Infection Control Practices among Laboratory Healthcare Workers in an Urban Local Government Area of Lagos State, Nigeria

Background: Laboratory healthcare workers do handle a wide range of potentially dangerous materials which exposes them to numerous hazards. This study aimed to assess the practices of laboratory health care workers towards safety, infection control and the associated factors to its practices. Case Presentation: A cross-sectional study was conducted among 181 laboratory healthcare workers in all registered 33 laboratory facilities in Ikeja Local Government Area in 2017. Data were collected with pre-tested, structured self-administered questionnaires. Data analysed with SPSS version 20 and p-value of < 0.05. The mean age of respondents was 35.0 ± 2.45 years, most of whom were females (57.7%) and married (61.1%). The majority (98.9%) demonstrated good knowledge of infection control. A total of 62.3% identified hand washing as the most important infection control practice while HIV and Tuberculosis were diseases respondents majorly considered as high risk of contracting. A total of 84.6% of the respondents showed good practices. Limited availability of personal protective equipment in the laboratories was a major barrier identified by 98.1% of respondents. Respondents displayed good knowledge, attitude and practice of infection control. Discussion and Conclusion: Barrier to infection control was the limited availability of personal protective equipment. Therefore, concerted efforts should be mustered to ensure continuous training and retraining with the provision of personal protective equipment.

Download Full-text

Practices of Healthcare Workers regarding Infection Prevention in Bale Zone Hospitals, Southeast Ethiopia

Advances in Public Health ◽

10.1155/2020/4198081 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 2020 ◽

pp. 1-7 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Demisu Zenbaba ◽

Biniyam Sahiledengle ◽

Daniel Bogale

Keyword(s):

Personal Protective Equipment ◽

Healthcare Workers ◽

Infection Prevention ◽

Simple Random Sampling ◽

Healthcare Services ◽

Good Knowledge ◽

Work Place ◽

Protective Equipment ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Bale Zone

Introduction. In Ethiopia, infection prevention to protect patients, healthcare workers, and visitors from healthcare-acquired infections is one of a number of nationwide transformational initiatives to ensure the provision of quality healthcare services. The aim of this research was to assess the practice of healthcare workers regarding infection prevention and its associated factors in Bale zone Hospitals. Methods. A cross-sectional study targeted 402 healthcare workers using simple random sampling to learn about their practices related to infection prevention. Data were collected in interviews using pretested, structured questionnaires. Returned questionnaires were checked for completeness and then data were entered into a database and analyzed using SPSS Version 20. Adjusted odd ratio (AOR) with a 95% confidence interval was calculated to determine the strength of association, and variables with a p value <0.05 in the final model were considered as statistically significant. Results. Three hundred ninety-four healthcare workers participated in the study. Of these; 145 (36.8%, 95% CI 32, 42%) of them were found to have self-reported good infection prevention practice. Good knowledge towards infection prevention (AOR = 1.84, 95% CI 1.02, 3.31), availability of personal protective equipment (AOR = 1.96, 95% CI 1.16, 3.32), and water (AOR = 4.42, 95% 2.66, 7.34) at workplace were found to have a statistically significant association with healthcare workers self-reported good infection prevention practices. Conclusions. In this study, slightly more than one-third of the healthcare workers reported to have good infection prevention practice. Good knowledge towards infection prevention, working in departments, availability of personal protective equipment, and water at work place were found to have statistically significant association with self-reported good infection prevention practices.

Download Full-text

COVID-19 Guidelines to Protect Healthcare Workers at Hospitals and Dental Professionals at Dental Office

Ethiopian Journal of Health Sciences ◽

10.4314/ejhs.v30i6.23 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 30 (6) ◽

Author(s):

Bassel Tarakji ◽

Mohammad Zakaria Nassani ◽

Faisal Mehsen Alali ◽

Abdulwahab A. Abuderman

Keyword(s):

Infection Control ◽

Personal Protective Equipment ◽

Healthcare Workers ◽

Dental Treatment ◽

Health Workers ◽

The Body ◽

Protective Equipment ◽

Dental Office ◽

Control Procedures ◽

Dental Professionals

BACKGROUND፡ Coronavirus disease 2019 is an infectious disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. This study aimed to address the preventive procedures to protect healthcare workers at hospital to avoid COVID-19, and infection control procedures to protect dental professionals in dental office.METHODS: We conducted a search of published articles from PubMed, google scholar databases using key words such as COVID-19, healthcare worker, infection control, and dental practice. Relevant articles were identified and reviewed. Most published papers were clinical reports and case studies. We have selected some of the current published papers written in English in 2020.RESULTS: Infection control procedures to protect health workers at hospitals, and dental professionals at dental office were summurised and presented. Infection control procedures for healthcare workers at hospitals include Personal protective equipment, Korea filter (KF)94 respirator, goggles, face protector,disposable waterproof long-arm gown, and gloves, and others. Extra-protection procedures should be taken with old and vulnerable healthcare workers. Dental professionals should evaluate patients in advance before starting dental treatment. Aerosols generating procedures should be avoided and personal protective equipment should be used. Dental treatment should be restricted to emergency cases only.CONCLUSION: Old medical staff should be in safer distance to avoid infection, but young physicians and nurses should work at frontline as their immunity is better than their colleagues at old age. Screening patients and measurement of the body temperature are essential measures before dental treatment.

Download Full-text

Protocols and safety measurements used in intubation of COVID-19 patients

International Journal of Community Medicine and Public Health ◽

10.18203/2394-6040.ijcmph20220008 ◽

2022 ◽

Author(s):

Ahmed Fouad Bogari ◽

Nada Mohmmad Alharbi ◽

Mohammed Abdulrahman Alaqlan ◽

Turki Salem Aljaza ◽

Ali Ibrahim Alibrahim ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Literature Review ◽

Infection Control ◽

Operating Room ◽

Personal Protective Equipment ◽

Healthcare Workers ◽

Protective Equipment ◽

Critical Approach ◽

Research Papers ◽

Anesthesia Equipment ◽

Proper Disposal

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced many countries to pose an emergency to contain the contamination and prevent the further spread of the infection. In this context, many societies and research papers were published to optimize guidelines and protocols for patients undergoing surgery and subsequent intubation. Accordingly, infection control is a critical approach to reduce the rate of contamination and risk of catching infections for suspected and confirmed COVID-19 patients. As a result, various guidelines were discussed in the current literature review, including guidelines to the patient, healthcare workers, operating room, anesthesia equipment, and patient transportation. For instance, healthcare workers can protect themselves from catching infections by wearing personal protective equipment and conducting adequate disinfection measures following each operation, in addition to the proper disposal of the contaminated objects. Strictly following these protocols should be done to reduce the risk of contamination in the operating room and enhance the outcomes of the patients and healthcare workers.

Download Full-text

Determining the source of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection in a healthcare worker

10.1101/2020.04.27.20077016 ◽

2020 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Nasia Safdar ◽

Gage K. Moreno ◽

Katarina M. Braun ◽

Thomas C. Friedrich ◽

David H. O’Connor

Keyword(s):

Infection Control ◽

Healthcare Worker ◽

Personal Protective Equipment ◽

Healthcare Workers ◽

Total Population ◽

Protective Equipment ◽

Hospital Infection Control ◽

Risk Of Exposure ◽

N95 Respirators ◽

Cumulative Prevalence

BackgroundHealthcare workers (HCWs) are at the frontlines of the COVID-19 pandemic and are at risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 infection from their interactions with patients and in the community (1, 2). Limited availability of recommended personal protective equipment (PPE), in particular N95 respirators, has fueled concerns about whether HCWs are adequately protected from exposure while caring for patients. Understanding the source of SARS-CoV-2 infection in a HCW – the community or the healthcare system – is critical for understanding the effectiveness of hospital infection control and PPE practices. In Dane County, Wisconsin, community prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 is relatively low (cumulative prevalence of ~0.06% – positive cases / total population in Dane county as of April 17). Although SARS-CoV-2 infections in HCWs are often presumed to be acquired during the course of patient care, there are few reports unambiguously identifying the source of acquisition.ObjectiveTo determine the source of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in a healthcare worker.

Download Full-text

Should neurosurgeons continue to work in the absence of personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 era?

Acta Neurochirurgica ◽

10.1007/s00701-021-04703-8 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 163 (3) ◽

pp. 593-598 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Marleen Eijkholt ◽

Alexander Hulsbergen ◽

Ivo Muskens ◽

Tiit Illimar Mathiesen ◽

Ciaran Bolger ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Personal Protective Equipment ◽

Healthcare Workers ◽

Protective Equipment ◽

Moral Decision ◽

Ethical Considerations ◽

High Demand ◽

Limited Availability ◽

Challenging Issue ◽

Limited Efficacy ◽

Professional Responsibilities

AbstractThe COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a widespread shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE). Many healthcare workers, including neurosurgeons, have expressed concern about how to safely and adequately perform their medical responsibilities in these challenging circumstances. One of these concerns revolves around the pressing question: should providers continue to work in the absence of adequate PPE? Although the first peak of the COVID-19 crisis seems to have subsided and supply of PPE has increased, concerns about insufficient PPE availability remain. Inconsistent supply, limited efficacy, and continued high demand for PPE, combined with the continued threat of a second COVID-19 wave, mean that the issues surrounding PPE availability remain unresolved, including a duty to work. This paper offers an ethical investigation of whether neurosurgeons should perform their professional responsibilities with limited availability of PPE. We evaluate ethical considerations and conflicting duties and thereby hope to facilitate providers in making a well-considered personal and moral decision about this challenging issue.

Download Full-text

Potential application of novel technology developed for instant decontamination of personal protective equipment before the doffing step

PLoS ONE ◽

10.1371/journal.pone.0250854 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 16 (6) ◽

pp. e0250854

Author(s):

Luís Alberto Brêda Mascarenhas ◽

Bruna Aparecida Souza Machado ◽

Leticia de Alencar Pereira Rodrigues ◽

Katharine Valéria Saraiva Hodel ◽

Alex Álisson Bandeira Santos ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Infection Control ◽

Personal Protective Equipment ◽

Healthcare Workers ◽

Hospital Environment ◽

Protective Equipment ◽

Percentage Reduction ◽

Experimental Conditions ◽

Novel Technology ◽

Viable Cells ◽

Additional Barrier

The use of personal protective equipment (PPE) has been considered the most effective way to avoid the contamination of healthcare workers by different microorganisms, including SARS-CoV-2. A spray disinfection technology (chamber) was developed, and its efficacy in instant decontamination of previously contaminated surfaces was evaluated in two exposure times. Seven test microorganisms were prepared and inoculated on the surface of seven types of PPE (respirator mask, face shield, shoe, glove, cap, safety glasses and lab coat). The tests were performed on previously contaminated PPE using a manikin with a motion device for exposure to the chamber with biocidal agent (sodium hypochlorite) for 10 and 30s. In 96.93% of the experimental conditions analyzed, the percentage reduction was >99% (the number of viable cells found on the surface ranged from 4.3x106 to <10 CFU/mL). The samples of E. faecalis collected from the glove showed the lowest percentages reduction, with 86.000 and 86.500% for exposure times of 10 and 30 s, respectively. The log10 reduction values varied between 0.85 log10 (E. faecalis at 30 s in glove surface) and 9.69 log10 (E. coli at 10 and 30 s in lab coat surface). In general, E. coli, S. aureus, C. freundii, P. mirabilis, C. albicans and C. parapsilosis showed susceptibility to the biocidal agent under the tested conditions, with >99% reduction after 10 and 30s, while E. faecalis and P. aeruginosa showed a lower susceptibility. The 30s exposure time was more effective for the inactivation of the tested microorganisms. The results show that the spray disinfection technology has the potential for instant decontamination of PPE, which can contribute to an additional barrier for infection control of healthcare workers in the hospital environment.

Download Full-text

Hospital-wide SARS-CoV-2 antibody screening of staff in a university psychiatric centre in Belgium

BJPsych Open ◽

10.1192/bjo.2020.172 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 7 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Kawtar El Abdellati ◽

Violette Coppens ◽

Jobbe Goossens ◽

Heidi Theeten ◽

Pierre Van Damme ◽

...

Keyword(s):

General Population ◽

Immunoglobulin G ◽

Personal Protective Equipment ◽

Healthcare Workers ◽

Healthcare Providers ◽

Protective Equipment ◽

Antibody Screening ◽

Limited Availability ◽

Staff Members ◽

Psychiatric Facilities

In this first serosurvey among psychiatric healthcare providers, only 3.2% of a sample of 431 staff members of a Belgian University Psychiatric Centre, screened 3–17 June 2020, had SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G antibodies, which is considerably lower compared with both the general population and other healthcare workers in Belgium. The low seroprevalence was unexpected, given the limited availability of personal protective equipment and the high amount of COVID-19 symptoms reported by staff members. Importantly, exposure at home predicted the presence of antibodies, but exposure at work did not. Measures to prevent transmission from staff to patients are warranted in psychiatric facilities.

Download Full-text

Perspective of healthcare workers regarding self-protection during COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional study from Saudi Arabia

International Journal of ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES ◽

10.21833/ijaas.2021.02.014 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 8 (2) ◽

pp. 101-105

Author(s):

Alshahrani et al. ◽

Keyword(s):

Saudi Arabia ◽

Infection Control ◽

Personal Protective Equipment ◽

Healthcare Workers ◽

Treatment Algorithm ◽

Protective Equipment ◽

Infection Control Team ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Control Team ◽

Self Protection

The aim of this study was to assess the perception of healthcare workers regarding self-protection during the COVID-19 pandemic in Saudi Arabia. The novel COVID-19 pandemic has completely changed the dynamic of governments, social lives, global economy, and health care systems priorities. Healthcare workers (HCWs) are one of the most group of people at risk of acquiring the infection, especially those who are taking care of COVID-19 patients. This cross-sectional survey-based study was conducted among HCWs during the period between May to July 2020 in Saudi Arabia. More than 70% of participating HCWs were able to access the personal safety policies and procedures in the workplace and COVID-19 treatment algorithm. In addition, the presence of an infection control team was also present in most of the institutes. The most common accessible personal protective equipment was hand gel sanitizer (89.9%), followed by disposable gloves (82.5%) and disposable masks (78.9%). More than 75% of participants reported that their institute has a special infection control team during the COVID-19 pandemic. Most of the respondents (~75%) believe that their institute would take all necessary measurements to protect their personal integrity at work. Several precautionary measures were undertaken appropriately by the Saudi Government to overcome the COVID-19 immediate and futuristic consequences. Personal protective equipment and protective measures would be crucial for public health if implemented appropriately during highly spreading infections (e.g., COVID-19) to minimize the transmission and preserve health

Download Full-text

Viral Genomics to Inform Infection-control Response in Occupational Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Transmission

Clinical Infectious Diseases ◽

10.1093/cid/ciaa1385 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Naomi C A Whyler ◽

Norelle L Sherry ◽

Courtney R Lane ◽

Torsten Seemann ◽

Patiyan Andersson ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome ◽

Infection Control ◽

Personal Protective Equipment ◽

Healthcare Workers ◽

Genomic Sequencing ◽

Protective Equipment ◽

Viral Genomics ◽

Subsequent Response ◽

Increased Risk ◽

Control Response

Abstract Healthcare workers are at increased risk of occupational transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We report 2 instances of healthcare workers contracting SARS-CoV-2 despite no known breach of personal protective equipment. Additional specific equipment cleaning was initiated. Viral genomic sequencing supported this transmission hypothesis and our subsequent response.

Download Full-text

Cluster of Cases of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Among Toronto Healthcare Workers After Implementation of Infection Control Precautions: A Case Series

Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology ◽

10.1086/504363 ◽

2006 ◽

Vol 27 (5) ◽

pp. 473-478 ◽

Cited By ~ 42

Author(s):

Marianna Ofner-Agostini ◽

Denise Gravel ◽

L. Clifford McDonald ◽

Marcus Lem ◽

Shelley Sarwal ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome ◽

Infection Control ◽

Personal Protective Equipment ◽

Healthcare Workers ◽

High Risk Patient ◽

Case Series ◽

Case Definition ◽

Protective Equipment ◽

Proper Order ◽

Cleaning Equipment

Objective.To review the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) infection control practices, the types of exposure to patients with SARS, and the activities associated with treatment of such patients among healthcare workers (HCWs) who developed SARS in Toronto, Canada, after SARS-specific infection control precautions had been implemented.Methods.A retrospective review of work logs and patient assignments, detailed review of medical records of patients with SARS, and comprehensive telephone-based interviews of HCWs who met the case definition for SARS after implementation of infection control precautions.Results.Seventeen HCWs from 6 hospitals developed disease that met the case definition for SARS after implementation of infection control precautions. These HCWs had a mean age ( ± SD) of 39 ± 2.3 years. Two HCWs were not interviewed because of illness. Of the remaining 15, only 9 (60%) reported that they had received formal infection control training. Thirteen HCWs (87%) were unsure of proper order in which personal protective equipment should be donned and doffed. Six HCWs (40%) reused items (eg, stethoscopes, goggles, and cleaning equipment) elsewhere on the ward after initial use in a room in which a patient with SARS was staying. Use of masks, gowns, gloves, and eyewear was inconsistent among HCWs. Eight (54%) reported that they were aware of a breach in infection control precautions. HCWs reported fatigue due to an increase number and length of shifts; participants worked a median of 10 shifts during the 10 days before onset of symptoms. Seven HCWs were involved in the intubation of a patient with SARS. One HCW died, and the remaining 16 recovered.Conclusion.Multiple factors were likely responsible for SARS in these HCWs, including the performance of high-risk patient care procedures, inconsistent use of personal protective equipment, fatigue, and lack of adequate infection control training.

Download Full-text