scholarly journals Sheet Barrier and Intubating Stylet

Encyclopedia ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 1058-1075
Author(s):  
Phil B. Tsai ◽  
Hsiang-Ning Luk
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Tracheal Intubation ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Medical Procedures ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Risk Of Infection ◽  
Plastic Sheet ◽  
Droplet Nuclei ◽  
Respiratory Droplets

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a respiratory syndrome caused by SARS-CoV-2, can be transmitted through respiratory droplets and aerosols of droplet nuclei. Aerosol-generating medical procedures (AGMP) are needed to take care of critically ill patients but place health care providers at risk of infection. With limited supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE), barrier systems were developed to help protect health care providers during tracheal intubation. The video intubating stylet shows promise to become the preferred intubation device in conjunction with plastic sheet barriers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

scholarly journals Exposed Intimacies

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 63-67
Author(s):  
Ellen Block
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
The United States ◽  
Asymptomatic Infection ◽  
Transmission Risk ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Risk Of Infection ◽  
Health And Wellbeing

COVID-19 has overwhelmed health-care providers. The virus is novel in its prevalence, severity and the risk of asymptomatic infection. In order to reduce the risk of infection and stop the spread of COVID-19, clinicians in hospitals across the United States are taking measures to limit exposure to infected patients by reducing the frequency of visits to patients’ rooms, touching patients less, and adopting new protocols around the use of personal protective equipment (PPE). While these newly adopted practices are helping to reduce transmission risk of COVID-19, they are producing a habitus of infection; an acute shift among clinicians that is deeply embodied and likely to have a permanent impact on the health and wellbeing of both providers and already isolated patients.

scholarly journals Rhinologic Procedures in the Era of COVID-19: Health-care Provider Protection Protocol

2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 451-455 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohamed A. Taha ◽  
Christian A. Hall ◽  
Richard F. Rathbone ◽  
Luke A. Corsten ◽  
Charles R. Bowie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Initial Study ◽  
Immunoglobulin M ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Protective Measures ◽  
Post Evaluation ◽  
Contact Transmission ◽  
Polymerase Chain ◽  
Respiratory Droplets

Introduction SARS-CoV-2 has been identified as the pathogen causing the outbreak of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) that started in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. SARS-CoV-2 has human-to-human transmission ability and universally contagious to all populations. The main transmission patterns are respiratory droplets transmission and contact transmission. The purpose of this study is to propose a protocol that may be used as a guide to reduce the incidence of COVID-19 infections among otolaryngology care teams. Methods A prospective cohort study was conducted to show the efficacy of our protocol to prevent transmission to health-care providers from March 11, 2020 through April 14, 2020. The protocol consisted of a series of protective measures that we applied to all health-care providers, then testing of our providers for COVID-19 using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction along with immunoglobulin M (IgM) and immunoglobulin G (IgG) testing at the end of the study period to ensure effectiveness. Results Our protocol resulted in zero transmissions to our health-care providers during the duration of the initial study. We were involved in greater than 150 sinonasal, skull base, open airway, and endoscopy procedures during this study. At the conclusion of the initial 5 weeks, we had no health-care providers test positive for SARS-CoV-2. Conclusion According to our proposed protocol, we were able to provide care for all patients in clinic, hospital, emergent, intensive, and surgical settings with no transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by symptomatology and post evaluation testing.

scholarly journals Cloth Face Coverings for Use as Facemasks During the Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) Pandemic: What Science and Experience Have Taught Us

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raymond J. Roberge ◽  
Marc R. Roberge
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Preventive Measure ◽  
Research Data ◽  
Government Agencies ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
N95 Respirators

ABSTRACT The current coronavirus (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 [SARS-CoV-2]) pandemic has resulted in severe shortages of personal protective equipment, including respiratory protective equipment, such as N95 respirators. This has led some government agencies to suggest the use of cloth face coverings (CFCs) by health-care providers and the general public as a last resort when standard respiratory protective equipment is unavailable. Although such coverings have been in use for over a century and have found widespread use during some previous pandemics, research data are relatively scant for the protective value of this measure. This article, a literature review, explores the development of CFCs and reviews available scientific research regarding the efficacy of this intervention as a preventive measure in the spread of airborne infectious diseases

scholarly journals Preventing Facial Pressure Injury for Health Care Providers Adhering to COVID-19 Personal Protective Equipment Requirements

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (8) ◽  
pp. 418-427 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hiske Smart ◽  
Francis Byron Opinion ◽  
Issam Darwich ◽  
Manal Aly Elnawasany ◽  
Chaitanya Kodange
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Pressure Injury

scholarly journals Adverse effects of prolonged use of personal protective equipment among health care workers during COVID-19 pandemic

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (9) ◽  
pp. 4400
Author(s):  
Subhash Chand ◽  
Neeraj Sharma ◽  
Sanjay Kumar
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Health Care Workers ◽  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Care Workers ◽  
Almost All

Background: To know adverse effects of prolonged use of (PPE) personal protective equipment among various categories of health care providers while taking care of COVID-19 patients.Methods: This study include health care workers involved in care of covid-19 positive patients admitted in COVID dedicated hospital. A preformed questionnaire based performa was distributed among health care providers. Questions were framed about various possible adverse effects of use of PPE. Duration of study was six month from first July 2020 to 31 December 2020. The data was obtained from questionnaire and thereafter analysed to determine the adverse effects of different parts of PPE among various categories of HCPs depending on their age, sex and duration of exposure.Results: A total of 150 health care workers of various categories were surveyed. Maximum numbers of health care workers were in the age group of 31-40 years. Most common side effects were itching, rash, suffocation and impaired cognition. N-95 masks, gloves and face shield when used caused maximum discomfort.Conclusions: COVID-19 is ongoing pandemic with uncertinity about its end. Health care workers are continuously exposed to COVID-19 positive patients and almost all the healthcare providers experienced discomfort while using PPE causing reduced work efficiency.

scholarly journals Simulated workplace protection factors for respirators with N95 or higher filters for health care providers in an emergency medical centre: A randomized crossover study

2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (6) ◽  
pp. 282-289 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sanghyun Lee ◽  
Hongjung Kim ◽  
Taeho Lim ◽  
Jaehoon Oh ◽  
Hyunggoo Kang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Crossover Study ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Medical Procedures ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Emergency Medical ◽  
Fold Type ◽  
Protective Performance ◽  
Randomized Crossover Study ◽  
Normal Respiration

Introduction: Health care providers in emergency medical centres often encounter infected sources during medical procedures; these sources can generate droplets. Wearing respirators could help to protect against infection risk. However, to the best of our knowledge, no previous study has reported the efficacy of N95 or higher respirators for health care providers in emergency medical centres. Methods: A randomized, crossover study of 26 health care providers was conducted to examine the protective performance of respirators. Quantitative fit tests with three types of respirators (cup type, fold type without valve and fold type with valve) were performed using seven exercises. Primary outcomes were the fit factors. Secondary outcomes included the percentage of fit factors above 100 and respirator preference. Results: After excluding one participant, data for 25 participants were analysed. The fit factors and the percentage of fit factors above 100 were higher when participants wore a fold-type respirator (200 fit factors [38.6–200], 100% [0–100]) relative to those for the cup-type respirator (114.0 fit factors [16.0–185.2], 60% [0–100]) and valve-type respirator (84.9 fit factors [14.2–170.8], 23.8 % [0–100]) in normal respiration. There was no clear preference regarding the type of respirator. Conclusion: The type of respirator could influence protective performance for health care providers. Health care providers in emergency medical centres should be aware of and wear the type of respirator that is well-fitted for them in advance.

scholarly journals COVID-19: Repeated video-watching vs. combined video-watching and live demonstration as training to health care providers for donning and doffing personal protective equipment

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yongxing Li ◽  
Yong Wang ◽  
Yuhui Li ◽  
Ming Zhong ◽  
Huihui Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Health Care Workers ◽  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Care Workers ◽  
Live Demonstration ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B

Abstract Background During the COVID-19 pandemic, not only was there a lack of personal protective equipment (PPE) for health care workers but a dearth in training in respect of its donning and doffing. This study compared two training methods for donning and doffing PPE in order to teach health care workers how to do so more effectively and quickly. Method A total of 48 health care workers were recruited and randomly divided into two groups. Group A watched a 10-minute demonstration (demo) video repeated four times, while Group B watched the same demo video twice followed by a 10-minute live demo twice. The learning time of both groups was the same, and an examination was performed immediately after the completion of training. The examination scores of Group A and Group B were recorded according to the checklist (Appendix 1). The time taken for the participants to don and doff PPE, their satisfaction with the training, and the confidence to don and doff PPE were analyzed. Results The average score of Group B was better than that of Group A, with a mean (SD) of 94.92 (1.72) vs. 86.63 (6.34), respectively (P < 0.001). The average time spent by Group B to do the examination was shorter than that of Group A, with a mean (SD) of 17.67 (1.01) vs. 21.75 (1.82), respectively (P < 0.001). The satisfaction and confidence of Group B were higher than those of group A (P < 0.001). Conclusions Compared with repeated video-watching learning, the video-watching plus a live demonstration teaching method is more suitable for health care workers to learn how to put on and remove personal protective equipment.

scholarly journals Spectrum of HRCT findings among asymptomatic and recovered COVID-19 patients: how did they impact the clinical decision?

2020 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmed Samir ◽  
Mohamed Saied Abdelgawad ◽  
Ayman Ibrahim Baess ◽  
Hebatallah Hassan Mamdouh Hassan
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Lung Volume ◽  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Initial Screening ◽  
Expert Consultant ◽  
Spread Of Infection

Abstract Background Decisions about asymptomatic COVID-19 patients are always critical, either during initial screening or during recovery. Spread of infection will be inevitable if those patients were left non-isolated. This study aimed not only to survey spectrum of HRCT findings of COVID-19 among asymptomatic and recovered patients but also to record unexpected results and document their impact upon the clinical decision. Results The study was retrospectively conducted, during June and July 2020, on 120 patients proved with COVID-19, during initial HRCT screening or delayed following announcement of recovery. All patients were completely asymptomatic. They included 72 males and 48 females (60%:40%). Their age ranged from 10 to 58 years (mean 35.95 ± 12.25 SD). HRCT was analyzed by three expert consultant radiologists in consensus. Among asymptomatic initially screened COVID-19 patients, additional to GGOs, bilateral consolidative changes were unexpectedly found together with secondary fibrosis (23.3% and 10%). HRCT results significantly impacted the clinical decision (P < 0.0001); PCR had to be repeated with home isolation (43.3%). Infected health care providers had to stop their duty immediately (20%). Isolated hospitalization replaced routine ward admission (25%). Cautious surgical interference was performed using full personal protective equipment (PPE) (8.3%). Among asymptomatic recovered COVID-19 patients, unexpected large lesions (> 3 cm) were found (70%). Near 50% of lung volume was persistently affected (10%). Secondary fibrosis was striking (33%). Encysted hydro-pneumothorax persisted for a whole month (1.7%). “No-isolation” decision remained unchanged because of clinical and laboratory stability; however, steroids were prescribed to speed lung recovery. Conclusion HRCT findings among asymptomatic and recovered COVID-19 patients can be unexpected and can definitely impact the clinical decision.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document