Articles: personal-protective-equipment.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
The use of personal protection equipment does not impair the quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation: A prospective triple-cross over randomised controlled non-inferiority trial.
Prior studies suggest that the use of personal protective equipment might impair the quality of critical care. We investigated the influence of personal protective equipment on out-of-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation. ⋯ PPE including masks with and without expiration valve is safe for use without concerns regarding the impairment of CPR quality.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
Evaluating the effect of infographics on public recall, sentiment and willingness to use face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic: a randomised internet-based questionnaire study.
The use of face masks remains contentious, with international variation in practice. Their prevalence in the UK, is likely to increase due to new legislation. Clear information regarding the appropriate use of masks is needed, to ensure compliance with policies to reduce transmission of COVID-19. We aimed to assess the impact of visual representations of guidance, or infographics, upon the knowledge of appropriate face mask usage in a representative UK cohort. ⋯ To ensure the appropriate use of masks, as mandated by UK law, guidance must provide sufficient information, yet remain understandable. Infographics can aid the recall of correct mask techniques by highlighting salient steps and reducing cognitive burden. They have also demonstrated greater trustworthiness than text-only guidance. The effect of infographics upon COVID-19-related anxiety was poor, and they should be further developed to address this sentiment. A willingness to wear face masks has, however, been demonstrated.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
Prophylactic dressings in the prevention of pressure ulcer related to the use of personal protective equipment by health professionals facing the COVID-19 pandemic: A randomized clinical trial.
Device-related pressure injury (DRPI) is a serious problem that is affecting professionals working on the front lines against COVID-19 due to the prolonged use of personal protective equipment (PPE). In addition to the physical and psychological integrity of professionals, these injuries can compromise the quality of care. Therefore, using technologies to prevent this adverse effect is an urgent matter. ⋯ There was no difference between the groups regarding skin conditions and discomfort (P > .05). The average cost obtained was $ 5.8/person and $ 4.4/person in the foam group and the hydrocolloid group, respectively, considering the dressing measurements. The results show that foam and extra-thin hydrocolloid were effective in preventing DRPI associated with the use of PPE.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study Clinical Trial
An optimal chest compression technique using personal protective equipment during resuscitation in the COVID-19 pandemic: a randomized crossover simulation study.
Cardiopulmonary resuscitation with the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) for aerosol generating procedures (AGP) in patients with suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‑19) remains challenging. ⋯ We demonstrated that during simulated resuscitation with the use of PPE AGP in patients with suspected or confirmed COVID‑19, CC with LUCAS 3 compared with manual CCs as well as the TrueCPR essentially increased the CC quality. In the case of manual CCs by paramedics dressed in PPE AGP, it is advisable to change the person performing resuscitation every minute.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
The impact of respiratory protective equipment on difficult airway management: a randomised, crossover, simulation study.
The current international COVID-19 health crisis underlines the importance of adequate and suitable personal protective equipment for clinical staff during acute airway management. This study compares the impacts of standard air-purifying respirators and powered air-purifying respirators during simulated difficult airway scenarios. Twenty-five anaesthetists carried out four different standardised difficult intubation drills, either unprotected (control), or wearing a standard or a powered respirator. ⋯ Videolaryngoscopy allowed the shortest intubation times regardless of the respiratory protective device used. Anaesthetists rated heat and vision significantly higher in the powered respirator group; however, noise levels were perceived to be significantly lower than in the standard respirator group. We conclude that standard and powered respirators do not significantly prolong simulated advanced intubation procedures.