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

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angelos Mantelakis ◽  
Harry V M Spiers ◽  
Chang Woo Lee ◽  
Alastair Chambers ◽  
Anil Joshi
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care ◽  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Professional Groups ◽  
Surgical Masks ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Question Survey ◽  
Full Body

Abstract Objectives The continuous supply of personal protective equipment (PPE) in the National Health Service (NHS) is paramount to reduce transmission of COVID-19 to patients, public, and staff. Methods 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 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% (20/105). Fluid-resistant surgical masks were available to 97% (102/105) whereas filtering facepiece class 3 (FFP3) respirator for 53% (56/105) of respondents. Gloves were accessible for all respondents (100%). Body protection was available primarily as a plastic apron 84% (88/105). All of respondents working in intensive care had access to full-body PPE, except FFP3 respirators (available in 88%, 14/16). PPE is ‘Always’ available for 30% (36/121) of all respondents. There was a statistically significant difference between London and non-London respondents that ‘Always’ had PPE available (44 versus 19%, P = 0.003). Conclusions Our survey demonstrated an overall lack of PPE volume supply in the UK hospitals during March 2020, demonstrating a lack of preparedness for a pandemic. PPE was more readily available in London which was the epicentre of the outbreak. Eye and full body protection are in most lack of supply.

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 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 UK’s initial operational response and specialist operational response to CBRN and HazMat incidents: a primer on decontamination protocols for healthcare professionals

2018 ◽  
pp. emermed-2018-207562 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert P Chilcott ◽  
Joanne Larner ◽  
Hazem Matar
Keyword(s):  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
First Responders ◽  
Skin Surface ◽  
Mass Casualty ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Hazardous Material ◽  
Removal Of Contaminants ◽  
The Uk

The UK is currently in the process of implementing a modified response to chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear and hazardous material incidents that combines an initial operational response with a revision of the existing specialist operational response for ambulant casualties. The process is based on scientific evidence and focuses on the needs of casualties rather than the availability of specialist resources such as personal protective equipment, detection and monitoring instruments and bespoke showering (mass casualty decontamination) facilities. Two main features of the revised process are: (1) the introduction of an emergency disrobe and dry decontamination step prior to the arrival of specialist resources and (2) a revised protocol for mass casualty (wet) decontamination that has the potential to double the throughput of casualties and improve the removal of contaminants from the skin surface. Optimised methods for performing dry and wet decontamination are presented that may be of relevance to hospitals, as well as first responders at the scene of a chemical incident.

scholarly journals Personal protective equipment use by healthcare workers in intensive care unit during the early phase of COVID-19 pandemic in Italy: a secondary analysis of the PPE-SAFE survey

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 204993612199856
Author(s):  
Mariachiara Ippolito ◽  
Mahesh Ramanan ◽  
Davide Bellina ◽  
Giulia Catalisano ◽  
Pasquale Iozzo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Secondary Analysis ◽  
International Study ◽  
Western Country ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Occupational Infection ◽  
Significant Difference

Background: Italy was the first Western country to be heavily affected by COVID-19. Healthcare workers (HCWs) were exposed to a high risk of occupational infection, partially due to insufficient personal protective equipment (PPE) supplies. This study aimed to describe the practices, availability, training, confidence in PPE use and the adverse effects due to extended PPE use, as reported by HCWs in Italy. We also aimed to provide a comparison between Italian data and those from other countries. Methods: This study was a secondary analysis of a previously published international study, the PPE-SAFE Survey, conducted in April 2020. Data were analysed from the original study database. Results: We analysed the responses from 380 healthcare workers based in Italy, out of the 2711 respondents to the international survey. Among the Italian respondents, FFP2 and FFP3 respirators or equivalent were the most used masks for routine tasks (respectively 188/380, 50%; and 163/380, 43%). The median time of wearing PPE without taking a break was 5 h [interquartile range (IQR) 4–6], with statistically significant difference from other countries [median 4 h (IQR 2–5) p < 0.0001]. In Italy, 249 out of 380 (65%) HCWs had never performed a formal fit test for a N95 mask or equivalent and 91/380 (24%) never had a partner for donning and doffing procedures. Most of the respondents (299/380, 79%) had received formal training in PPE use at any time. Conclusion: Most of the surveyed Italian HCWs reported working at above usual capacity, long shifts with PPE without breaks and routine use in intensive care unit of aerosol protection (e.g. FFP2/FFP3), hazmat suits and face shields/visors. The correct adherence to safety procedures (e.g. donning/doffing in pairs, performing fit test) has substantial scope for improvement in the future.

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.

Aerosol-generating procedures in home care

2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 76-80
Author(s):  
Drew Payne ◽  
Martin Peache
Keyword(s):  
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation ◽  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Community Setting ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Clinical Environment ◽  
Clinical Practices ◽  
Clinical Procedures ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
The Uk

COVID-19 has changed the landscape of healthcare in the UK since the first confirmed case in January 2020. Most of the resources have been directed towards reducing transmission in the hospital and clinical environment, but little is known about what community nurses can do to reduce the risk when they nurse people in their own homes? This article looks at what COVID-19 is, how it is spread and how health professionals are at an increased risk from aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs). There is also a discussion on the benefit of mask usage. It defines what AGPs are, which clinical procedures are AGPs, including ones performed in the community setting, and which identified clinical practices that have been mistaken for AGPs. There is also a discussion on the suitability of performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). It also describes how to reduce the risk by the use of full personal protective equipment (PPE) and other strategies when AGPs are performed in a patient's home. It ends with general advice about managing the risk of COVID-19 transmission with patients in their homes.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document