Comparing Training Techniques in Personal Protective Equipment Use

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 364-371 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard J. Salway ◽  
Trenika Williams ◽  
Camilo Londono ◽  
Patricia Roblin ◽  
Kristi Koenig ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sample Size ◽  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Emergency Preparedness ◽  
Null Hypothesis ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Video Training ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Demonstration Video ◽  
Training Modalities

AbstractIntroduction:Physicians’ management of hazardous material (HAZMAT) incidents requires personal protective equipment (PPE) utilization to ensure the safety of victims, facilities, and providers; therefore, providing effective and accessible training in its use is crucial. While an emphasis has been placed on the importance of PPE, there is debate about the most effective training methods. Circumstances may not allow for a traditional in-person demonstration; an accessible video training may provide a useful alternative.Hypothesis:Video training of Emergency Medicine (EM) residents in the donning and doffing of Level C PPE is more effective than in-person training.Null Hypothesis:Video training of EM residents in the donning and doffing of Level C PPE is equally effective compared with in-person training.Methods:A randomized, controlled pilot trial was performed with 20 EM residents as part of their annual Emergency Preparedness training. Residents were divided into four groups, with Group 1 and Group 2 viewing a demonstration video developed by the Emergency Preparedness Team (EPT) and Group 3 and Group 4 receiving the standard in-person demonstration training by an EPT member. The groups then separately performed a donning and doffing simulation while blinded evaluators assessed critical tasks utilizing a prepared evaluation tool. At the drill’s conclusion, all participants also completed a self-evaluation survey about their subjective interpretations of their respective trainings.Results:Both video and in-person training modalities showed significant overall improvement in participants’ confidence in doffing and donning PPE equipment (P <.05). However, no statistically significant difference was found in the number of failed critical tasks in donning or doffing between the training modalities (P >.05). Based on these results, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. However, these results were limited by the small sample size and the study was not sufficiently powered to show a difference between training modalities.Conclusion:In this pilot study, video and in-person training were equally effective in training for donning and doffing Level C PPE, with similar error rates in both modalities. Further research into this subject with an appropriately powered study is warranted to determine whether this equivalence persists using a larger sample size.

Estimating Stasis: Can a Null Hypothesis be too Null?

Paleobiology ◽  
1982 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 307-307 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey S. Levinton
Keyword(s):  
Sample Size ◽  
Null Hypothesis ◽  
Small Sample Size ◽  
Homo Erectus ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Recent Contribution ◽  
Small Magnitude ◽  
Statistical Homogeneity ◽  
Significant Difference

In a recent contribution, Rightmire (1981) claims that “No significant trends can be observed” in several characters measured in skulls of Homo erectus. While I sympathize with the frustrating problem of small sample size in hominid finds, one must ask the question: could you ever see a trend, given the quality of your information? If sample size is low, if trends are of relatively small magnitude, and if sample variance is high, one can always safely show that nothing (i.e., stasis) has happened. This form of inference falls into a classic statistical trap: attempting to prove statistical homogeneity. You cannot do it without a concomitant estimate of least significant difference, that is, estimating the magnitude of variation within which you cannot distinguish among estimates of a parameter.

scholarly journals Comparing Training Techniques in Chemical Disaster Preparedness

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (s1) ◽  
pp. s109-s109
Author(s):  
Richard Salway ◽  
Trenika Williams ◽  
Camilo Londono ◽  
Bonnie Arquilla
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Medicine ◽  
Emergency Preparedness ◽  
Disaster Preparedness ◽  
Error Rates ◽  
Evaluation Tool ◽  
Self Evaluation ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Group B ◽  
Demonstration Video ◽  
Training Modalities

Introduction:Currently, there are no universally accepted personal protective equipment (PPE) training guidelines for Emergency Medicine physicians, though many hospitals offer training through a brief didactic presentation. Physicians’ response to hazmat events requires PPE utilization to ensure the safety of victims, facilities, and providers; providing effective and accessible training is crucial. In the event of a real disaster, time constraints may not allow a brief in-person presentation and an accessible video training may be the only resource available.Aim:To assess the effectiveness of video versus in-person training of 20 Emergency Medicine Residents in Level C PPE donning and doffing (chemical-resistant coverall, butyl gloves, boots, and an air-purifying respirator).Methods:A prospective observational study was performed with 20 Emergency Medicine residents as part of Emergency Preparedness training. Residents were divided into two groups, with Group A viewing a demonstration video developed by the emergency preparedness team, and Group B receiving in-person training by a Hazmat Team Member. Evaluators assessed critical tasks of donning and doffing PPE utilizing a prepared evaluation tool. At the drill’s conclusion, all participants completed a self-evaluation to determine their confidence in their respective trainings.Results:Both video and in-person training modalities showed significant improvement in participants’ confidence in doffing and donning a PPE suit (p>0.05). However, no statistically significant difference was seen between training modalities in the performance of donning or doffing (p>0.05).Discussion:Video and in-person training are equally effective in preparing residents for donning and doffing Level C PPE, with similar error rates in both modalities. Future trainings should focus on decreasing the overall rate of breaches across all training modalities.

scholarly journals Biosafety conducts adopted by orthodontists

2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 73-79 ◽  
Author(s):  
Camila Gonçalves Jezini Monteiro ◽  
Mariana Martins e Martins ◽  
Adriana de Alcantara Cury-Saramago ◽  
Henry Pinheiro Teixeira
Keyword(s):  
Observational Study ◽  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Training Time ◽  
Disinfection Methods ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
High Incidence ◽  
E Mail

ABSTRACT Objective: This cross-sectional observational study was designed to assess the biosafety conducts adopted by orthodontists, and possible differences regarding training time. Methods: Both the application of methods for sterilization/disinfection of instruments and materials, and the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) were collected through questionnaires via e-mail. Results: The questionnaires were answered by 90 orthodontists with a mean age of 37.19 ± 9.08 years and mean training time of 13.52 ± 6.84 years. Regarding orthodontic pliers, 63.23% use an autoclave, except 1 who does not perform any procedure. All participants use autoclave to sterilize instruments, and 95.6% of respondents perform cleaning with chemicals prior to sterilization. Most of them (65.56%) use an autoclave to sterilize orthodontic bands, with some still associating disinfection methods, while few (18.89%) do nothing at all. There was a high incidence of the answer “nothing” for the methods used for elastic, accessories, bandages, metal springs, and arches. All respondents use mask and gloves in attendance, 78.92% use aprons, 58.92% use protective goggles, and 50.01% use cap. Training time significantly influenced (p = 0.003) only the use of glutaraldehyde for sterilization/disinfection of pliers. Conclusions: The sterilization and cleaning of pliers, instruments, and bands, besides the use of PPE, received more uniform and positive responses, while other items suggest disagreements and possible failures. Only orthodontists trained for more than 13 years choose using glutaraldehyde for pliers sterilization/disinfection, the only adopted method with a significant difference in relation to training time.

scholarly journals Acupuncture for Chronic Pain-Related Insomnia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Fushui Liu ◽  
Jianyu You ◽  
Qi Li ◽  
Ting Fang ◽  
Mei Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Sample Size ◽  
Small Sample Size ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Sham Acupuncture ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Large Sample Size ◽  
Cure Rate ◽  
Significant Difference

Objectives. Acupuncture has been widely used to relieve chronic pain-related insomnia (CPRI). However, the efficacy of acupuncture for CPRI is uncertain. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of acupuncture for CPRI. Methods. Seven electronic databases were searched from inception to December 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included if acupuncture was compared to sham acupuncture or conventional drug therapies for treating CPRI. Two reviewers screened each study and extracted data independently. Statistical analyses were conducted by RevMan 5.3 software. Results. A total of nine studies involving 944 patients were enrolled. The pooled analysis indicated that acupuncture treatment was significantly better than control group in improving effective rate (OR = 8.09, 95%CI = [4.75, 13.79], P < 0.00001) and cure rate (OR = 3.17, 95%CI = [2.35, 4.29], P < 0.00001), but subgroup analysis showed that there was no statistically significant difference between acupuncture and sham acupuncture in improving cure rate (OR =10.36, 95% CI [0.53, 201.45], P=0.12) based on one included study. In addition, meta-analysis demonstrated that acupuncture group was superior to control group in debasing PSQI score (MD = -2.65, 95%CI = [-4.00, -1.30], P = 0.0001) and VAS score (MD = -1.44, 95%CI = [-1.58, -1.29], P < 0.00001). And there was no significant difference in adverse events (OR =1.73, 95%CI = [0.92, 3.25], P =0.09) between the two groups. Conclusions. Acupuncture therapy is an effective and safe treatment for CPRI, and this treatment can be recommended for the management of patients with CPRI. Due to the low quality and small sample size of the included studies, more rigorously designed RCTs with high quality and large sample size are recommended in future.

scholarly journals Comparison of total joint arthroplasty outcomes between renal transplant patients and dialysis patients—a meta-analysis and systematic review

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiayi Li ◽  
Mingyang Li ◽  
Bo-qiang Peng ◽  
Rong Luo ◽  
Quan Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Transplant ◽  
Sample Size ◽  
Total Joint Arthroplasty ◽  
Small Sample Size ◽  
Joint Arthroplasty ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Dialysis Patients ◽  
Transplant Patients ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Renal Transplant Patients

Abstract Objectives End-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients are at an increased risk of needing total joint arthroplasty (TJA); however, both dialysis and renal transplantation might be potential predictors of adverse TJA outcomes. For dialysis patients, the high risk of blood-borne infection and impaired muscular skeletal function are threats to implants’ survival, while for renal transplant patients, immunosuppression therapy is also a concern. There is still no high-level evidence in the published literature that has determined the best timing of TJA for ESRD patients. Methods A literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (up to November 2019) was performed to collect studies comparing TJA outcomes between renal transplant and dialysis patients. Two reviewers independently conducted literature screening and quality assessments with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). After the data were extracted, statistical analyses were performed. Results Compared with the dialysis group, a lower risk of mortality (RR = 0.56, Cl = [0.42, 0.73], P < 0.01, I2 = 49%) and revision (RR = 0.42, CI = [0.30, 0.59], P < 0.01, I2 = 43%) was detected in the renal transplant group. Different results of periprosthetic joint infection were shown in subgroups with different sample sizes. There was no significant difference in periprosthetic joint infection in the small-sample-size subgroup, while in the large-sample-size subgroup, renal transplant patients had significantly less risk (RR = 0.19, CI = [0.13, 0.23], P < 0.01, I2 = 0%). For dislocation, venous thromboembolic disease, and overall complications, there was no significant difference between the two groups. Conclusion Total joint arthroplasty has better safety and outcomes in renal transplant patients than in dialysis patients. Therefore, delaying total joint arthroplasty in dialysis patients until renal transplantation has been performed would be a desirable option. The controversy among different studies might be partially accounted for that quite a few studies have a relatively small sample size to detect the difference between renal transplant patients and dialysis patients.

scholarly journals Are coveralls required as personal protective equipment during the management of COVID-19 patients?

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jongtak Jung ◽  
Kyoung-Ho Song ◽  
Hyeonju Jeong ◽  
Sin Young Ham ◽  
Eu Suk Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome ◽  
Symptom Onset ◽  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Dorsal Surface ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Anterior Neck ◽  
Frontal Surface ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Anterior Side ◽  
Contact Surfaces

Abstract Objectives Few studies have investigated the contamination of personal protective equipment (PPE) during the management of patients with severe-to-critical coronavirus disease (COVID-19). This study aimed to determine the necessity of coveralls and foot covers for body protection during the management of COVID-19 patients. Methods PPE samples were collected from the coveralls of physicians exiting a room after the management of a patient with severe-to-critical COVID-19 within 14 days after the patient’s symptom onset. The surface of coveralls was categorized into coverall-only parts (frontal surface of the head, anterior neck, dorsal surface of the foot cover, and back and hip) and gown-covered parts (the anterior side of the forearm and the abdomen). Sampling of the high-contact surfaces in the patient’s environment was performed. We attempted to identify significant differences in contamination with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) between the coverall-only and gown-covered parts. Results A total of 105 swabs from PPEs and 28 swabs from patient rooms were collected. Of the PPE swabs, only three (2.8%) swabs from the gown-covered parts were contaminated with SARS-CoV-2. However, 23 of the 28 sites (82.1%) from patient rooms were contaminated. There was a significant difference in the contamination of PPE between the coverall-only and gown-covered parts (0.0 vs 10.0%, p = 0.022). Conclusions Coverall contamination rarely occurred while managing severe-to-critical COVID-19 patients housed in negative pressure rooms in the early stages of the illness. Long-sleeved gowns may be used in the management of COVID-19 patients.

scholarly journals TPA Use for Central Line De-Occlusion and Its Relationship to Symptomatic Venous Thromboembolism in Pediatric Leukemia Patients

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 2111-2111
Author(s):  
Katherine Armstrong ◽  
Kavitha Ramaswamy ◽  
Victoria Cooley ◽  
Linda M Gerber ◽  
Nicole Kucine
Keyword(s):  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Sample Size ◽  
Central Line ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Myelogenous Leukemia ◽  
Pediatric Leukemia ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Catheter Obstruction ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Picc Line

Introduction: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a known complication of pediatric leukemia with reported incidence ranging widely from 1.5-40%. It is associated with significant morbidity including loss of venous access, post thrombotic syndrome, and thrombosis recurrence or embolization. Increased risk of VTE in these patients is often multifactorial. There are currently no standard guidelines for VTE prophylaxis in pediatric leukemia patients, and it is unclear which patients are at highest risk. Identifying potential markers for patients at risk for VTE could be helpful for guiding prophylaxis practices and ultimately decreasing rates of VTE in these children. Thrombolytic agents are commonly used to treat catheter obstruction by breaking down fibrin that forms within the catheter. Therefore, we hypothesize that patients requiring more tissue plasminogen activator (TPA) for treatment of catheter obstruction may be at higher risk of developing fulminant thromboses. Therefore, the primary objectiveof this study is to determine the association between central line clearance with TPA and development of symptomatic VTE (sVTE) in pediatric leukemia patients. Methods: This is a multi-center,retrospective cohort study of patients under 21 years old with a central line (CVC), including peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC), who began treatment at Weill Cornell Medicine (WCM) or Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) from January 2012-December 2015 for newly diagnosed or relapsed leukemia. Patients were excluded if they had a prior VTE, or an incidental VTE was identified. Transplant and CAR-T -cell patients were excluded, as were those who transferred into the institution over 30 days from start of treatment. Data collected included demographics, disease-specific information (including type of leukemia, treatment regimen, and CVC details), dates of TPA administration, and details of sVTE. Data analysis was performed with Fisher's exact test andWilcoxon rank-sum test. Results: A total of 96 patients with leukemia were included. The median age was 6.5 years (Q1, Q3: 3.15-15.05 years), and 55% (n=53) were male. 78% (n=75) were new diagnoses. Acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL; 72%, n=69) was most common, followed by acute myelogenous leukemia (AML; 25%, n=24), and mixed lineage leukemias (3%, n=3). There were no significant differences between gender, age, type of leukemia, or TPA use between the two centers. The overall incidence of sVTE over the 4-year period in this cohort was 6% (6/96). At the time of thrombosis, five of the six patients had a PICC line in place and one patient had a mediport (Table 1). Four sVTE patients were diagnosed with ALL. Four of the thromboses were line-associated, one was a sinus venous thrombosis, and one was an inferior vena cava thrombus. Five of the six sVTEs were diagnosed at WCM. There was no association found between use of TPA for line de-occlusion and development of sVTE (OR 0.55, CI 0.07-6.57, p=0.61) or between number of TPA doses needed and development of sVTE (p=0.830). The patients who developed sVTE were significantly older than those who did not develop sVTE (Figure 1, p=0.048). There was no significant difference between gender and development of sVTE. A significant difference (p <0.05) was seen when analyzing the association between PICC line and development of sVTE, however the sample size was too small to draw formal conclusions. Conclusions: In our cohort, neither TPA use for line occlusion nor the number of TPA doses was predictive of sVTE development. This may be due to the small sample size and low number of sVTE events. Single center analysis of data from WCM, however, previously indicated a significant association between TPA use and development of thrombosis in their patients. Given the increased use of PICC lines at WCM, this raises the question of whether TPA use may be predictive in patients who have PICC lines. Our data are consistent with previous pediatric studies, which found older age to be a risk factor for thrombosis. Analysis of a larger cohort of patients is necessary to further investigate our hypothesis. Given the importance of preventing sVTE in pediatric leukemia patients, further prospective studies are needed to investigate potential predictors of thrombosis in this population. Disclosures Cooley: off-label: Other: drug use.

scholarly journals Contamination Risk in Indonesian Youtube Videos on Personal Protective Equipment for Corona Virus Disease

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 83-90
Author(s):  
Laksita Barbara ◽  
Mareta Dea Rosaline ◽  
Akhiyan Hadi Susanto
Keyword(s):  
World Health Organization ◽  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Virus Disease ◽  
World Health ◽  
Average Score ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Corona Virus ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Youtube Videos ◽  
Health Organization

AbstractThere are numbers of Indonesian Youtube Videos that show steps to wear and remove Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for Corona Virus Disease (COVID19). However, the conformity with the current guidelines remains unknown. This paper aims to determine the validity of these videos based on the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines. We searched on the Youtube website for videos in donning and doffing PPE for droplet precaution and selected the videos using inclusion and exclusion criteria. Included videos were then evaluated with a checklist derived from WHO course on donning and doffing PPE for COVID-19 and WHO recommendation on PPE for Covid-19. The search that was undertaken resulted in 66 videos, and 40 videos were included for evaluation. There is no significant difference in the donning and doffing score between account types (personal, organizational/institutional, news). The average number of viewers of all videos is more than 2700 viewers. The average score of donning is less than 70% of the total score, and the average doffing score is under 65%. The vast majority of the videos do not follow the WHO recommendation on the PPE type and use more equipment than recommended. There are several contamination risks shown by the videos. Indonesian Youtube videos on PPE procedures for COVID-19 must be selected carefully to be used as an instructional or educational media since most of it presents a high risk of cross-contamination.Keyword: personal protective equipment, audiovisual, cross-contamination, trainingAbstrakTerdapat video dalam Bahasa Indonesia yang terkait cara memakai dan melepaskan Alat Pelindung Diri (APD) untuk Corona Virus Disease (COVID19). Namun, kesesuaian video terhadap pedoman terkini belum diketahui. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menentukan validitas video berdasarkan pedoman World Health Organization. Kami menelusuri Youtube untuk memperoleh video instruksi mengenakan dan melepas APD pencegahan kontaminasi droplet dan menyeleksi video tersebut berdasarkan kriteria inklusi dan eksklusi. Video yang telah diseleksi kemudian dievaluasi menggunakan checklist yang diturunkan dari langkah-langkah yang ditunjukan dalam kursus APD COVID-19 yang disediakan oleh WHO, serta rekomendasi APD dari WHO. Penelusuran Youtube menampilkan 66 video, dan dipilih 40 video yang sesuai dengan kriteria kelayakan. Tidak terdapat perbedaan signifikan dalam skor mengenakan dan melepaskan APD antara akun personal, organisasi/institusi, dan berita. Rata-rata jumlah penonton video adalah lebih dari 2700. Skor rata-rata pemakaian APD kurang dari 70% dari skor total, dan skor pelepasan APD kurang dari 65%. Sebagian besar video tidak mengikuti rekomendasi WHO dalam pemilihan tipe PPE dan menggunakan alat yang lebih banyak dari yang direkomendasikan. Terdapat sejumlah risiko kontaminasi yang dapat diobservasi dari langkah-langkah yang ditunjukan dalam video. Video Youtube prosedur APD untuk COVID-19 perlu diseleksi dengan cermat untuk digunakan sebagai media instruksi maupun pendidikan karena sebagian besar menunjukan risiko tinggi kontaminasi silang.Kata Kunci: alat pelindung diri, audiovisual, kontaminasi silang, pelatihan

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 A Comparison of Two Types of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Doffing Process: Frequency and Sites of Contamination

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (s1) ◽  
pp. s110-s110
Author(s):  
You Jian-ping ◽  
Yang Sha ◽  
Luo Hong-Xia ◽  
Zhang Hui-Lan
Keyword(s):  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Ebola Virus ◽  
Visual Observation ◽  
World Health ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Left Chest ◽  
Left Hand ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Health Organization ◽  
Left Abdomen

Introduction:Personal protective equipment (PPE) is a necessary item in the period of unknown and high-risk emerging infectious disease. It is not only the necessary requirement of strict isolation, but also the last line of defense to protect medical staff.Aim:Compare the differences between contaminated frequency and sites under two types of PPE doffing.Methods:Recruited 56 health care workers (HCWs) who worked in clinical to follow the different PPE removal guidelines issued by the Chinese Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) final resolution for preventing Ebola virus. Eight batches of HCWs were divided to conduct simulations of contaminated PPE removal using fluorescent lotion (Glitter Bug Potion, On Solution Pty Lt). Then we recorded the frequency and sites of contamination of personnel after removal of contaminated PPE by the method of visual observation.Results:According to China’s CDC process, the parts that are easily contaminated during PPE removal are: left hand and wrist (7 times), left calf (7 times), front chest center and left and right chest (6 times each) and left abdomen (5 times). Contaminated parts of the PPE process in accordance with the WHO process from high to low were: right hand and wrist (13 times), left hand and wrist (12 times), middle of the abdomen (10 times), left chest (9 times), and left abdomen (6 Times). There was no statistical difference between the two kinds of PPE piercing and removal (Z=1.177, P > 0. 05).Discussion:Under the guidance of the two processes recommended by China CDC and WHO, there was no significant difference in the frequency of pollution after removing PPE. It is speculated that the PPE recommendation processes issued by WHO and China CDC are effective for personal protection against fulminating infectious diseases.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document