 individuals from 113 countries. Conclusions 3D printing helped mitigate shortages of medical devices due to problems in the global supply chain.


2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 244-252 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anita Patel ◽  
Maryann M. D'Alessandro ◽  
Karen J. Ireland ◽  
W. Greg Burel ◽  
Elaine B. Wencil ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ferran Fillat-Gomà ◽  
Sergi Coderch-Navarro ◽  
Laia Martínez-Carreres ◽  
Núria Monill-Raya ◽  
Toni Nadal-Mir ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: To cope with shortages of equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic, we established a nonprofit end-to-end system to identify, validate, regulate, manufacture, and distribute 3D-printed medical equipment. Here we describe the local and global impact of this system. Methods: Together with critical care experts, we identified potentially lacking medical equipment and proposed solutions based on 3D printing. Validation was based on the ISO 13485 quality standard for the manufacturing of customized medical devices. We posted the design files for each device on our website together with their technical and printing specifications and created a supply chain so that hospitals from our region could request them. We analyzed the number/type of items, petitioners, manufacturers, and catalogue views.Results: Among 33 devices analyzed, 26 (78·8%) were validated. Of these, 23 (88·5%) were airway consumables and 3 (11·5%) were personal protective equipment. Orders came from 19 (76%) hospitals and 6 (24%) other healthcare institutions. Peak production was reached 10 days after the catalogue was published. A total of 22,135 items were manufactured by 59 companies in 18 sectors; 19,212 items were distributed to requesting sites during the busiest days of the pandemic. Our online catalogue was also viewed by 27,861 individuals from 113 countries.Conclutions: 3D printing helped mitigate shortages of medical devices due to problems in the global supply chain.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ferran Fillat-Gomà ◽  
Sergi Coderch-Navarro ◽  
Laia Martínez-Carreres ◽  
Núria Monill-Raya ◽  
Toni Nadal-Mir ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: To cope with shortages of equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic, we established a nonprofit end-to-end system to identify, validate, regulate, manufacture, and distribute 3D-printed medical equipment. Here we describe the local and global impact of this system. Methods: Together with critical care experts, we identified potentially lacking medical equipment and proposed solutions based on 3D printing. Validation was based on the ISO 13485 quality standard for the manufacturing of customized medical devices. We posted the design files for each device on our website together with their technical and printing specifications and created a supply chain so that hospitals from our region could request them. We analyzed the number/type of items, petitioners, manufacturers, and catalogue views.Results: Among 33 devices analyzed, 26 (78·8%) were validated. Of these, 23 (88·5%) were airway consumables and 3 (11·5%) were personal protective equipment. Orders came from 19 (76%) hospitals and 6 (24%) other healthcare institutions. Peak production was reached 10 days after the catalogue was published. A total of 22,135 items were manufactured by 59 companies in 18 sectors; 19,212 items were distributed to requesting sites during the busiest days of the pandemic. Our online catalogue was also viewed by 27,861 individuals from 113 countries.Conclusions: 3D printing helped mitigate shortages of medical devices due to problems in the global supply chain.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
George William Kajjumba ◽  
Oluka Pross Nagitta ◽  
Faisal A. Osra ◽  
Marcia Mkansi

The world has become a global village with companies investing in different nations to remain afloat and competitive. In the process of offshoring- outsourcing, companies and nations have become interdependent in their efforts to bridge the supply chain network. However, during a pandemic, such as the Coronavirus (COVID-19) that involved the closure of borders, and during which there was a high demand of lifesaving machines and personal protective equipment, many countries were left scrambling for critical medical products such as ventilators and personal protective equipment for doctors. Hence, the tendency away from offshoring and outsourcing to onshoring production. COVID-19 has elicited that countries need to invest in an onshore business if they are to remain afloat. However, investing in onshore (local) business calls for a tradeoff, which some countries cannot afford. Many countries lack skilled labour (developing countries), and where available, it is too expensive (developed countries) making onshore an expensive venture. Besides, promoting manufacturing companies means increased air pollution and greenhouse gases that are responsible for 4.2–7.0 million premature deaths every year, and which costs $4.6 trillion per year. Such death rates and cost can hinder the onshore business. Therefore, for countries to survive in the era of a pandemic, the best alternative is to build strong ties with offshore-outsource nations.


2020 ◽  
Vol 132 (1) ◽  
pp. 38-45
Author(s):  
Eric A. Fried ◽  
George Zhou ◽  
Ronak Shah ◽  
Da Wi Shin ◽  
Anjan Shah ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. 000348942110189
Author(s):  
Grace C. Khong ◽  
Jaya Bhat ◽  
Ravi S. Sharma ◽  
Samuel C. Leong

Objectives: To assess droplet splatter around the surgical field and surgeon during simulated Coblation tonsil surgery to better inform on mitigation strategies and evaluate choice of personal protective equipment. Methods: This was an observational study performed using a life-size head model to simulate tonsil surgery and fluorescein-soaked strawberries to mimic tonsils. The Coblation wand was activated over the strawberries for 5 minutes. This was repeated 5 times with 2 surgeons (totalling 10 data sets). The presence of droplet around the surgical field and anatomical subsites on the surgeon was assessed in binary fashion: present or not present. The results were collated as frequency of droplet detection and illustrated as a heatmap; 0 = white, 1-2 = yellow, 3-4 = orange, and 5 = red. Results: Fluorescein droplets were detected in all 4 quadrants of the surgical field. The frequency of splatter was greatest in the upper (nearest to surgeon) and lower quadrants. There were detectable splatter droplets on the surgeon; most frequently occurring on the hands followed by the forearm. Droplets were also detected on the visor, neck, and chest albeit less frequently. However, none were detected on the upper arms. Conclusion: Droplet splatter can be detected in the immediate surgical field as well as on the surgeon. Although wearing a face visor does not prevent splatter on the surgical mask or around the eyes, it should be considered when undertaking tonsil surgery as well as a properly fitted goggle. Level of evidence: 5


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie Best ◽  
Sharon J. Williams

Introduction: During the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic there have been much publicised shortages in Personal Protective Equipment for frontline health care workers, from masks to gowns. Recent previous airborne pandemics provide an opportunity to learn how to effectively lead and manage supply chains during crisis situations. Identifying and plotting this learning against time will reveal what has been learnt, when and, significantly, what can be learnt for the future.Aims: (i) To identify the temporal trajectory of leadership and management learning in health supply chain management through pandemics and (ii) to identify leadership and management lessons to enable the resilient supply of key items such as PPE in future pandemics.Methods: We undertook a scoping review in line with PRISMA (scoping review extension) searching Business Source Premier, Health Business Elite, Medline, ProQuest Business Collection and PubMed. Search terms were focused on recent airborne pandemics (SARS; Ebola; Zika virus; H1N1 swine flu, COVID-19), supply chain management, PPE, leadership, learning, inhibitors and facilitators and resilience e.g., SARS AND supply chain* AND (“personal protective equipment” OR PPE) (leaders* OR manage*) Titles and abstracts were downloaded to Endnote and duplicates removed. Two authors independently screened all of the titles and abstracts. Inclusion criteria focused on leadership and management in health supply chains during pandemics, peer reviewed or grey literature (either from business journals or reports): exclusion criteria included not in English and not focused on a named pandemic. Once interrater reliability was assured, authors completed a title and abstract screening independently. Ten percent of the resultant full text articles were screened by both authors, once agreement was reached the full text articles were screened independently noting reasons for exclusion. A data extraction tool was designed to capture findings from the final articles included in the review.Results/Discussion: We found 92 articles and, after screening, included 30 full text articles. The majority were focused on COVID-19 (N = 27) and most were from the USA (N = 13). We identified four themes related to leadership and management of pandemic PPE supply chains, (i) Leadership and management learning for pandemic PPE supply chain management, (ii) Inhibitors of PPE supply chain resilience during a pandemic, (iii) Facilitators employed to manage the immediate impacts of PPE supply chain demands during a pandemic,and (iv) Facilitators proposed to ensure longer term resilience of PPE supply chains during pandemics Our study suggests there has been limited leadership and management learning for PPE supply chains from previous pandemics, however there has been extensive learning through the COVID-19 pandemic. Lessons included the importance of planning, the significance of collaboration and relationship building. Resilience of PPE supply chains was reported to be dependent on multiple levels from individuals to organisation level and also interdependent on (i) sustainability, (ii) the practise of PPE and (iii) long term environmental impact of PPE suggesting the need, long term, to move to a circular economy approach.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document