Articles: personal-protective-equipment.
-
We sought to evaluate the impact of a COVID-19 Code Blue policy on in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) processes of care, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) quality metrics, and survival to hospital discharge. ⋯ The COVID-19 Code Blue policy was associated with delayed processes of care but similarly good CPR quality. The COVID-19 period appeared associated with decreased survival.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
Comparison of intubation devices in level C personal protective equipment: A cadaveric study.
This relatively small study (N=19) randomised emergency resident trainees (14) and first responders (5) to cadaveric intubation with and without 'Level C PPE':
Level C PPE typically includes a full face mask with air respirator, a hooded chemical resistant clothing, inner and outer gloves and chemical resistant boots with covers.
First-pass intubation success was significant lower (58% vs 96%) while wearing PPE than without. Subjects identified the visibility impact of wearing protective hoods as the most common impediment to intubation.
summary -
An increase in the workload and use of personal protective equipment by healthcare workers was observed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to the connections between craniocervical structures, symptoms such as neck pain and temporomandibular symptoms could be influenced by the use of PPE. ⋯ Healthcare workers self-reported more craniocervical pain during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to before the pandemic. In addition, poor sleep quality, depressive symptoms, and physical inactivity were associated with craniocervical symptoms during this period.
-
Our aim was to determine the usefulness of level D personal protective equipment (PPE) in safeguarding health care staff who perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). ⋯ We found that performing CPR while wearing level D PPE requires intense physical effort. Special situations should be taken into consideration when developing protocols for situations that require staff to wear PPE. Staff who must perform CPR under these conditions should be given specific training.
-
Cochrane Db Syst Rev · Apr 2016
ReviewPersonal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff.
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. ⋯ 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.