scholarly journals Ventilation mask adapted for endoscopy during the COVID-19 pandemic

2020 ◽  
Vol 66 (suppl 2) ◽  
pp. 55-57
Author(s):  
José Luiz Paccos ◽  
Ivandro Paulo de Lima ◽  
Viviane Rissio Borba de Lima ◽  
Natália Sayuri Mukai

SUMMARY In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, endoscopy services must adopt preventive measures to maintain proper functioning due to a high risk of disease contagion. Triage protocols before and after the procedure, personal protective equipment, and environmental contamination control are some of the endoscopy society’s recommendations. However, the risk of infection may remain high due to poor control over the source of contamination.Using a combination of standardized supplies and accessories in a hospital, a ventilation mask adapted to be used in endoscopic procedures is proposed to reduce COVID-19 contamination.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Tubiana ◽  
Charles Burdet ◽  
Nadhira Houhou ◽  
Michael Thy ◽  
Pauline Manchon ◽  
...  

Objective: We aimed to estimate the risk of infection in Healthcare workers (HCWs) following a high-risk exposure without personal protective equipment (PPE). Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort in HCWs who had a high-risk exposure to SARS-CoV-2-infected subject without PPE. Daily symptoms were self-reported for 30 days, nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR were performed at inclusion and at days 3, 5, 7 and 12, SARS-CoV-2 serology was assessed at inclusion and at day 30. Confirmed infection was defined by positive RT-PCR or seroconversion, and possible infection by one general and one specific symptom for two consecutive days. Results: Between February 5th and May 30th, 2020, 154 HCWs were enrolled within 14 days following one high-risk exposure to either a hospital patient (70/154; 46.1%) and/or a colleague (95/154; 62.5%). At day 30, 25.0% had a confirmed infection (37/148; 95%CI, 18.4%; 32.9%), and 43.9% (65/148; 95%CI, 35.9%; 52.3%) had a confirmed or possible infection. Factors independently associated with confirmed or possible SARS-CoV-2 infection were being a pharmacist or administrative assistant rather than being from medical staff (adjusted OR (aOR)=3.8, CI95%=1.3;11.2, p=0.01), and exposure to a SARS-CoV-2-infected patient rather than exposure to a SARS-CoV-2-infected colleague (aOR=2.6, CI95%=1.2;5.9, p=0.02). Among the 26 HCWs with a SARS-CoV-2-positive nasopharyngeal swab, 7 (26.9%) had no symptom at the time of the RT-PCR positivity. Conclusions: The proportion of HCWs with confirmed or possible SARS-CoV-2 infection was high. There were less occurrences of high-risk exposure with patients than with colleagues, but those were associated with an increased risk of infection.


Author(s):  
Hendar Sunandar ◽  
Doni Hikmat Ramdhan

An offshore platform is a workplace with complex facilities and limited space due to the complex installed equipment and components. Therefore, the offshore as enclosed area platform is more likely to have a high risk of COVID-19 outbreak. Furthermore, a company must strictly follow health protocols to prevent workers from being exposed to COVID-19 in the offshore workplace. However, workers are often forced to onboard without proper health protocols because of operational needs and production targets. This paper aimed to explore the essence of the steps in preventing and controlling COVID-19 in the offshore workplace and the challenges. The analysis found that the company must take preventive measures against COVID-19 before workers are on board and in the workplace and control it using the hierarchy of control: engineering control, administrative control, and personal protective equipment (PPE).


2020 ◽  
Vol 88 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 43-46
Author(s):  
Nilesh K Tumram

Use of appropriate personal protective equipment is essential for healthcare workers when dealing with patients who have tested positive or are suspected of having Covid-19. Personal protective equipment is uncomfortable at best. In hot countries (like India) or in a hot place of work, its wearers are at a high risk of heat-related illnesses. Once in personal protective equipment a healthcare worker can remain in it for at least 6 h at a stretch. In summer when it is hot and humid, personal protective equipment can cause wearer dehydration, heat exhaustion or heat fatigue. In a severe form, this can result in heat stroke and a collapse while on duty. Preventive measures are needed to protect healthcare workers. This review aims to highlight the efficacy and applicability of personal cooling garments.


2021 ◽  
Vol 64 (7) ◽  
pp. 491-498
Author(s):  
Seong Su Lee ◽  
Su Jin Kim ◽  
Jong Eun Jung ◽  
Gunn Hee Kim ◽  
Mi Young Kwon ◽  
...  

Background: Surgeries performed for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) place the medical staff at very high risk of infection. We suggest recommendations for appropriate operation preparation, anesthetic management, and infection control for COVID-19 patients in operating rooms.Current Concepts: Surgeries must be performed in an airborne infection isolation room, such as a negative-pressure operating room. It is recommended that scheduled surgeries for COVID-19 patients be postponed to an acceptable extent, with the exception of emergency cases. Moreover, the number of medical staff participating in the surgery should be minimized. Medical staffs should practice proper hand hygiene and wear an appropriate level of personal protective equipment depending on the infection risk. While performing surgery and inducing anesthesia in COVID-19 patients, endotracheal intubation should be performed by trained anesthesiologists with a video laryngoscope, preferably using high-efficiency viral filters, which can prevent contamination in the anesthesia machine. Use of disposable equipment or COVID-19 patient-specific devices is recommended to prevent the spread of infection, but instruments that require sharing among multiple patients must be thoroughly cleaned and disinfected before their use for the next patient.Discussion and Conclusion: Medical staff performing surgeries for COVID-19 patients are at very high risk of infection. Therefore, the use of appropriate personal protective equipment, high-efficiency viral filters in breathing circuits during anesthesia, and disinfection of contaminated equipment after the operation are mandatory.


Endoscopy ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alanna Ebigbo ◽  
Christoph Römmele ◽  
Christina Bartenschlager ◽  
Selin Temizel ◽  
Elisabeth Kling ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Infection prevention strategies to protect healthcare workers in endoscopy units during the post-peak phase of the COVID-19 pandemic are currently under intense discussion. In this paper, the cost-effectiveness of routine pre-endoscopy testing and high risk personal protective equipment (PPE) is addressed. Method A model based on theoretical assumptions of 10 000 asymptomatic patients presenting to a high volume center was created. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and absolute costs per endoscopy were calculated using a Monte Carlo simulation. Results ICER values for universal testing decreased with increasing prevalence rates. For higher prevalence rates (≥ 1 %), ICER values were lowest for routine pre-endoscopy testing coupled with use of high risk PPE, while cost per endoscopy was lowest for routine use of high risk PPE without universal testing. Conclusion In general, routine pre-endoscopy testing combined with high risk PPE becomes more cost-effective with rising prevalence rates of COVID-19.


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 205031212110470
Author(s):  
Yuji Nadatani ◽  
Akira Higashimori ◽  
Shingo Takashima ◽  
Hirotsugu Maruyama ◽  
Koji Otani ◽  
...  

Objectives: Endoscopy confers high risk for acquiring coronavirus disease 2019. Although guidelines recommend that medical staff use personal protective equipment, no infection control equipment have been established for patients. This study aimed to clarify the usefulness of two face masks we had designed for transnasal and transoral endoscopy. Methods: The efficacy of the masks was evaluated by simulating coughing in a mannequin with fluorescent dyes and mapping the droplet trajectory and number. The number of aerosols generated during endoscopy was clinically evaluated in the endoscopy room. Overall, 4356 screening endoscopies were performed with the patients wearing our masks at Medcity21, a health checkup facility, between June and December 2020; the effects of the masks on the patient’s condition were evaluated retrospectively. An 11-item paper-based survey was performed by the endoscopy staff 6 months after the adoption of the mask-based infection control method. Results: Use of both masks reduced the number of droplets released during the simulation. Clinically, the use of both masks did not affect the patients’ conditions during endoscopy and prevented an increase in the aerosols in the endoscopy room. This mask-based infection control method was favorably received, and all staff indicated that understanding the efficacy of our mask-based infection control reduced their anxiety regarding infection. Until December 2020, none of our staff had contracted SARS-CoV-2. Conclusion: Our mask-based infection control method is easy to adopt, inexpensive, and effective; understanding its effectiveness may help ease the fear of infection among endoscopy staff.


CONVERTER ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 211-219
Author(s):  
Yongli Zou Et al.

Objectives: To analyze the effect of personal protective equipment training on new hospital infection managers. Methods: Personnel are divided into two batches by region. Adopt a diversified training model to train all personnel, finally conduct practical assessments and issue certificates. Collect information through information technology, analyze questionnaires, and understand trainees’ circumstances before and after the training. Each training batch has uniform teachers and the same training methods. Results: After the training, the trainees' proficiency in putting on and taking off protective equipment increased by 22.85%, and ability to choose protective equipment according to different working environments increased by 22.04%; 78.23% trainees believed that practical exercises should be emphasized. Taking off protective clothing was considered as the most difficult link in practical training (91.13%), followed by putting on protective clothing (70.43%). 96.24% trainees believed that this training is helpful for future work. Conclusions: It is quite necessary to implement personal protective equipment training among new hospital infection managers; where, practical training, assessment, information-based questionnaire survey, expert theory teaching have achieved good results; the training helps reduce occupational exposure-induced hospital infection, and at the same time, avoids improper use of protective materials and waste.


2020 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 215145932093055 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy T. Wills ◽  
Wilhelm A. Zuelzer ◽  
Bryant W. Tran

Background: The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has afflicted millions of people worldwide since its first case was reported in December 2019. Personal protective equipment (PPE) has been tailored accordingly, but as of April 2020, close to 10 000 health care workers in the United States have contracted COVID-19 despite wearing recommended PPE. As such, standard guidelines for PPE may be inadequate for the health care worker performing high-risk aerosolizing procedures such as endotracheal intubation. In this brief technical report, we describe the integration of an orthopedic hood cover as an item for full barrier protection against COVID-19 transmission. Technical Description: The Coronavirus Airway Task Force at Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center approved this initiative and went live with the full barrier suit during the last week of March 2020. The PPE described in this report includes a Stryker T4 Hood, normally used in conjunction with the Stryker Steri-Shield T4 Helmet. Instead of the helmet, the hood is secured to the head via a baseball cap and binder clip. This head covering apparatus is to be used as an accessory to other PPE items that include an N95 mask, waterproof gown, and disposable gloves. The motor ventilation system is not used in order to prevent airborne viral entry into the hood. Discussion: An advantage of the full barrier suit is an additional layer of droplet protection during intubation. The most notable disadvantage is the absence of a ventilation system within the hood covering. Conclusion: Modification of existing PPE may provide protection for health care workers during high-risk aerosolizing procedures such as endotracheal intubation. Although the integration of this medical equipment meets the immediate needs of an escalating crisis, further innovation is on the horizon. More research is needed to confirm the safety of modified PPE.


2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. s385-s386
Author(s):  
Jaqueline Pereira da Silva ◽  
Priyadarshini Pennathur ◽  
Hugh Salehi ◽  
Emily Chasco ◽  
Jure Baloh ◽  
...  

Background: Personal protective equipment (PPE) effectiveness can be undermined by inappropriate doffing methods. Objective: We used human factors engineering methods to evaluate self-contamination during PPE doffing. Methods: In this study, 30 participants at a Midwestern academic hospital (A) donned and doffed 3 mask styles (n = 10), 2 gown styles (n = 10), and 2 glove styles (n = 10; the Doffy glove has a tab to facilitate doffing). Also, 30 additional participants at hospital A (residents or fellows, nurses, special isolation trained staff [SITS]) and 10 SITS at academic hospital B doffed a surgical mask, a breakaway neck gown, and exam gloves (PPE ensemble) twice: once while distracted with conversation and once when not distracted. We randomized the order in which participants used different PPE styles or they did the doffing scenario. We collected demographic data. We applied Glo Germ Mist (1.5 dilution in water) with a mucosal atomizer to participants’ PPE before they doffed. We video-recorded participants as they doffed, and we photographed their scrubs and exposed skin before and after each donning and doffing episode. We reviewed videos for doffing errors and photographs for fluorescent spots. We counted fluorescent spots and noted their locations. Results: Overall, 45 (64.3%) participants were women, 31 (44.3%) were nurses, 24 (34.3%) were physicians. Among the participants, 25 (35.7%) had >15 years of experience and 61 (87.1%) had some training in doffing. Participants frequently contaminated their skin or clothing while doffing (Table 1). For all scenarios, hands followed by the torso were contaminated most frequently. Analysis of the videos found that touching the gown front with bare hands was the most common doffing error. Fewer participants self-contaminated when using the Doffy glove without training than when using the standard exam glove. Although most participants in the glove trial indicated that they did not need to watch the Doffy glove training video again, most had difficulty doffing the Doffy glove with the beak method. Many participants stopped doffing to answer questions when they doffed the PPE ensemble during the interruption scenario. Conclusions: Self-contamination was very common with all PPE styles and during all scenarios. Distraction did not increase the risk of contamination. However, participants often stopped doffing to answer questions, which they rarely do in practice. Watching a video was inadequate training for the beak glove-doffing method. The Doffy glove, which decreased contamination compared with the standard glove in the untrained scenario, may have advantages over standard exam gloves and should be evaluated further.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document