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.

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 Safe On-Boat Resuscitation by Lifeguards in COVID-19 Era: A Pilot Study Comparing Three Sets of Personal Protective Equipment

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Roberto Barcala-Furelos ◽  
Cristian Abelairas-Gómez ◽  
Alejandra Alonso-Calvete ◽  
Francisco Cano-Noguera ◽  
Aida Carballo-Fazanes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pilot Study ◽  
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation ◽  
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome ◽  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
High Efficiency ◽  
Prehospital Care ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Preparation Time

Abstract Introduction: On-boat resuscitation can be applied by lifeguards in an inflatable rescue boat (IRB). Due to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-COV-2) and recommendations for the use of personal protective equipment (PPE), prehospital care procedures need to be re-evaluated. The objective of this study was to determine how the use of PPE influences the amount of preparation time needed before beginning actual resuscitation and the quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR; QCPR) on an IRB. Methods: Three CPR tests were performed by 14 lifeguards, in teams of two, wearing different PPE: (1) Basic PPE (B-PPE): gloves, a mask, and protective glasses; (2) Full PPE (F-PPE): B-PPE + a waterproof apron; and (3) Basic PPE + plastic blanket (B+PPE). On-boat resuscitation using a bag-valve-mask (BVM) and high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter was performed sailing at 20km/hour. Results: Using B-PPE takes less time and is significantly faster than F-PPE (B-PPE 17 [SD = 2] seconds versus F-PPE 69 [SD = 17] seconds; P = .001), and the use of B+PPE is slightly higher (B-PPE 17 [SD = 2] seconds versus B+PPE 34 [SD = 6] seconds; P = .002). The QCPR remained similar in all three scenarios (P >.05), reaching values over 79%. Conclusion: The use of PPE during on-board resuscitation is feasible and does not interfere with quality when performed by trained lifeguards. The use of a plastic blanket could be a quick and easy alternative to offer extra protection to lifeguards during CPR on an IRB.

Challenges post-COVID-19: planning strategies to resume elective dentistry and allied surgical specialities

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (6) ◽  
pp. 1-4
Author(s):  
Melissa Loh ◽  
Karthikeyan Iyengar ◽  
William YC Loh
Keyword(s):  
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome ◽  
Surgical Management ◽  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Dental Treatment ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Limited Availability ◽  
Viral Spread ◽  
Elective Treatment ◽  
Planning Strategies ◽  
The Uk

The effect of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic on the NHS in the UK has been profound and unprecedented. Many surgical specialities, including dentistry, throughout the country have not been exempt from this effect. As there are many aerosol-generating procedures and aerosol-generating exposures in surgical specialities, there has been a substantial cancellation of elective treatment. This has been in part because of the limited availability of personal protective equipment for surgeons as this is being use elsewhere by clinicians to aid the reduction of viral spread in the community. As the UK is preparing to emerge from the ‘lockdown’ during the pandemic, restarting elective surgical and dental treatment is an expected challenge. This article looks at the possible roadmap to recovery of elective surgical management and dentistry, taking into consideration possible predicted further peaks and troughs of COVID-19 infections.

Comparative Study Illustrating Difficulties Educating the Public to Respond to Chemical Terrorism

2007 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Hildebrand ◽  
Anthony Bleetman
Keyword(s):  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Emergency Services ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Similar Response ◽  
Sources Of Information ◽  
The Public ◽  
Chemical Attack ◽  
Chemical Release ◽  
Chemical Terrorism ◽  
The Uk

AbstractBackground:In recent years, the perceived threat of chemical terrorism has increased. It is hoped that teaching civilians how to behave during a chemical incident will decrease the number of “worried well” patients at hospitals, reduce secondary contamination, and increase compliance with the instructions of emergency services. The governments of the United Kingdom and Israel sent booklets to every household in their respective countries. In Israel, the civilian population was issued chemical personal protective equipment (chemical personal protective equipment).Methods:The effectiveness of these public education programs was assessed using a scenario-based questionnaire that was distributed to 100 respondents in Birmingham, UK and Jerusalem, Israel. Respondents were asked how they would behave in three deliberate chemical release scenarios and how they would seek information and help.Results:Only 33% of the UK respondents and 22% of the Israeli respondents recalled reading the government booklets. When asked what they would do after being contaminated in a deliberate release, approximately half of the respondents ranked seeking medical care at a hospital as the most appropriate action.The preferred sources of information in the wake of a chemical strike were (in descending order): radio, television, and the Internet. Approximately half of the respondents would call emergency services for information. Forty-one percent of the UK respondents and 33% of Israeli respondents stated that they either would call or go to the nearest hospital to seek information.Conclusions:The public information campaigns in both countries have had a limited impact. Many citizens claimed they would self-present to the nearest hospital following a chemical attack rather than waiting for the emergency services. A similar response was witnessed in the Sarin attacks in Tokyo and the 1991 Scud missile attacks in Israel.Current UK doctrine mandates that specialist decontamination teams be deployed to the scene of a chemical release. However, this takes >1 hour, and it requires at least 30 minutes to don hospital chemical personal protective equipment. Therefore, it is imperative that hospitals are equipped to cope with unannounced self-presenters after a chemical attack. This requires chemical personal protective equipment and protocols that are easier to use.

scholarly journals Use of personal protective equipment among farmers in Nebraska, Lithuania, Latvia, and Slovenia

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (Supplement_4) ◽  
Author(s):  
C Achutan ◽  
L Girdžiūtė ◽  
G Vasiliauskas ◽  
K Kampuss ◽  
J Starič ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
Agricultural Cooperatives ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Eye Injuries ◽  
Effective Interventions ◽  
Safety And Health ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Agricultural Safety ◽  
The U.S

Abstract Background Farmers in the U.S. and in Europe are at a high risk for injury and illness. Farmers have an increased risk of respiratory disease, noise-induced hearing loss, skin disorders, and eye injuries. Many of these health risks can be prevented or reduced through proper use of personal protective equipment (PPE). However, studies show low compliance of PPE use among farmers. The purpose of this study was to identify barriers to wearing PPE, and current health and safety training as potential targets for future intervention, in farmers in Nebraska, Lithuania, Latvia, and Slovenia. The European Cooperation in Science and Technology and the Central States Center for Agricultural Safety and Health collaborated on this study. Methods We administered a 7-item questionnaire to 57 farmers in Nebraska (n = 10), Lithuania (n = 22), Latvia (n = 10) and Slovenia (n = 15). The farmers primarily grew crops (corn, soy) and some raised livestock. Results We found that gloves, respirators, and safety glasses were the PPE most commonly worn; use of face shields were only reported in Nebraska and Lithuania. Only 45% reported wearing PPE always when they needed them. In Nebraska and Latvia, most farmers reported not wearing PPE because they are not readily available although they have them on the farm; in Lithuania and Slovenia, farmers cited time to don PPE and discomfort as primary reasons. The percentage of farmers who reported receiving training on the selection, use, and maintenance of PPE varied widely-13% in Nebraska, 14% in Lithuania, 40% in Latvia, and 67% in Slovenia. Farmers purchased PPE over the internet, supermarkets, and agricultural cooperatives. Conclusions This study provided an opportunity to understand current perceptions of PPE use and challenges, among a cross section of farmers in the U.S. and Europe. We recommend enhancing training through creative modules to address the needs of farmers. Key messages By identifying why farmers do not always wear PPE, we can design effective interventions to overcome this barrier; by knowing where they purchase them, we can provide education at these venues. This study is a joint collaboration between U.S. and European researchers. This global cooperation has highlighted some similarities but also differences within European countries.

scholarly journals Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) use among emergency eye care professionals in the UK during the COVID19 pandemic

Eye ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (7) ◽  
pp. 1224-1228 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy-lee Shirodkar ◽  
Ian De Silva ◽  
Seema Verma ◽  
Sarah Anderson ◽  
Polly Dickerson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Eye Care ◽  
The Uk

Palliative care for community patients diagnosed with dementia: a systematic review

2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (12) ◽  
pp. 570-575
Author(s):  
Cathryn Smith ◽  
Gina Newbury
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
End Of Life ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
End Of Life Care ◽  
Good Practice ◽  
Community Setting ◽  
Life Care ◽  
Staff Support ◽  
The Uk

Despite many efforts made by health organisations to deliver effective end-of-life care to patients with dementia, research indicates that palliative care is predominantly aimed at patients with terminal cancer, and that patients with dementia face challenges in accessing end-of-life care. This article explores the views of health professionals on providing palliative care to those patients diagnosed with dementia within the community setting. A systematic review of seven qualitative studies was performed to identify the best available evidence. The findings show that effective palliative care for patients with dementia continues being affected by many barriers and challenges. Good practice seems to be inconsistent and fragmented throughout the UK and European countries, and many health professionals are faced with difficulties associated with services and financial implications, training and education, staff support, communication, family support and dementia care.

Impact of Clinician Personal Protective Equipment on Medical Device Use During Public Health Emergency: A Review

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 273-283 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hanniebey D. Wiyor ◽  
James C. Coburn ◽  
Karen L. Siegel
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Medical Device ◽  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Clinical Training ◽  
Public Health Emergency ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Clinical Procedures ◽  
Public Health Emergency Response ◽  
Device Use ◽  
The Impact

ABSTRACTThe aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the impact of personal protective equipment (PPE) on medical device use during public health emergency responses. We conducted a systematic literature search of peer-reviewed journals in PubMed, Web of Science, and EBSCO databases. Twenty-nine of 92 articles published between 1984 and 2015 met the inclusion criteria for the review. Although many medical device use impacts were reported, they predominantly fell into 3 categories: airway management, drug administration, and diagnostics and monitoring. Chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN)-PPE increased completion times for emergency clinical procedures by as much as 130% and first attempt failure rates by 35% (anesthetist) versus 55% (non-anesthetist). Effects of CBRN-PPE use depend on device, CBRN-PPE level, and clinician experience and training. Continuous clinical training of responders in CBRN-PPE and device modifications can improve safety and effectiveness of medical device use during public health emergency response.

Precautions and Recommendations for Dental Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-43
Author(s):  
Téssia Melo ◽  
◽  
Poliana Costa ◽  
Rafaela Medeiros ◽  
Jorge Araújo-Filho ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Dental Care ◽  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Public Health Emergency ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
International Public Health ◽  
Dental Offices ◽  
Need For Information

The COVID-19 disease pandemic, caused by the new Coronavirus (SARS-COV-2) that originated in Wuhan, China, is an international public health emergency. This disease represents a major challenge for all health professionals, including dentists and their staff. This moment has significantly changed the attendance and routine of dental offices, so there is a great need for information and the development of protocols for the guidance of professionals. This paper aims to systematize the recommendations for dentists’ clinical practice on biosafety and the use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), seeking to optimize dental care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

scholarly journals MANAGEMENT OF PATIENTS DIAGNOSED OR SUSPECTED WITH COVID-19 IN CARDIORESPIRATORY ARREST: A SCOPING REVIEW

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica Cristhyanne Peixoto Nascimento ◽  
Rodrigo Rhuan Andrade Rocha ◽  
Joyce Karolayne Dos Santos Dantas ◽  
Eloysa Dos Santos Oliveira ◽  
Daniele Vieira Dantas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Search Engines ◽  
Data Sources ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Exclusion Criteria ◽  
Cardiorespiratory Arrest ◽  
Production Of Knowledge ◽  
Electronic Search

ABSTRACT Objective: to map the production of knowledge about the recommendations that can be applied in managing patients diagnosed or suspected with COVID-19 in cardiorespiratory arrest. Method: a scoping review, according to the Joanna Briggs Institute (2020) guidelines. Search was performed in ten data sources, and two electronic search engines were used; from 2001 to 2020. Results: of the 547 studies found, 14 met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Most studies were published in 2020 (35.7%), and most studies were conducted in Canada (21.4%). It is observed the use of a systematized care to identify the possible means of care that should be provided to patients who suffer a cardiorespiratory arrest in hospitals, such as the monitoring of suspected cases by assessing the victim’s breathing and pulse and identifying arrhythmias and shockable rhythms quickly. Personal protective equipment must be used to protect against droplets and aerosols and respiratory etiquette. Conclusion: managing patients in cardiorespiratory arrest suspected or diagnosis with COVID-19 requiring cardiopulmonary resuscitation should be performed in isolation areas and with the use of adequate protective equipment. There are gaps in scientific productions so that they address more clearly and instructively management when performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation in patients suspected or diagnosed with COVID-19.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document