Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to contact with contaminated body fluids in health care staff

Nurses' compliance to standard precautions prior to and during COVID-19

AIMS

To measure nurses' compliance with standard precautions during the COVID-19 pandemic, compare findings with previous assessments and describe the barriers affecting nurses' compliance.

BACKGROUND

Healthcare providers' compliance with standard precautions is still limited worldwide. Implementation of infection control policies in hospitals is needed internationally, especially during a pandemic. Surprisingly, studies exploring nurses' compliance with standard precautions are lacking during COVID-19.

METHODS

A multicenter cross-sectional study was adopted in two Italian hospitals. Nurses' compliance with standard precautions was measured through The Compliance with Standard Precautions Scale (Italian version). An open-ended question explored the barriers to nurses' compliance with standard precautions. Reporting, followed the STROBE guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 201 nurses were enrolled in 2020. Nurses' compliance with standard precautions was suboptimal. A statistically significant improvement in the compliance rate with standard precautions was observed between pre- and during COVID-19 assessments. High compliance was found in the appropriate use of surgical masks, gloves and sharps disposal. Nurses perceived personal, structural and organizational barriers to standard precautions adherence.

CONCLUSION

Nurses' compliance with standard precautions was not 100%, and different factors impeded nurses to work safely. Our findings provide institutional leaders and educators with the basis for implementing policies to optimize nurse safety, well-being and patient care.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING AND HEALTH POLICIES

Nurses have the right to work safely, and when the shortage of personal protective equipment and nurses during an emergency threatens healthcare quality worldwide, policymakers are challenged to act by establishing an effective allocation of resources for consistent compliance with standard precautions. Moreover, nurses should actively engage in the implementation of infection control policies to improve safe behaviours among citizens and students accessing hospitals.

[Practical Application of Body Mechanics Principles in the Process of Health Workers Doffing Personal Protective Equipment]

Objective

To examine the application effect of body mechanics principles in the process of health workers doffing personal protective equipment (PPE).

Methods

A total of 360 health workers from a Fangcang shelter hospital, also known as alternate care site, in Shanghai were involved in a centralized 1-day training concerning essential skills for taking off PPE. The training was focused on integrating body mechanics principles, including expanding the support surface, lowering the center of gravity, reducing the shift in the the center of gravity, using the principle of leverage, and creating the appropriate operating space, in the PPE doffing process. Through remote video monitoring and recording, observations were made of the physical stability, pollution risks, and operational smoothness of the health workers when they applied body mechanics principles in their actions.

Results

The results of binary logistic regression showed that, compared with the actions taken without applying body mechanics principles, performing the operation of the body leaning forward and then slightly leaning backward was positively correlated with stability in the doffing process (odds ratio [O R]=3.291, 95% confidence interval [ CI]: 1.627-6.656), negatively correlated with pollution risks ( OR=0.203, 95% CI: 0.100-0.412), and positively correlated with operational smoothness ( OR=20.847, 95% CI: 8.061-53.916); performing the operation of taking off the boot sleeve in a horse-riding stance, with one foot standing ahead of the other, was positively correlated with stability ( OR=5.299, 95% CI: 1.041-26.957), negatively correlated with pollution risks ( OR=0.079, 95% CI: 0.009-0.692), and positive correlated with operational smoothness ( OR=16.729, 95% CI: 1.238-226.077); performing the operation of taking off the boot sleeve by lifting the heel and then the toes was positively correlated with stability ( OR=19.361, 95% CI: 8.391-44.671), negatively correlated with pollution risks ( OR=0.181, 95% CI: 0.084-0.393), and positively correlated with operational smoothness ( OR=10.977, 95% CI: 3.764-32.008); performing the operation of the leaning forward and keeping the face looking forward when taking off the mask was positively correlated with stability ( OR=2.935, 95% CI: 1.412-6.101), negatively correlated with pollution risks ( OR=0.123, 95% CI: 0.059-0.258), and positively correlated with operational smoothness ( OR=18.126, 95% CI: 6.665-49.297).

Conclusion

In the process of medical staffs doffing PPE, correct and proper mechanical postures and actions can effectively assist medical staffs to maintain balance and stability and reduce the risks of infection, which has major significance and should be widely incorporated in personal protection skills training and applied in clinical practice.

A mixed-methods analysis of personal protective equipment used in Lassa fever treatment centres in Nigeria

Background

Lassa fever (LF) is a viral haemorrhagic fever endemic in West Africa. Lassa virus is maintained in and spread to humans from rodents, with occasional secondary human-to-human transmission. Present recommendations for personal protective equipment (PPE) for care of patients with LF generally follow those for filovirus diseases. However, the need for such high-level PPE for LF, which is thought to be considerably less transmissible between humans than filoviruses, is unclear.

Aim

In Nigerian Lassa Treatment Centres (LTCs) we aimed to describe current PPE practices, identify barriers and facilitators to implementation of existing guidance, and assess healthcare workers' understanding. This would inform the development of future PPE guidelines for LF.

Methods

We performed a mixed-methods study, including short cross-sectional surveys of PPE used in LTCs, observations of practice, and in-depth interviews with key informants. We described the quantitative data and we conducted a thematic analysis of qualitative data.

Findings

Our survey of 74 HCWs found that approximately half reported problems with recommended PPE. In three LTCs PPE was used highly variably. Full PPE, as recommended in Nigeria CDC guidelines, was used in less than a quarter (21%) of interactions. In-depth interviews suggested this was based on availability and HCWs' own risk assessments.

Conclusion

Without specific guidance on Lassa, the current approach is both resource and labour-intensive, where these are both limited. This has led to low adherence by health care workers, whose own experience indicates lower risk. The evidence-base to inform PPE required for LF must be improved to inform a more tailored approach.

Emergency department impaired adherence to personal protective equipment donning and doffing protocols during the COVID-19 pandemic

Objectives

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a highly infectious viral pandemic that has claimed the lives of millions. Personal protective equipment (PPE) may reduce the risk of transmission for health care workers (HCWs), especially in the emergency setting. This study aimed to compare the adherence to PPE donning and doffing protocols in the Emergency Department (ED) vs designated COVID-19 wards and score adherence according to the steps in our protocol.

Design

Prior to managing COVID-19 patients, mandatory PPE training was undertaken for all HCWs. HCWs were observed donning or doffing COVID-19 restricted areas.

Setting

Donning and doffing was observed in COVID-19 designated Emergency department and compared to COVID-19 positive wards.

Participants

All HCWs working in the aforementioned wards during the time of observation.

Results

We observed 107 donning and doffing procedures (30 were observed in the ED). 50% HCWs observed donned PPE correctly and 37% doffed correctly. The ED had a significantly lower mean donning score (ED: 78%, Internal: 95% ICU: 96%, p < 0.001); and a significantly lower mean doffing score (ED: 72%, Internal: 85% ICU: 91%, p = 0.02).

Conclusions

As hypothesized, HCWs assigned to the designated ED wing made more protocol deviations compared with HCWs positive COVID-19 wards. Time management, acuity, lack of personnel, stress and known COVID-19 status may explain the lesser adherence to donning and doffing protocols. Further studies to assess the correlation between protocol deviations in use of PPE and morbidity as well as improvement implementations are required. Resources should be invested to ensure PPE is properly used.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13584-021-00477-7.

Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff

BACKGROUND

In epidemics of highly infectious diseases, such as Ebola, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), or coronavirus (COVID-19), healthcare workers (HCW) are at much greater risk of infection than the general population, due to their contact with patients' contaminated body fluids. Personal protective equipment (PPE) can reduce the risk by covering exposed body parts. It is unclear which type of PPE protects best, what is the best way to put PPE on (i.e. donning) or to remove PPE (i.e. doffing), and how to train HCWs to use PPE as instructed.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate which type of full-body PPE and which method of donning or doffing PPE have the least risk of contamination or infection for HCW, and which training methods increase compliance with PPE protocols.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL to 20 March 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all controlled studies that evaluated the effect of full-body PPE used by HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases, on the risk of infection, contamination, or noncompliance with protocols. We also included studies that compared the effect of various ways of donning or doffing PPE, and the effects of training on the same outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in included trials. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses were appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

Earlier versions of this review were published in 2016 and 2019. In this update, we included 24 studies with 2278 participants, of which 14 were randomised controlled trials (RCT), one was a quasi-RCT and nine had a non-randomised design. Eight studies compared types of PPE. Six studies evaluated adapted PPE. Eight studies compared donning and doffing processes and three studies evaluated types of training. Eighteen studies used simulated exposure with fluorescent markers or harmless microbes. In simulation studies, median contamination rates were 25% for the intervention and 67% for the control groups. Evidence for all outcomes is of very low certainty unless otherwise stated because it is based on one or two studies, the indirectness of the evidence in simulation studies and because of risk of bias. Types of PPE The use of a powered, air-purifying respirator with coverall may protect against the risk of contamination better than a N95 mask and gown (risk ratio (RR) 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.43) but was more difficult to don (non-compliance: RR 7.5, 95% CI 1.81 to 31.1). In one RCT (59 participants) coveralls were more difficult to doff than isolation gowns (very low-certainty evidence). Gowns may protect better against contamination than aprons (small patches: mean difference (MD) -10.28, 95% CI -14.77 to -5.79). PPE made of more breathable material may lead to a similar number of spots on the trunk (MD 1.60, 95% CI -0.15 to 3.35) compared to more water-repellent material but may have greater user satisfaction (MD -0.46, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.08, scale of 1 to 5). According to three studies that tested more recently introduced full-body PPE ensembles, there may be no difference in contamination. Modified PPE versus standard PPE The following modifications to PPE design may lead to less contamination compared to standard PPE: sealed gown and glove combination (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.78), a better fitting gown around the neck, wrists and hands (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.55), a better cover of the gown-wrist interface (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.78, low-certainty evidence), added tabs to grab to facilitate doffing of masks (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.80) or gloves (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.31). Donning and doffing Using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations for doffing may lead to less contamination compared to no guidance (small patches: MD -5.44, 95% CI -7.43 to -3.45). One-step removal of gloves and gown may lead to less bacterial contamination (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.77) but not to less fluorescent contamination (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28) than separate removal. Double-gloving may lead to less viral or bacterial contamination compared to single gloving (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.66) but not to less fluorescent contamination (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28). Additional spoken instruction may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -0.9, 95% CI -1.4 to -0.4) and to fewer contamination spots (MD -5, 95% CI -8.08 to -1.92). Extra sanitation of gloves before doffing with quaternary ammonium or bleach may decrease contamination, but not alcohol-based hand rub. Training The use of additional computer simulation may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -1.2, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.7). A video lecture on donning PPE may lead to better skills scores (MD 30.70, 95% CI 20.14 to 41.26) than a traditional lecture. Face-to-face instruction may reduce noncompliance with doffing guidance more (odds ratio 0.45, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.98) than providing folders or videos only.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low- to very low-certainty evidence that covering more parts of the body leads to better protection but usually comes at the cost of more difficult donning or doffing and less user comfort. More breathable types of PPE may lead to similar contamination but may have greater user satisfaction. Modifications to PPE design, such as tabs to grab, may decrease the risk of contamination. For donning and doffing procedures, following CDC doffing guidance, a one-step glove and gown removal, double-gloving, spoken instructions during doffing, and using glove disinfection may reduce contamination and increase compliance. Face-to-face training in PPE use may reduce errors more than folder-based training. We still need RCTs of training with long-term follow-up. We need simulation studies with more participants to find out which combinations of PPE and which doffing procedure protects best. Consensus on simulation of exposure and assessment of outcome is urgently needed. We also need more real-life evidence. Therefore, the use of PPE of HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases should be registered and the HCW should be prospectively followed for their risk of infection.

Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff

BACKGROUND

In epidemics of highly infectious diseases, such as Ebola, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), or coronavirus (COVID-19), healthcare workers (HCW) are at much greater risk of infection than the general population, due to their contact with patients' contaminated body fluids. Personal protective equipment (PPE) can reduce the risk by covering exposed body parts. It is unclear which type of PPE protects best, what is the best way to put PPE on (i.e. donning) or to remove PPE (i.e. doffing), and how to train HCWs to use PPE as instructed.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate which type of full-body PPE and which method of donning or doffing PPE have the least risk of contamination or infection for HCW, and which training methods increase compliance with PPE protocols.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL to 20 March 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all controlled studies that evaluated the effect of full-body PPE used by HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases, on the risk of infection, contamination, or noncompliance with protocols. We also included studies that compared the effect of various ways of donning or doffing PPE, and the effects of training on the same outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in included trials. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses were appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

Earlier versions of this review were published in 2016 and 2019. In this update, we included 24 studies with 2278 participants, of which 14 were randomised controlled trials (RCT), one was a quasi-RCT and nine had a non-randomised design. Eight studies compared types of PPE. Six studies evaluated adapted PPE. Eight studies compared donning and doffing processes and three studies evaluated types of training. Eighteen studies used simulated exposure with fluorescent markers or harmless microbes. In simulation studies, median contamination rates were 25% for the intervention and 67% for the control groups. Evidence for all outcomes is of very low certainty unless otherwise stated because it is based on one or two studies, the indirectness of the evidence in simulation studies and because of risk of bias. Types of PPE The use of a powered, air-purifying respirator with coverall may protect against the risk of contamination better than a N95 mask and gown (risk ratio (RR) 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.43) but was more difficult to don (non-compliance: RR 7.5, 95% CI 1.81 to 31.1). In one RCT (59 participants), people with a long gown had less contamination than those with a coverall, and coveralls were more difficult to doff (low-certainty evidence). Gowns may protect better against contamination than aprons (small patches: mean difference (MD) -10.28, 95% CI -14.77 to -5.79). PPE made of more breathable material may lead to a similar number of spots on the trunk (MD 1.60, 95% CI -0.15 to 3.35) compared to more water-repellent material but may have greater user satisfaction (MD -0.46, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.08, scale of 1 to 5). Modified PPE versus standard PPE The following modifications to PPE design may lead to less contamination compared to standard PPE: sealed gown and glove combination (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.78), a better fitting gown around the neck, wrists and hands (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.55), a better cover of the gown-wrist interface (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.78, low-certainty evidence), added tabs to grab to facilitate doffing of masks (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.80) or gloves (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.31). Donning and doffing Using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations for doffing may lead to less contamination compared to no guidance (small patches: MD -5.44, 95% CI -7.43 to -3.45). One-step removal of gloves and gown may lead to less bacterial contamination (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.77) but not to less fluorescent contamination (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28) than separate removal. Double-gloving may lead to less viral or bacterial contamination compared to single gloving (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.66) but not to less fluorescent contamination (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28). Additional spoken instruction may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -0.9, 95% CI -1.4 to -0.4) and to fewer contamination spots (MD -5, 95% CI -8.08 to -1.92). Extra sanitation of gloves before doffing with quaternary ammonium or bleach may decrease contamination, but not alcohol-based hand rub. Training The use of additional computer simulation may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -1.2, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.7). A video lecture on donning PPE may lead to better skills scores (MD 30.70, 95% CI 20.14 to 41.26) than a traditional lecture. Face-to-face instruction may reduce noncompliance with doffing guidance more (odds ratio 0.45, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.98) than providing folders or videos only.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low- to very low-certainty evidence that covering more parts of the body leads to better protection but usually comes at the cost of more difficult donning or doffing and less user comfort, and may therefore even lead to more contamination. More breathable types of PPE may lead to similar contamination but may have greater user satisfaction. Modifications to PPE design, such as tabs to grab, may decrease the risk of contamination. For donning and doffing procedures, following CDC doffing guidance, a one-step glove and gown removal, double-gloving, spoken instructions during doffing, and using glove disinfection may reduce contamination and increase compliance. Face-to-face training in PPE use may reduce errors more than folder-based training. We still need RCTs of training with long-term follow-up. We need simulation studies with more participants to find out which combinations of PPE and which doffing procedure protects best. Consensus on simulation of exposure and assessment of outcome is urgently needed. We also need more real-life evidence. Therefore, the use of PPE of HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases should be registered and the HCW should be prospectively followed for their risk of infection.

Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff

BACKGROUND

In epidemics of highly infectious diseases, such as Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) or Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), healthcare workers (HCW) are at much greater risk of infection than the general population, due to their contact with patients' contaminated body fluids. Contact precautions by means of personal protective equipment (PPE) can reduce the risk. It is unclear which type of PPE protects best, what is the best way to remove PPE, and how to make sure HCW use PPE as instructed.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate which type of full body PPE and which method of donning or doffing PPE have the least risk of self-contamination or infection for HCW, and which training methods increase compliance with PPE protocols.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE (PubMed up to 15 July 2018), Cochrane Central Register of Trials (CENTRAL up to 18 June 2019), Scopus (Scopus 18 June 2019), CINAHL (EBSCOhost 31 July 2018), and OSH-Update (up to 31 December 2018). We also screened reference lists of included trials and relevant reviews, and contacted NGOs and manufacturers of PPE.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all controlled studies that compared the effects of PPE used by HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases with serious consequences, such as Ebola or SARS, on the risk of infection, contamination, or noncompliance with protocols. This included studies that used simulated contamination with fluorescent markers or a non-pathogenic virus.We also included studies that compared the effect of various ways of donning or doffing PPE, and the effects of training in PPE use on the same outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in included trials. We planned to perform meta-analyses but did not find sufficiently similar studies to combine their results.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 studies with 1950 participants evaluating 21 interventions. Ten studies are Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs), one is a quasi RCT and six have a non-randomised controlled design. Two studies are awaiting assessment.Ten studies compared types of PPE but only six of these reported sufficient data. Six studies compared different types of donning and doffing and three studies evaluated different types of training. Fifteen studies used simulated exposure with fluorescent markers or harmless viruses. In simulation studies, contamination rates varied from 10% to 100% of participants for all types of PPE. In one study HCW were exposed to Ebola and in another to SARS.Evidence for all outcomes is based on single studies and is very low quality.Different types of PPEPPE made of more breathable material may not lead to more contamination spots on the trunk (Mean Difference (MD) 1.60 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) -0.15 to 3.35) than more water repellent material but may have greater user satisfaction (MD -0.46; 95% CI -0.84 to -0.08, scale of 1 to 5).Gowns may protect better against contamination than aprons (MD large patches -1.36 95% CI -1.78 to -0.94).The use of a powered air-purifying respirator may protect better than a simple ensemble of PPE without such respirator (Relative Risk (RR) 0.27; 95% CI 0.17 to 0.43).Five different PPE ensembles (such as gown vs. coverall, boots with or without covers, hood vs. cap, length and number of gloves) were evaluated in one study, but there were no event data available for compared groups.Alterations to PPE design may lead to less contamination such as added tabs to grab masks (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.80) or gloves (RR 0.22 95% CI 0.15 to 0.31), a sealed gown and glove combination (RR 0.27; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.78), or a better fitting gown around the neck, wrists and hands (RR 0.08; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.55) compared to standard PPE.Different methods of donning and doffing proceduresDouble gloving may lead to less contamination compared to single gloving (RR 0.36; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.78).Following CDC recommendations for doffing may lead to less contamination compared to no guidance (MD small patches -5.44; 95% CI -7.43 to -3.45).Alcohol-based hand rub used during the doffing process may not lead to less contamination than the use of a hypochlorite based solution (MD 4.00; 95% CI 0.47 to 34.24).Additional spoken instruction may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -0.9, 95% CI -1.4 to -0.4).Different types of trainingThe use of additional computer simulation may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -1.2, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.7).A video lecture on donning PPE may lead to better skills scores (MD 30.70; 95% CI 20.14,41.26) than a traditional lecture.Face to face instruction may reduce noncompliance with doffing guidance more (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.98) than providing folders or videos only.There were no studies on effects of training in the long term or on resource use.The quality of the evidence is very low for all comparisons because of high risk of bias in all studies, indirectness of evidence, and small numbers of participants.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found very low quality evidence that more breathable types of PPE may not lead to more contamination, but may have greater user satisfaction. Alterations to PPE, such as tabs to grab may decrease contamination. Double gloving, following CDC doffing guidance, and spoken instructions during doffing may reduce contamination and increase compliance. Face-to-face training in PPE use may reduce errors more than video or folder based training. Because data come from single small studies with high risk of bias, we are uncertain about the estimates of effects.We still need randomised controlled trials to find out which training works best in the long term. We need better simulation studies conducted with several dozen participants to find out which PPE protects best, and what is the safest way to remove PPE. Consensus on the best way to conduct simulation of exposure and assessment of outcome is urgently needed. HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases should have their use of PPE registered and should be prospectively followed for their risk of infection in the field.

Role of Human Factors Engineering in Infection Prevention: Gaps and Opportunities

Human factors engineering (HFE), with its focus on studying how humans interact with systems, including their physical and organizational environment, the tools and technologies they use, and the tasks they perform, provides principles, tools, and techniques for systematically identifying important factors, for analyzing and evaluating how these factors interact to increase or decrease the risk of Healthcare-associated infections (HAI), and for identifying and implementing effective preventive measures. We reviewed the literature on HFE and infection prevention and control and identified major themes to document how researchers and infection prevention staff have used HFE methods to prevent HAIs and to identify gaps in our knowledge about the role of HFE in HAI prevention and control. Our literature review found that most studies in the healthcare domain explicitly applying (HFE) principles and methods addressed patient safety issues not infection prevention and control issues. In addition, most investigators who applied human factors principles and methods to infection prevention issues assessed only one human factors element such as training, technology evaluations, or physical environment design. The most significant gap pertains to the limited use and application of formal HFE tools and methods. Every infection prevention study need not assess all components in a system, but investigators must assess the interaction of critical system components if they want to address latent and deep-rooted human factors problems.