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 Orthodontist and periodontist’s knowledge, attitudes and aspects of clinical practice, regarding fixed lower orthodontic retainers

2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Suzanne Maximo da COSTA ◽  
Silvia Amélia Scudeler VEDOVELLO ◽  
Vivian Fernandes FURLETTI-GÓES ◽  
William CUSTODIO ◽  
Giovana Cherubini VENEZIAN
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Observational Study ◽  
Oral Hygiene ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Significance Level ◽  
Dental Biofilm ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Orthodontic Retainers ◽  
E Mail

ABSTRACT Objective: This study aimed to assess the knowledge, attitudes, and aspects of the clinical practice of orthodontists and periodontists, regarding lower fixed orthodontic retainers. Methods: The orthodontists (n=502) and periodontists (n=269) who participated in this cross-sectional observational study received, via e-mail, questions related to the type of lower fixed retainer, dental biofilm accumulation, oral hygiene, and potential periodontal changes. The data were subjected to chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests, at 5% significance level. Results: Both orthodontists (72.3%) and periodontists (58.7%) reported that hygienic retainers accumulate more dental biofilm (p< 0.05), and 64.1% of orthodontists and 58.7% of periodontists considered that modified retainers may lead to periodontal changes (p< 0.05). There was no significant difference between the dental specialties, regarding the type of lower fixed retainer considered the easiest for the patient to perform hygiene (p> 0.05), whereas 48.6% of professionals chose the modified type. Conclusion: The modified retainer accumulates a greater amount of dental biofilm and, in the perception of orthodontists and periodontists, it may cause periodontal changes.

scholarly journals KEPATUHAN TENAGA KERJA DALAM MENGGUNAKAN APD

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-43
Author(s):  
Fety 'Izza Luthfiyah
Keyword(s):  
Observational Study ◽  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Total Study Population ◽  
Production Department ◽  
Training And Supervision ◽  
Study Population

Workers when at working area must use (Personal Protective Equipment) PPE, even though the company has implemented technical controls and administrative controls. But, use of PPE at work is still not good. The purpose of this study was to analyse the compliance of workers in using PPE in production department of PT X. this study was an descriptive observational study with a cross sectional study design. The total study population was 30 people with total sampling. Data were by means as of questionnaire. The result of the study were the average age and length of work of workers in production department of PT X were µ = 29,47 ± 4,99 years old and µ = 7,9 ± 3,96 years. Workers in production department of PT X 60% use PPE and 40% not use PPE. The factor that influence compliance with PPE use was comfort of PPE and factors that don’t affect compliance with PPE use were availability of PPE, PPE training, and supervision of PPE. It is recommended for the company need to approach individually to the workers and need to implement a reward policy.   Keywords: compliance, PPE, worker, factors

scholarly journals Infection control practices and challenges in Pakistan during the COVID-19 pandemic: a multicentre cross-sectional study

2021 ◽  
pp. 175717742110127
Author(s):  
Salma Abbas ◽  
Faisal Sultan
Keyword(s):  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Prevention And Control ◽  
Infection Prevention ◽  
Hospital Staff ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Infection Prevention And Control ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Healthcare Facilities ◽  
And Control

Background: Patient and staff safety at healthcare facilities during outbreaks hinges on a prompt infection prevention and control response. Physicians leading these programmes have encountered numerous obstacles during the pandemic. Aim/objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate infection prevention and control practices and explore the challenges in Pakistan during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study and administered a survey to physicians leading infection prevention and control programmes at 18 hospitals in Pakistan. Results: All participants implemented universal masking, limited the intake of patients and designated separate triage areas, wards and intensive care units for coronavirus disease 2019 patients at their hospitals. Eleven (61%) physicians reported personal protective equipment shortages. Staff at three (17%) hospitals worked without the appropriate personal protective equipment due to limited supplies. All participants felt overworked and 17 (94%) reported stress. Physicians identified the lack of negative pressure rooms, fear and anxiety among hospital staff, rapidly evolving guidelines, personal protective equipment shortages and opposition from hospital staff regarding the choice of recommended personal protective equipment as major challenges during the pandemic. Discussion: The results of this study highlight the challenges faced by physicians leading infection prevention and control programmes in Pakistan. It is essential to support infection prevention and control personnel and bridge the identified gaps to ensure patient and staff safety at healthcare facilities.

scholarly journals Optimized and Non-Optimized Personal Protective Equipment Use during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Thailand: A National Cross-Sectional Survey in a Resource-Limited Setting

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 117863022110135
Author(s):  
Visal Moolasart ◽  
Weerawat Manosuthi ◽  
Varaporn Thienthong ◽  
Uajai Jaemsak ◽  
Winnada Kongdejsakda ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Negative Pressure ◽  
Symptom Severity ◽  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
Education Level ◽  
Health Concern ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Global Public Health ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Infection Control Program

Introduction: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV2). COVID-19 is highly contagious, potentially fatal, and a global public health concern. Combining optimized personal protective equipment (PPE) use and hand hygiene is the best strategy for preventing COVID-19 in health care workers (HCWs). Methods: We conducted a national cross-sectional web-based survey of HCWs in the infection control program (IPC) in Thailand between May 5, 2020 and May 15, 2020. The primary objective was the prevalence of optimized PPE use amongst HCWs. The secondary objective was identification of the independent predictors of optimized PPE use. Results: We received a response from 46% of HCWs (756/1650), and all those who responded were nurse or HCWs who were registered in the IPC network. Five HCWs were excluded because of missing data, and 751 were included in the final analysis. The prevalences of PPE use were 22% (168/751) for optimized PPE use, 78% (583/751) for non-optimized PPE use, 35% (263/751) for PPE overuse, and 43% (320/751) for PPE underused. In univariate analysis, optimized PPE use was significantly associated with age, education level, knowledge of appropriate negative pressure room selection, and knowledge of apparently milder symptom severity in children than adults. In multivariate analysis, independent predictors of optimized PPE use were knowledge of appropriate negative pressure room selection (aOR = 1.95, 95% CI = 1.18-3.22), the difference in symptom severity between children and adults (aOR = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.37-0.81), and education level (aOR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.04-2.27). Conclusion: The prevalence of optimized PPE use amongst HCWs was 22%. Independent predictors of optimized PPE use were COVID-19 knowledge-based factors and education level. Therefore, the continued education training program should be implemented to ensure maintenance of appropriate practices during the COVID-19 pandemic.

scholarly journals Work-related Injury among Welders Working in Metal Workshops of Dharan Municipality, Nepal

2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 156-159
Author(s):  
Anup Ghimire ◽  
Shyam Sundar Budhathoki ◽  
Surya Raj Niraula ◽  
Abha Shrestha ◽  
Paras K Pokharel
Keyword(s):  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Work Related ◽  
The Past ◽  
Occupational Characteristics ◽  
Recorded Data ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Structured Questionnaire

Background: Injuries are a problem worldwide in all occupations. Welders are exposed to many hazards at work resulting in a variety of health problems including injuries at work. This study was conducted to find out the prevalence and factors associated with injuries among welders in Dharan city of eastern Nepal.Methods: A cross sectional study was conducted among 86 welders in Dharan city. Occurrence of injury in past 2 weeks and past 12 months were recorded. Data regarding sociodemographic along with occupational characteristics was collected using semi structured questionnaire. Data analysis was done using SPSS version 17.Results: All the welders in this study were male with almost half of the welders under the age of 25 years and about a fifth (21.1%) of the welders having received some form of welding training. In the past 12 months, 21.1% of the welders suffered from work related injuries. More than 95% welders used at least one personal protective equipment in this study. More injuries were seen among welders with age ≥35 years, working experience ≥ 5 years, not received training and not using of PPE at work. However, these factors were not found to be statistically significant.Conclusions: Work related injuries are high among welders of Dharan. Further research is required to explore the relationship between age, literacy, training and use of personal protective equipment with the occurrence of injuries among the welders.

scholarly journals Differences of Indirect MAR Test in the Unexplained Infertile and Fertile Couples

2020 ◽  
Vol 56 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Nur Hafiz Ramadhona ◽  
Aucky Ginting ◽  
Hamdani Lunardhi
Keyword(s):  
Observational Study ◽  
Male Infertility ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Unexplained Infertility ◽  
Antisperm Antibody ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Immunological Examination ◽  
Infertile Couples

Infertility is the inability of a partner to get pregnant after regular sexual intercourse without contraception for 12 months. Based on the cause, male infertility is caused by genetic, hormonal, infectious, sexual, and unexplained infertility. However, many infertile couples are classified into unexplained infertility without an antisperm antibody (ASA) immunological examination. This study aimed to prove that couples classified as unexplained infertility can be caused by ASA wives. This was an observational study with a cross sectional study design. The sample consisted of 2 groups, in which the first group consisted of 36 fertile couples and the second group consisted of 35 unexplained infertility couples. All samples were carried out indirect MAR test to obtain the ASA value of the wife. If the wife's ASA value was >40%, the ASA results were positive. Conversely, if the ASA value was <40%, the ASA results were negative. From these 2 groups, there was a statistically significant difference (p<0.0001) that the wife's ASA value in the unexplained infertility group was significantly higher than that in the fertile group. This study concluded that the positive ASA results from the indirect MAR test were significantly found in the unexplained infertility sample.

scholarly journals COVID-19 infections among Healthcare Workers and Transmission within Households

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin L. Schwartz ◽  
Camille Achonu ◽  
Sarah A. Buchan ◽  
Kevin A. Brown ◽  
Brenda Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
General Population ◽  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Nosocomial Transmission ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Testing Bias

AbstractImportanceProtecting healthcare workers (HCWs) from COVID-19 is a priority to maintain a safe and functioning healthcare system. The risk of transmitting COVID-19 to family members is a source of stress for many.ObjectiveTo describe and compare HCW and non-HCW COVID-19 cases in Ontario, Canada, as well as the frequency of COVID-19 among HCWs’ household members.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsUsing reportable disease data at Public Health Ontario which captures all COVID-19 cases in Ontario, Canada, we conducted a population-based cross-sectional study comparing demographic, exposure, and clinical variables between HCWs and non-HCWs with COVID-19 as of 14 May 2020. We calculated rates of infections over time and determined the frequency of within household transmissions using natural language processing based on residential address.Exposures and OutcomesWe contrasted age, gender, comorbidities, clinical presentation (including asymptomatic and presymptomatic), exposure histories including nosocomial transmission, and clinical outcomes between HCWs and non-HCWs with confirmed COVID-19.ResultsThere were 4,230 (17.5%) HCW COVID-19 cases in Ontario, of whom 20.2% were nurses, 2.3% were physicians, and the remaining 77.4% other specialties. HCWs were more likely to be between 30-60 years of age and female. HCWs were more likely to present asymptomatically (8.1% versus 7.0%, p=0.010) or with atypical symptoms (17.8% versus 10.5%, p<0.001). The mortality among HCWs was 0.2% compared to 10.5% of non-HCWs. HCWs commonly had exposures to a confirmed case or outbreak (74.1%), however only 3.1% were confirmed to be nosocomial. The rate of new infections was 5.5 times higher in HCWs than non-HCWs, but mirrored the epidemic curve. We identified 391 (9.8%) probable secondary household transmissions and 143 (3.6%) acquisitions. Children < 19 years comprised 14.6% of secondary cases compared to only 4.2% of the primary cases.Conclusions and RelevanceHCWs represent a disproportionate number of COVID-19 cases in Ontario but with low confirmed numbers of nosocomial transmission. The data support substantial testing bias and under-ascertainment of general population cases. Protecting HCWs through appropriate personal protective equipment and physical distancing from colleagues is paramount.Key PointsQuestionWhat are the differences between healthcare workers and non-healthcare workers with COVID-19?FindingsIn this population-based cross-sectional study there were 4,230 healthcare workers comprising 17.5% of COVID-19 cases. Healthcare workers were diagnosed with COVID-19 at a rate 5.5 times higher than the general population with 0.8% of all healthcare workers, compared to 0.1% of non-healthcare workers.MeaningHigh healthcare worker COVID-19 burden highlights the importance of physical distancing from colleagues, appropriate personal protective equipment, as well as likely substantial testing bias and under-ascertainment of COVID-19 in the general population.

scholarly journals Mask and Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Associated Headache: A Cross-Sectional Study among the COVID-Time Physicians in Bangladesh

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 12-22
Author(s):  
K M Nazmul Islam Joy ◽  
Reaz Mahmud ◽  
Md Golam Rabbani ◽  
Md Khairul Islam ◽  
Rajesh Saha ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional

scholarly journals Stockpiled personal protective equipment and knowledge of pandemic plans as predictors of perceived pandemic preparedness among German general practitioners

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (8) ◽  
pp. e0255986
Author(s):  
Arno Stöcker ◽  
Ibrahim Demirer ◽  
Sophie Gunkel ◽  
Jan Hoffmann ◽  
Laura Mause ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
General Practitioners ◽  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Explanatory Power ◽  
Vital Role ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Linear Regression Models ◽  
Pandemic Preparedness ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Determining Factor

Background The COVID-19 pandemic significantly changed the work of general practitioners (GPs). At the onset of the pandemic in March 2020, German outpatient practices had to adapt quickly. Pandemic preparedness (PP) of GPs may play a vital role in their management of a pandemic. Objectives The study aimed to examine the association in the stock of seven personal protective equipment (PPE) items and knowledge of pandemic plans on perceived PP among GPs. Methods Three multivariable linear regression models were developed based on an online cross-sectional survey for the period March–April 2020 (the onset of the pandemic in Germany). Data were collected using self-developed items on self-assessed PP and knowledge of a pandemic plan and its utility. The stock of seven PPE items was queried. For PPE items, three different PPE scores were compared. Control variables for all models were gender and age. Results In total, 508 GPs were included in the study; 65.16% believed that they were very poorly or poorly prepared. Furthermore, 13.83% of GPs were aware of a pandemic plan; 40% rated those plans as beneficial. The stock of FFP-2/3 masks, protective suits, face shields, safety glasses, and medical face masks were mostly considered completely insufficient or insufficient, whereas disposable gloves and disinfectants were considered sufficient or completely sufficient. The stock of PPE was significantly positively associated with PP and had the largest effect on PP; the association of the knowledge of a pandemic plan was significant but small. PPE scores did not vary considerably in their explanatory power. The assessment of a pandemic plan as beneficial did not significantly affect PP. Conclusion The stock of PPE seems to be the determining factor for PP among German GPs; for COVID-19, sufficient masks are the determining factor. Knowledge of a pandemic plans play a secondary role in PP.

scholarly journals Relationship between Motivation, Knowledge, and Availability with the Use of Personal Protective Equipment

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 124
Author(s):  
Yogi Adiputro
Keyword(s):  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Clinical Laboratory ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
Strong Relationship ◽  
Observational Research ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Safety Standards ◽  
Clinical Laboratories

Introduction: Clinical laboratories are a kind of workplace that must be designed in strict compliance with occupational health and safety standards to create a safe work environment. Fatal work accidents can inflict injuries caused by improper use of equipment, poisoning due to chemical substances in clinical laboratories, and transmission of dangerous diseases. Methods: This is an observational research with a cross sectional approach. The population of this study was 15 health analysts in the X Regional Clinical Laboratory of East Java. The research used total sampling method, carried out from July to September 2018. The dependent variable is the use of PPE and the independent variables are the lack of control and the basic causes. Data were analyzed using Chi square and Spearman correlation tests. Results: 53.3% of the employees of X Regional Clinical Laboratory of East Java use PPE accordingly. There is a strong relationship between knowledge and the use of PPE (r= 0.607). There is a strong correlation between the motivation and the use of PPE (r= 0.600). There is a strong relationship between the availability of PPE and the use of PPE (r = 0.756). Conclusion: There is a strong relationship between knowledge, motivation, and availability of PPE with the use of PPE.Keywords: knowledge, motivation, personal protective equipment

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document