1
|
Lyu X, Hu J, Xu X, Xianyu Y, Dong W. Factors influencing risk perception and nosocomial infection prevention practices of frontline nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Nurs 2021; 20:78. [PMID: 34001128 PMCID: PMC8127227 DOI: 10.1186/s12912-021-00591-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/10/2020] [Accepted: 04/19/2021] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
Background During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, exploring factors influencing nosocomial infection among frontline nurses may provide evidence to optimize prevention strategies in hospitals. Method A large-scale online questionnaire survey of nurses’ state-trait anxiety, job burnout, risk perception, workplace safety perception, knowledge about nosocomial infection, and preventive practices was conducted with 2795 frontline nurses working in the COVID-19 wards of six hospitals in Hubei Province, China, from February 1 to April 1, 2020. The questionnaire data were analyzed using the structural equation modeling (SEM) method to reveal the mechanisms influencing nurses’ risk perception and preventive practices related to nosocomial COVID-19 infection. Results A model of the factors that influence nurses’ risk perception and preventive practices regarding nosocomial COVID-19 infection was established. The model verified hypotheses regarding the impact of nurses’ risk perception and preventive practices. Notably, the hypothesis that risk perception has an impact on nurses’ preventive practices regarding nosocomial infection is not valid. Moreover, different marital and educational conditions are associated with significant differences in the impact of state anxiety on the execution of preventive practices, the impact of workplace safety perceptions on risk perception, and the impact of workplace safety perceptions on the execution of preventive practices. The effect of state anxiety on preventive practices differed significantly with different durations of work experience. Conclusions According to the results of the influencing factor model, promoting the quality of training on nosocomial infection, meliorating workplace safety, and conducting timely and effective psychological interventions would aid in improving nurses’ preventive practices. Meliorating workplace safety and easing state anxiety would be beneficial to reduce nurses’ risk perception. These strategies are conducive to the optimization of policies for preventing nosocomial COVID-19 infections and similar infectious diseases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xiaoguang Lyu
- The Department of Gastroenterology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China
| | - Jiming Hu
- School of Information Management, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China
| | - Xin Xu
- The General Medicine Ward, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China
| | - Yunyan Xianyu
- The Nursing Department, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
| | - Weiguo Dong
- The Department of Gastroenterology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Bagepally BS, Haridoss M, Natarajan M, Jeyashree K, Ponnaiah M. Cost-effectiveness of surgical mask, N-95 respirator, hand-hygiene and surgical mask with hand hygiene in the prevention of COVID-19: Cost effectiveness analysis from Indian context. CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY AND GLOBAL HEALTH 2021; 10:100702. [PMID: 33558852 PMCID: PMC7859732 DOI: 10.1016/j.cegh.2021.100702] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/10/2020] [Revised: 12/29/2020] [Accepted: 01/18/2021] [Indexed: 01/10/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION In the absence of specific treatment, preventive strategies are of paramount importance in management of coronavirus disease 2019(COVID-19) pandemic. We estimated cost-effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions such as hand-hygiene, surgical-mask N-95 respirators and surgical mask in general population. METHODS We performed a decision tree and markov-model based economic evaluation. We estimated total costs and outcomes from public payer's perspective, based on information available through systematic literature search on relative intervention effect during early pandemic phase. We estimated outcomes as number COVID-19 prevented and Quality Adjusted life year (QALY) over one-year time-horizon with one-day cycle-length. Incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICER) was calculated multiple sensitivity analyses were applied to assess parameter uncertainty. RESULTS Use of surgical mask with hand hygiene, fit tested N-95 respirator, surgical-mask, non-fit tested N-95 and hand-hygiene interventions prevented additional 1139, 1124, 1121, 1043 and 975 COVID-19 cases per-million as compared to using none. Additional costs incurred (in billion) were ₹29.78 ($0.40), ₹148.09 ($1.99), ₹72.51 ($0.98), ₹26.84 ($0.36) and ₹2.48 ($0.03) as well as additional QALYs gained were 357.4, 353.01, 327.95, 351.52 and 307.04 for surgical mask with hand hygiene, fit-tested N-95, non-fit-tested N-95, surgical mask and hand-hygiene respectively. ICERs with surgical with hand hygiene, hand-hygiene alone, surgical-mask alone, N-95 respirator fit and non-fit test were 83.32($1.12), 8.07($0.11), 76.36($1.03), 419.51($5.65) and 221.10 ($2.98) million ₹ ($)/QALY respectively. Results were robust on uncertainty analysis. DISCUSSION Among the non-pharmacological interventions to be considered for preventing spread of COVID-19, hand hygiene was cost-effective and avoidance of use of surgical masks and respirators by the general public could save resources.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Madhumitha Haridoss
- Health Technology Assessment Resource Centre, ICMR- National Institute of Epidemiology, Chennai, India
| | - Meenakumari Natarajan
- Health Technology Assessment Resource Centre, ICMR- National Institute of Epidemiology, Chennai, India
| | - Kathiresan Jeyashree
- Health Technology Assessment Resource Centre, ICMR- National Institute of Epidemiology, Chennai, India
| | - Manickam Ponnaiah
- Health Technology Assessment Resource Centre, ICMR- National Institute of Epidemiology, Chennai, India
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
O'Horo JC, Cerhan JR, Cahn EJ, Bauer PR, Temesgen Z, Ebbert J, Abril A, Abu Saleh OM, Assi M, Berbari EF, Bierle DM, Bosch W, Burger CD, Cano Cevallos EJ, Clements CM, Carmona Porquera EM, Castillo Almeida NE, Challener DW, Chesdachai S, Comba IY, Corsini Campioli CG, Crane SJ, Dababneh AS, Enzler MJ, Fadel HJ, Ganesh R, De Moraes AG, Go JR, Gordon JE, Gurram PR, Guru PK, Halverson EL, Harrison MF, Heaton HA, Hurt R, Kasten MJ, Lee AS, Levy ER, Libertin CR, Mallea JM, Marshall WF, Matcha G, Meehan AM, Franco PM, Morice WG, O'Brien JJ, Oeckler R, Ommen S, Oravec CP, Orenstein R, Ough NJ, Palraj R, Patel BM, Pureza VS, Pickering B, Phelan DM, Razonable RR, Rizza S, Sampathkumar P, Sanghavi DK, Sen A, Siegel JL, Singbartl K, Shah AS, Shweta F, Speicher LL, Suh G, Tabaja H, Tande A, Ting HH, Tontz RC, Vaillant JJ, Vergidis P, Warsame MY, Yetmar ZA, Zomok CCD, Williams AW, Badley AD. Outcomes of COVID-19 With the Mayo Clinic Model of Care and Research. Mayo Clin Proc 2021; 96:601-618. [PMID: 33673913 PMCID: PMC7831394 DOI: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2020.12.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/14/2020] [Revised: 12/11/2020] [Accepted: 12/15/2020] [Indexed: 01/02/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To report the Mayo Clinic experience with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) related to patient outcomes. METHODS We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients with COVID-19 diagnosed between March 1, 2020, and July 31, 2020, at any of the Mayo Clinic sites. We abstracted pertinent comorbid conditions such as age, sex, body mass index, Charlson Comorbidity Index variables, and treatments received. Factors associated with hospitalization and mortality were assessed in univariate and multivariate models. RESULTS A total of 7891 patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection with research authorization on file received care across the Mayo Clinic sites during the study period. Of these, 7217 patients were adults 18 years or older who were analyzed further. A total of 897 (11.4%) patients required hospitalization, and 354 (4.9%) received care in the intensive care unit (ICU). All hospitalized patients were reviewed by a COVID-19 Treatment Review Panel, and 77.5% (695 of 897) of inpatients received a COVID-19-directed therapy. Overall mortality was 1.2% (94 of 7891), with 7.1% (64 of 897) mortality in hospitalized patients and 11.3% (40 of 354) in patients requiring ICU care. CONCLUSION Mayo Clinic outcomes of patients with COVID-19 infection in the ICU, hospital, and community compare favorably with those reported nationally. This likely reflects the impact of interprofessional multidisciplinary team evaluation, effective leveraging of clinical trials and available treatments, deployment of remote monitoring tools, and maintenance of adequate operating capacity to not require surge adjustments. These best practices can help guide other health care systems with the continuing response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Collapse
Key Words
- apache iv, acute physiology and chronic health evaluation iv
- ards, acute respiratory distress syndrome
- bmi, body mass index
- cci, charlson comorbidity index
- covid-19, coronavirus disease 2019
- eap, expanded access program
- ecmo, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation
- ehr, electronic health record
- icd-10, international classification of diseases, tenth revision
- icu, intensive care unit
- los, length of stay
- nih, national institutes of health
- or, odds ratio
- sars-cov-2, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2
- sofa, sequential organ failure assessment
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- John Charles O'Horo
- Division of Infectious Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - James R Cerhan
- Division of Health Science Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Elliot J Cahn
- Division of Health Science Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Philippe R Bauer
- Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | | | - Jon Ebbert
- Division of Community Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Andy Abril
- Division of Rheumatology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL
| | | | - Mariam Assi
- Division of Infectious Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Elie F Berbari
- Division of Infectious Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Dennis M Bierle
- Division of General Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Wendelyn Bosch
- Division of Infectious Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL
| | - Charles D Burger
- Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL
| | | | | | - Eva M Carmona Porquera
- Division of Infectious Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | | | | | | | - Isin Y Comba
- Division of Infectious Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | | | - Sarah J Crane
- Division of Community Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Ala S Dababneh
- Division of Infectious Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Mark J Enzler
- Division of Infectious Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Hind J Fadel
- Division of Infectious Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Ravindra Ganesh
- Division of General Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | | | - John R Go
- Division of Infectious Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Joel E Gordon
- Department of Family Medicine, Mayo Clinic Health System, Mankato, MN
| | - Pooja R Gurram
- Division of Infectious Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Pramod K Guru
- Department of Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL
| | | | | | | | - Ryan Hurt
- Division of General Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Mary J Kasten
- Division of Infectious Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Augustine S Lee
- Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL
| | - Emily R Levy
- Division of Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | | | - Jorge M Mallea
- Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL
| | | | - Gautam Matcha
- Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL
| | - Anne M Meehan
- Division of Hospital Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | | | - William G Morice
- Department of Laboratory Medicine Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Jennifer J O'Brien
- Department of Laboratory Medicine Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL
| | - Richard Oeckler
- Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Division of Infectious Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - Steve Ommen
- Department of Cardiovascular Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | | | | | - Natalie J Ough
- Division of Infectious Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Raj Palraj
- Division of Infectious Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Bhavesh M Patel
- Department of Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - Vincent S Pureza
- Division of Hospital Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Brian Pickering
- Division of Intensive Care, Department of Anesthesia, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - David M Phelan
- Division of Infectious Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | | | - Stacey Rizza
- Division of Infectious Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | | | | | - Ayan Sen
- Department of Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | | | - Kai Singbartl
- Department of Critical Care, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Aditya S Shah
- Division of Infectious Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Fnu Shweta
- Division of Infectious Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Leigh L Speicher
- Division of General Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL
| | - Gina Suh
- Division of Infectious Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Hussam Tabaja
- Division of Infectious Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Aaron Tande
- Division of Infectious Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Henry H Ting
- Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL
| | - Russell C Tontz
- Division of Occupational Medicine, Mayo Clinic Health System, Mankato, MN
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Amy W Williams
- Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Andrew D Badley
- Division of Infectious Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Department of Molecular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Verbeek JH, Rajamaki B, Ijaz S, Sauni R, Toomey E, Blackwood B, Tikka C, Ruotsalainen JH, Kilinc Balci FS. Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020; 5:CD011621. [PMID: 32412096 PMCID: PMC8785899 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd011621.pub5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 54] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/05/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jos H Verbeek
- Cochrane Work Review Group, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Blair Rajamaki
- School of Pharmacy, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland
| | - Sharea Ijaz
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | | | | | - Bronagh Blackwood
- Centre for Experimental Medicine, School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK
| | - Christina Tikka
- Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, TYÖTERVEYSLAITOS, Finland
| | | | - F Selcen Kilinc Balci
- National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory (NPPTL), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Verbeek JH, Rajamaki B, Ijaz S, Sauni R, Toomey E, Blackwood B, Tikka C, Ruotsalainen JH, Kilinc Balci FS. Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020; 4:CD011621. [PMID: 32293717 PMCID: PMC7158881 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd011621.pub4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 154] [Impact Index Per Article: 38.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jos H Verbeek
- Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Cochrane Work Review Group, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1105AZ
| | - Blair Rajamaki
- University of Eastern Finland, School of Pharmacy, Kuopio, Finland
| | - Sharea Ijaz
- University of Bristol, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, Bristol, UK, BS1 2NT
| | | | | | - Bronagh Blackwood
- Queen's University Belfast, Centre for Experimental Medicine, School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Wellcome-Wolfson Building, 97 Lisburn Road, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK, BT9 7LB
| | - Christina Tikka
- Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, TYÖTERVEYSLAITOS, Finland, FI-70032
| | - Jani H Ruotsalainen
- Finnish Medicines Agency, Assessment of Pharmacotherapies, Microkatu 1, Kuopio, Finland, FI-70210
| | - F Selcen Kilinc Balci
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory (NPPTL), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 626 Cochrans Mill Road, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 15236
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Verbeek JH, Rajamaki B, Ijaz S, Tikka C, Ruotsalainen JH, Edmond MB, Sauni R, Kilinc Balci FS. Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019; 7:CD011621. [PMID: 31259389 PMCID: PMC6601138 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd011621.pub3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 50] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jos H Verbeek
- University of Eastern FinlandCochrane Work Review GroupKuopioFinland70201
| | - Blair Rajamaki
- University of Eastern FinlandInstitute of Public Health and Clinical Nutrition, Occupational Health UnitKuopioFinland
| | - Sharea Ijaz
- University of BristolPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical SchoolBristolUKBS1 2NT
| | - Christina Tikka
- Finnish Institute of Occupational HealthCochrane Work Review GroupTYÖTERVEYSLAITOSFinlandFI‐70032
| | - Jani H Ruotsalainen
- Coronel Institute of Occupational HealthCochrane Work Review GroupAcademic Medical Center, University of AmsterdamPO Box 22700AmsterdamNetherlands1100 DE
| | - Michael B Edmond
- University of Iowa Hospitals and ClinicsC512 GH, 200 Hawkins DriveIowa CityIAUSA52241
| | - Riitta Sauni
- Finnish Institute of Occupational HealthP.O.Box 486TampereFinlandFI‐33101
| | - F Selcen Kilinc Balci
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory (NPPTL), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)626 Cochrans Mill RoadPittsburghPAUSA15236
| | | |
Collapse
|
7
|
Verbeek JH, Ijaz S, Mischke C, Ruotsalainen JH, Mäkelä E, Neuvonen K, Edmond MB, Sauni R, Balci FSK, Mihalache RC. Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 4:CD011621. [PMID: 27093058 PMCID: PMC10068873 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd011621.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 55] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND In epidemics of highly infectious diseases, such as Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) or 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 HCWs use PPE as instructed. OBJECTIVES To evaluate which type or component of full-body PPE and which method of donning or removing (doffing) PPE have the least risk of self-contamination or infection for HCWs, and which training methods most increase compliance with PPE protocols. SEARCH METHODS We searched MEDLINE (PubMed up to 8 January 2016), Cochrane Central Register of Trials (CENTRAL up to 20 January 2016), EMBASE (embase.com up to 8 January 2016), CINAHL (EBSCOhost up to 20 January 2016), and OSH-Update up to 8 January 2016. We also screened reference lists of included trials and relevant reviews, and contacted NGOs and manufacturers of PPE. SELECTION CRITERIA We included all eligible controlled studies that compared the effect of types or components of PPE in HCWs exposed to highly infectious diseases with serious consequences, such as EVD and SARS, on the risk of infection, contamination, or noncompliance with protocols. This included studies that simulated contamination with fluorescent markers or a non-pathogenic virus.We also included studies that compared the effect of various ways of donning or removing PPE, and the effects of various types 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 intended to perform meta-analyses but we did not find sufficiently similar studies to combine their results. MAIN RESULTS We included nine studies with 1200 participants evaluating ten interventions. Of these, eight trials simulated the exposure with a fluorescent marker or virus or bacteria containing fluids. Five studies evaluated different types of PPE against each other but two did not report sufficient data. Another two studies compared different types of donning and doffing and three studies evaluated the effect of different types of training.None of the included studies reported a standardised classification of the protective properties against viral penetration of the PPE, and only one reported the brand of PPE used. None of the studies were conducted with HCWs exposed to EVD but in one study participants were exposed to SARS. Different types of PPE versus each otherIn simulation studies, contamination rates varied from 25% to 100% of participants for all types of PPE. In one study, PPE made of more breathable material did not lead to a statistically significantly different number of spots with contamination but did have greater user satisfaction (Mean Difference (MD) -0.46 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) -0.84 to -0.08, range 1 to 5, very low quality evidence). In another study, gowns protected better than aprons. In yet another study, the use of a powered air-purifying respirator protected better than a now outdated form of PPE. There were no studies on goggles versus face shields, on long- versus short-sleeved gloves, or on the use of taping PPE parts together. Different methods of donning and doffing procedures versus each otherTwo cross-over simulation studies (one RCT, one CCT) compared different methods for donning and doffing against each other. Double gloving led to less contamination compared to single gloving (Relative Risk (RR) 0.36; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.78, very low quality evidence) in one simulation study, but not to more noncompliance with guidance (RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.70 to 1.67, very low quality evidence). Following CDC recommendations for doffing led to less contamination in another study (very low quality evidence). There were no studies on the use of disinfectants while doffing. Different types of training versus each otherIn one study, the use of additional computer simulation led to less errors in doffing (MD -1.2, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.7) and in another study additional spoken instruction led to less errors (MD -0.9, 95% CI -1.4 to -0.4). One retrospective cohort study assessed the effect of active training - defined as face-to-face instruction - versus passive training - defined as folders or videos - on noncompliance with PPE use and on noncompliance with doffing guidance. Active training did not considerably reduce noncompliance in PPE use (Odds Ratio (OR) 0.63; 95% CI 0.31 to 1.30) but reduced noncompliance with doffing procedures (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.98, very low quality evidence). There were no studies on how to retain the results of training in the long term or on resource use.The quality of the evidence was very low for all comparisons because of high risk of bias in studies, indirectness of evidence, and small numbers of participants. This means that it is likely that the true effect can be substantially different from the one reported here. 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. We also found very low quality evidence that double gloving and CDC doffing guidance appear to decrease the risk of contamination and that more active training in PPE use may reduce PPE and doffing errors more than passive training. However, the data all come from single studies with high risk of bias and we are uncertain about the estimates of effects.We need simulation studies conducted with several dozens of participants, preferably using a non-pathogenic virus, to find out which type and combination of PPE protects best, and what is the best way to remove PPE. We also need randomised controlled studies of the effects of one type of training versus another to find out which training works best in the long term. HCWs exposed to highly infectious diseases should have their use of PPE registered and should be prospectively followed for their risk of infection.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jos H Verbeek
- Cochrane Work Review Group, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Kuopio, Finland
| | - Sharea Ijaz
- Cochrane Work Review Group, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Kuopio, Finland
| | - Christina Mischke
- Cochrane Work Review Group, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Kuopio, Finland
| | - Jani H Ruotsalainen
- Cochrane Work Review Group, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Kuopio, Finland
| | - Erja Mäkelä
- Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Kaisa Neuvonen
- Cochrane Work Review Group, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki, Finland
| | | | - Riitta Sauni
- Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Tampere, Finland
| | - F Selcen Kilinc Balci
- National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory (NPPTL), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Raluca C Mihalache
- Cochrane Work Review Group, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Kuopio, Finland
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Baig AS, Knapp C, Eagan AE, Radonovich LJ. Health care workers' views about respirator use and features that should be included in the next generation of respirators. Am J Infect Control 2010; 38:18-25. [PMID: 20036443 PMCID: PMC7132692 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2009.09.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 93] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/01/2009] [Revised: 09/05/2009] [Accepted: 09/08/2009] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Numerous studies have demonstrated that health care workers are, in general, poorly compliant with respiratory protection guidelines, especially when a N95 respirator is recommended. The purpose of this study was to assess health care workers' views about respirator use and the features they prefer to be included in the next generation of respirators. METHODS A 63-item survey was distributed to health care workers in 27 units of 2 tertiary care medical centers. RESULTS From a total of 559 surveys distributed at both hospitals, 159 responses were returned (response rate, 28%). Survey results indicated that health care workers seek respirators that are more comfortable, interfere less with breathing, diminish heat buildup, are disposable, and permit the user to have facial hair. Multivariate analyses suggest that emergency department staff had 12.3 greater odds of wanting a new respirator (P = .031) as compared with their referent group. Males were more likely to indicate that the N95 respirator was comfortable to wear versus females (P = .003). CONCLUSION To increase substantially the acceptance of respiratory protective equipment and improve compliance rates, respirators should be modified to meet the specific needs of health care workers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Aliya S Baig
- National Center for Occupational Health and Infection Control, Office of Public Health and Environmental Hazards, Veterans Health Administration, US Department of Veterans Affairs, Gainesville, FL 23608, USA.
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Abstract
SUMMARYInfluenza viruses circulate around the world every year. From time to time new strains emerge and cause global pandemics. Many national and international health agencies recommended the use of face masks during the 2009 influenza A (H1N1) pandemic. We reviewed the English-language literature on this subject to inform public health preparedness. There is some evidence to support the wearing of masks or respirators during illness to protect others, and public health emphasis on mask wearing during illness may help to reduce influenza virus transmission. There are fewer data to support the use of masks or respirators to prevent becoming infected. Further studies in controlled settings and studies of natural infections in healthcare and community settings are required to better define the effectiveness of face masks and respirators in preventing influenza virus transmission.
Collapse
|