Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add filters

Language
Document Type
Year range
1.
Food Protection Trends ; 41(3):358-367, 2021.
Article in English | Scopus | ID: covidwho-1346637

ABSTRACT

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has brought heightened attention to the importance of cleaning, sanitizing, and disinfecting in retail food and foodservice establishments. In response, major governmental agencies have emphasized the need to frequently disinfect high-touch surfaces. While this recommendation may seem straightfor-ward and achievable, it is far more nuanced and complex. In the retail food and foodservice industry, sanitization is a routine, common practice defined and recommended in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food Code. Hence, sanitizers, rather than disinfectants, are the main antimicrobial products used in these settings. It is important to emphasize that sanitizers and disinfectants are not inter-changeable products, so they may be inadvertently misused. Therefore, end users need to understand the differences of when, why, and how both can be used in retail food and foodservice settings. The aim of this paper is to increase end users’ knowledge and awareness about the proper use of sanitizers and disinfectants in retail food and foodservice establishments. This paper is organized into six sections— Antimicrobial Products: Sanitizers and Disinfectants, FDA Food Code, Regulation of Sanitizers and Disinfectants, Understanding EPA-Registered Labels, Emerging Issues, and Current and Future Trends in Sanitizing and Disinfecting. When used properly, sanitizers and disinfectants are powerful tools that can keep retail food and foodservice operations safe from pathogens that cause infectious disease. © 2021, International Association for Food Protection. All rights reserved.

2.
British Journal of Dermatology ; 183(SUPPL 1):201, 2020.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1093713

ABSTRACT

Healthcare workers (HCWs) need to wear personal protective equipment (PPE) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Studies from China report high rates of irritant dermatitis in frontline HCWs (Pei S, Xue Y, Zhao S et al. Occupational skin conditions on the front line: a survey among 484 Chinese healthcare professionals caring for Covid-19 patients. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2020;Epub ahead of print). The British Society of Cutaneous Allergy conducted an audit of occupational dermatoses in HCWs. Eleven centres in the U.K. and Ireland organized occupational skin disease clinics to treat PPE-related dermatoses. A standardized proforma was completed, which included information about site, dermatological history, occupation, working environment, shift pattern, sick leave, PPE and handwashing practices. Diagnosis and treatment were advised during a virtual consultation. Each participating unit entered anonymized audit data into a spreadsheet. Data from 200 HCWs were collected in May and June 2020. Forty-three per cent (n = 86) worked in England;30.5% (n = 61) in Scotland, 13.5% (n = 27) in Ireland and 13.0% (n = 26) in Wales. Median age was 36 years. Ninety per cent (n = 180) were female;67.0% (n = 134) had nursing roles. The face was affected in 46.5% (n = 93) and hands in 46.0% (n = 92). In 94.0% of cases (n = 188) the clinical findings were felt to be occupational or partially occupational, with the most common diagnosis being irritant contact dermatitis: 59.0% of patients (n = 118). Seventeen per cent (n = 35) had required time off work (292.5 days in total;range 0.5-28). The mean number of hours of PPE wear per shift was 6.9 [median 7.5, interquartile range (IQR) 4-10]. Those who wore PPE for longer periods had more time off;each hour of wearing PPE during a shift increased the time off by 0.2 days [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.002-0.344;P = 0.048]. The mean number of handwashes with soap per day was 22.7 (median 20, IQR 10-30). Each handwash increased the expected number of days off by 0.03 (95% CI -0.013 to 0.069;P = 0.174). The mean number of uses of alcohol gel per day was 19.2 (median 10, IQR 5-30). There was an inverse association with use of alcohol gel and time off;each use of alcohol gel per day reduced the expected number of days off by 0.03 (95% CI 0.002-0.066;P = 0.04). These data indicate that the duration of wearing PPE, frequency of handwashing and use of alcohol gel have a significant effect on the time off work for HCWs.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL