Practices of skin care among nurses in medical and surgical intensive care units: results of a self-administered questionnaire

Skin Reactions to Personal Protective Equipment among First-Line COVID-19 Healthcare Workers: A Survey in Northern Morocco

Objectives

Health care workers (HCWs) adopted several protective measures, including hand hygiene and wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) during the COVID-19 outbreak. However, the frequent use of these preventive measures can lead to skin reactions. Our study aimed to determine the frequency of these reactions in Northern Morocco. In addition, we also looked at the risk factors and the consequences of these injuries on work efficiency and performance.

Materials and Methods

An anonymous online survey was used to collect data, which was sent to 500 health workers in the study region. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyze the data on IBM SPSS software.

Results

In total, 273/500 responded to the questionnaire (55%). For the participants’ profession, 41% were doctors, 32% were nursing staff, and 26% held other jobs. The general prevalence rate of adverse reactions for all health workers was (80%), including skin problems: after wearing goggles (58%), after wearing surgical masks and respirators (57%), after handwashing and wearing gloves (45%), after wearing a face shield (23%), and after wearing protective clothing (11%). Bleach immersion was highly significantly associated with hand reaction (OR: 2.9, 95% CI: 1.77–4.90; P < 0.001). Moreover, we found a statistically significant association between hand cream use more than twice daily and fewer reactions (OR: 1.9, 95% CI: 0.98–3.77; P = 0.038). The skin reactions related to goggles use were also significantly associated with use duration (OR: 1.7, 95% CI: 0.988–3.12; P = 0.05). Similarly, wearing masks and N95 respirators and their related adverse reactions were significantly associated with use duration (OR: 0.5, 95% CI: 0.20–0.7; P = 0.02). In addition, adverse reactions of regular use of protective clothing were related to the frequency of its use per shift (OR: 3.5, 95% CI: 1.47–8.54; P = 0.05).

Conclusions

Our survey-based study showed that the prevalence of these skin reactions in our context should not be neglected. The length of daily wearing time and the frequency of PPE uses were the most implicated factors. More attention must be paid to these reactions for better care of HCWs during these critical times.

A behaviour change package to prevent hand dermatitis in nurses working in health care: the SCIN cluster RCT

BACKGROUND

Although strategies have been developed to minimise the risk of occupational hand dermatitis in nurses, their clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness remain unclear.

OBJECTIVES

The Skin Care Intervention in Nurses trial tested the hypothesis that a behaviour change package intervention, coupled with provision of hand moisturisers, could reduce the point prevalence of hand dermatitis when compared with standard care among nurses working in the NHS. The secondary aim was to assess the impact of the intervention on participants' beliefs and behaviour regarding hand care, and the cost-effectiveness of the intervention in comparison with normal care.

DESIGN

Cluster randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Thirty-five NHS hospital trusts/health boards/universities.

PARTICIPANTS

First-year student nurses with a history of atopic tendency, and full-time intensive care unit nurses.

INTERVENTION

Sites were randomly allocated to be 'intervention plus' or 'intervention light'. Participants at 'intervention plus' sites received access to a bespoke online behaviour change package intervention, coupled with personal supplies of moisturising cream (student nurses) and optimal availability of moisturising cream (intensive care unit nurses). Nurses at 'intervention light' sites received usual care, including a dermatitis prevention leaflet.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The difference between intervention plus and intervention light sites in the change of point prevalence of visible hand dermatitis was measured from images taken at baseline and at follow-up.

RANDOMISATION

Fourteen sites were randomised to the intervention plus arm, and 21 sites were randomised to the intervention light arm.

BLINDING

The participants, trial statistician, methodologist and the dermatologists interpreting the hand photographs were blinded to intervention assignment.

NUMBERS ANALYSED

An intention-to-treat analysis was conducted on data from 845 student nurses and 1111 intensive care unit nurses.

RESULTS

The intention-to-treat analysis showed no evidence that the risk of developing dermatitis was greater in the intervention light group than in the intervention plus group (student nurses: odds ratio 1.25, 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 2.69; intensive care unit nurses: odds ratio 1.41, 95% confidence interval 0.81 to 2.44). Both groups had high levels of baseline beliefs about the benefits of using hand moisturisers before, during and after work. The frequency of use of hand moisturisers before, during and after shifts was significantly higher in the intensive care unit nurses in the intervention plus arm at follow-up than in the comparator group nurses. For student nurses, the intervention plus group mean costs were £2 lower than those for the comparator and 0.00002 more quality-adjusted life-years were gained. For intensive care unit nurses, costs were £4 higher and 0.0016 fewer quality-adjusted life-years were gained.

HARMS

No adverse events were reported.

LIMITATIONS

Only 44.5% of participants in the intervention plus arm accessed the behaviour change package.

CONCLUSION

The intervention did not result in a statistically significant decrease in the prevalence of hand dermatitis in the intervention plus group.

FUTURE WORK

Participants had a high level of baseline beliefs about the importance of using hand moisturisers before, during and after work. Future research should focus on how workplace culture can be changed in order for that knowledge to be actioned.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN53303171.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 58. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

A behaviour change package to prevent hand dermatitis in nurses working in the National Health Service: results of a cluster randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Occupational hand dermatitis poses a serious risk for nurses.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a complex intervention in reducing the prevalence of hand dermatitis in nurses METHODS: This was a cluster randomized controlled trial conducted at 35 hospital trusts, health boards or universities in the UK. Participants were (i) first-year student nurses with a history of atopic conditions or (ii) intensive care unit (ICU) nurses. Participants at intervention sites received access to a behavioural change programme plus moisturizing creams. Participants at control sites received usual care. The primary outcome was the change of prevalent dermatitis at follow-up (adjusted for baseline dermatitis) in the intervention vs. the control group. Randomization was blinded to everyone bar the trials unit to ensure allocation concealment. The trial was registered on the ISRCTN registry: ISRCTN53303171.

RESULTS

Fourteen sites were allocated to the intervention arm and 21 to the control arm. In total 2040 (69·5%) nurses consented to participate and were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The baseline questionnaire was completed by 1727 (84·7%) participants. Overall, 789 (91·6%) ICU nurses and 938 (84·0%) student nurses returned completed questionnaires. Of these, 994 (57·6%) had photographs taken at baseline and follow-up (12-15 months). When adjusted for baseline prevalence of dermatitis and follow-up interval, the odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) for hand dermatitis at follow-up in the intervention group relative to the controls were 0·72 (0·33-1·55) and 0·62 (0·35-1·10) for student and ICU nurses, respectively. No harms were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

There was insufficient evidence to conclude whether our intervention was effective in reducing hand dermatitis in our populations. Linked Comment: Brans. Br J Dermatol 2020; 183:411-412.

Evaluating the effect of electronic monitoring and feedback on hand cream use in healthcare workers: Healthy Hands Project

BACKGROUND

Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at high risk of developing hand dermatitis (HD). Current guidelines on HD prevention recommend the use of emollients; however, in practice, adherence is poor.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether the provision of creams, electronic monitoring and feedback on cream consumption can improve skin care in HCWs.

METHODS

A cluster randomized controlled trial was conducted on 19 academic hospital wards, including 501 HCWs, for 12 months. The intervention wards (n = 9; 285 HCWs) were provided with hand cream dispensers equipped with an electronic system to monitor use, which was regularly communicated to the HCWs by the use of posters. The process outcomes were self-reported cream consumption in both groups, and electronically measured consumption per ward in the intervention group (IG) vs the control group (CG).

RESULTS

Self-reported cream use at follow-up was significantly higher in the IG than in the CG, before (odds ratio [OR] 2.27; 95%CI: 1.29-3.97; P = 0.004) and during (OR 3.30; 95%CI: 1.80-6.06, P < 0.001) the shift, whereas at baseline there was no difference between the groups. In the IG, electronically measured cream use was, on average, 0.4 events per shift per HCW.

CONCLUSION

The intervention improved hand cream use, and may therefore be considered as a practical strategy to promote skin care in HCWs. Notwithstanding this, the application frequency remained lower than recommended in the present study and current guidelines.

A behavioural change package to prevent hand dermatitis in nurses working in the national health service (the SCIN trial): study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial

Background

Hand dermatitis can be a serious health problem in healthcare workers. While a range of skin care strategies and policy directives have been developed in recent years to minimise the risk, their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness remain unclear. Evidence now suggests that psychological theory can facilitate behaviour change with respect to improved hand care practices. Therefore, we will test the hypothesis that a behavioural change intervention to improve hand care, based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour and implementation intentions, coupled with provision of hand moisturisers, can produce a clinically useful reduction in the occurrence of hand dermatitis, when compared to standard care, among nurses working in the UK National Health Service (NHS) who are particularly at risk. Secondary aims will be to assess impacts on participants’ beliefs and behaviour regarding hand care. In addition, we will assess the cost-effectiveness of the intervention in comparison with normal care.

Methods/Design

We will conduct a cluster randomised controlled trial at 35 NHS hospital trusts/health boards/universities, focussing on student nurses with a previous history of atopic disease or hand eczema and on nurses in intensive care units.

Nurses at ‘intervention-light’ sites will be managed according to what would currently be regarded as best practice, with provision of an advice leaflet about optimal hand care to prevent hand dermatitis and encouragement to contact their occupational health (OH) department early if hand dermatitis occurs. Nurses at ‘intervention-plus’ sites will additionally receive a behavioural change programme (BCP) with on-going active reinforcement of its messages, and enhanced provision of moisturising cream.

The impact of the interventions will be compared using information collected by questionnaires and through standardised photographs of the hands and wrists, collected at baseline and after 12 months follow-up. In addition, we will assemble relevant economic data for an analysis of costs and benefits, and collect information from various sources to evaluate processes.

Statistical analysis will be by multi-level regression modelling to allow for clustering by site, and will compare the prevalence of outcome measures at follow-up after adjustment for values at baseline. The principal outcome measure will be the prevalence of visible hand dermatitis as assessed by the study dermatologists. In addition, several secondary outcome measures will be assessed.

Discussion

This trial will assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of an intervention to prevent hand dermatitis in nurses in the United Kigdom.

Trial registration

ISRCTN53303171: date of registration, 21 June 2013.

Practice of skin protection and skin care among German surgeons and influence on the efficacy of surgical hand disinfection and surgical glove perforation

Background

Surgical hand rub and healthy skin are basic requirements to prevent surgical site infections. Nevertheless, there is little knowledge about the current practice of skin protection and/or skin care products (SP/SC) using among surgeons as well as a lack of data pertaining to the influence of SP/SC on the antimicrobial efficacy of surgical hand rub.

Methods

A 10 weeks-survey among German surgeons as well as an experimental crossover study involving 26 participants were conducted. The immediate and sustainable efficacy (IE/SE) of surgical hand rub and participants’ hand moisture were measured after an 8-day usage of SP/SC, as well as the influence on micro-perforations on surgical gloves.

Results

The questionnaire was available to 16,000 German surgeons. Thereof, 1,771 surgeons accessed the questionnaire, representing a total participation rate of 11%. As 19% (n = 338) of questionnaires were incomplete, a total of 1,433 completed questionnaires were available for further analysis. More than 75% of the participants stated not to use any SP/SC, yet, almost 50% suffered from skin irritation or discomfort. Only 5% used SP/SC at the beginning of their shift. 10% refused to use SP/SC because of concerns that SP/SC may reduce the antimicrobial efficacy of surgical hand rub.

After usage of SP/SC over 8-days, skin moisture was significantly higher (P < 0.001), whereas no significant influence on the antimicrobial efficacy of surgical hand rub was observed (IE: P = 0.135; SP: P = 0.681). Micro-perforations were detected in 8/52 surgical gloves (15%), with no statistical significant difference between SP/SC users (n = 2/26; 8%) and non-users (n = 6/26; 23%; P = 0.249).

Conclusions

Following the results of this largest questionnaire base survey among German surgeons on skin care, there is a need to educate and inform surgeons on the correct application and the concept of SP/SC strategies. In the present study, the combination of selected SP/SC products and one alcohol-based hand rub formulation did not show a negative interaction with surgical hand rub or surgical glove perforation. However, it is advisable to ascertain the compatibility of SP/SC products with the used hand disinfectant prior to purchase.