Articles: personal-protective-equipment.
-
Personal protective equipment creates a protective barrier for mucous membranes, airways, and skin in situations with possible exposure to biological material. ⋯ Though the use of personal protective equipment increased in the country as a whole, the rate of change varied widely between federal units. These findings highlight the need for changes in public policy and the implementation of permanent education programs for health care professionals, especially in regions with lower or stable rates of personal protective equipment use.
-
J. Korean Med. Sci. · Jun 2023
Effect of Wearing Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for COVID-19 Treatment on Blood Culture Contamination: Implication for Optimal PPE Strategies.
The personal protective equipment (PPE) used to minimize exposure to hazards can hinder healthcare workers from performing sophisticated procedures. We retrospectively reviewed 77,535 blood cultures (202,012 pairs) performed in 28,502 patients from January 2020 to April 2022. ⋯ This finding implies that wearing PPE might interfere with adherence to the aseptic technique. Therefore, a new PPE policy is needed that considers the balance between protecting healthcare workers and medical practices.
-
Background: With the emergence of the 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19), appropriate training for emergency medical services (EMS) personnel on personal protective equipment (PPE) is essential. We aimed: 1) to examine the change in proportions of EMS personnel reporting awareness of and training in PPE during the COVID-19 pandemic; and 2) to determine factors associated with reporting these outcomes. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of data collected from October 1, 2019 to June 30, 2020 from currently working, nationally certified EMS personnel (n = 15,339), assessing N95 respirator fit testing; training in air purified respirators (APR) or powered APR (PAPR) use; and training on PPE use for chemical, biological, and nuclear (CBN) threats. ⋯ Factors consistently associated with lower odds of awareness/training included part-time employment, providing 9-1-1 response service, working at a non-fire-based EMS agency, and working in a rural setting. Conclusions: CDC guidance on COVID-19 for EMS may have increased N95 fit testing and training, but there remain substantial gaps in training on PPE use among EMS personnel. As the pandemic continues in our communities, EMS agencies should be supported in efforts to adequately prepare their staff.
-
On March 4, 2018, two casualties collapsed on a park bench in Salisbury, Wiltshire, UK. They were later discovered to have been the victims of an attempted murder using the Soviet-era Novichok class of nerve agent. ⋯ Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the Salisbury and Amesbury incidents were the longest-running major incidents in the history of the UK National Health Service. This narrative review seeks to reflect on the lessons learned from these chemical incidents, with a particular focus on hospital and local organisational responses.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
Surgical masks and filtering facepiece class 2 respirators (FFP2) have no major physiological effects at rest and during moderate exercise at 3000 m altitude. A randomised controlled trial.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of face masks has been recommended or enforced in several situations; however, their effects on physiological parameters and cognitive performance at high altitude are unknown. ⋯ Although mask use was associated with higher rates of dyspnoea, it had no clinically relevant impact on gas exchange at 3000 m at rest and during moderate exercise, and no detectable effect on resting cognitive performance. Wearing a surgical mask or an FFP2 can be considered safe for healthy people living, working or spending their leisure time in mountains, high-altitude cities or other hypobaric environments (e.g. aircrafts) up to an altitude of 3000 m.