A Study to Assess the Usage of Personal Protective Equipment among Health Care Providers Working in Covid-19 Wards in Pune City, Maharashtra

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.

Download Full-text

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

10.21203/rs.3.rs-30517/v1 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

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

Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine ◽

10.1186/s43055-020-00356-2 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

A study on personal protective equipment use among health care providers, Tamil Nadu

International Journal of Community Medicine and Public Health ◽

10.18203/2394-6040.ijcmph20181380 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 5 (5) ◽

pp. 1771 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Archana Lakshmi P. A. ◽

Gladius Jennifer H. ◽

Meriton Stanly A. ◽

Christina Mary Paul

Keyword(s):

Health Care ◽

Health Care Providers ◽

Personal Protective Equipment ◽

Tamil Nadu ◽

Cross Sectional Study ◽

Protective Equipment ◽

Care Providers ◽

Appropriate Use ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Inappropriate Use

Background: Personal protective equipment (PPE) limits the health care workers contact with all secretions or biological products. This study was planned to find gaps between use of PPE among the health care providers (HCPs). The objective of the study was to evaluate appropriate use of PPE among health care providers in tertiary centres Tamil Nadu.Methods: A cross sectional study was done during November 2014 to October 2015 in two tertiary health care institutions. All health care providers (Doctors, nurses and technicians) who had more than one year experience and gave informed consent were included. Data collected by pretested structured questionnaire. Data analysis was done using SPSS 20v and summarized by descriptive statistics. Proportion and Chi-square was calculated at 5% α.Results: HCPs included in the study were 1060. Among them, there were 412(38.9%) doctors, 550 (51.9%) nurses and 98 (9.2%) technicians. Among 862 HCPs who work outside the operation theatre (OT) and ICU, appropriate uses of PPE were only 156 (18.1%). It was high among doctors 109 (31.5%) followed by nurses 39 (9.3%) and technicians 8 (8.2%) which was statistically significant p=0.0001. HCPs working in OT and ICU were 423 and 183 respectively. Among HCPs working in OT, appropriate use of gloves, mask, apron, gown and hair cover was 100%. But the use of goggles and shoe cover was very low. The reasons for inappropriate use of PPE was non availability 562 (78%) followed by not aware of the importance 77 (11%).Conclusions: The study showed inappropriate use and lack of adequate knowledge on infection control practices emphasizing that periodic re-training is needed.

Download Full-text

Personal protective equipment use and face acne in health care providers during the COVID‐19 pandemic in Romania: a new occupational acne type?

Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology ◽

10.1111/jdv.17679 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

S Cretu ◽

M Dascalu ◽

SR Georgescu ◽

CM Salavastru

Keyword(s):

Health Care ◽

Health Care Providers ◽

Personal Protective Equipment ◽

Protective Equipment ◽

Care Providers

Download Full-text

Sheet Barrier and Intubating Stylet

Encyclopedia ◽

10.3390/encyclopedia1040081 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

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

Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness ◽

10.1017/dmp.2020.354 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 1-8 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

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

Download Full-text

Evolving Management of COVID-19: A Multi-institutional Otolaryngology Perspective

Otolaryngology ◽

10.1177/0194599820930244 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 163 (2) ◽

pp. 259-264 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Johanna L. Wickemeyer ◽

Kathleen R. Billings ◽

Taher S. Valika

Keyword(s):

North America ◽

Health Care Providers ◽

Personal Protective Equipment ◽

Online Survey ◽

National Level ◽

Current Data ◽

Protective Equipment ◽

Care Providers ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Increased Risk

Objective To provide evolving information on active protocols regarding inpatient, outpatient, procedural, and surgical case management taking place in otolaryngology practices in response to COVID-19. Study Type Cross-sectional multi-institutional survey. Methods An online survey of 55 otolaryngology departments across North America. Results As of March 25, 2020, almost all (n = 53 of 55, 96.3%) otolaryngology departments had canceled elective cases and were performing only urgent consults. Most residents continued to participate in operative cases (n = 45 of 49, 91.8%) and take call (n = 48 of 50, 96.0%). Of the respondents, 27 of 29 (93.1%) stated that they were deferring nonemergent tracheostomy procedures for the time being. The use of personal protective equipment followed a general trend of an increasing level of protection with an increased risk of the procedure; most (n = 49 of 54, 90.7%) incorporated N95 mask usage for bedside/clinic examinations with flexible laryngoscopy. Powered air-purifying respirators and N95 masks were used mainly for procedures involving the mucosal surfaces. Discussion Due to the high viral density in the nasal cavity and nasopharynx of patients with COVID-19, basic examinations and common otolaryngology procedures place practitioners at high risk of exposure. Although there is variability in practice among otolaryngologists across North America in managing the COVID-19 outbreak, most are primarily seeing urgent ambulatory and inpatient consultations. Most are also incorporating personal protective equipment appropriate to the level of transmission across mucous membranes. Implications for Practice In these rapidly evolving times, it is helpful to find solidarity and assurance among health care providers. Current data aimed to provide (1) perceived methods regarding the safe care of otolaryngology patients and (2) updated practice patterns at a national level.

Download Full-text