Designing better cloth masks: The effect of fabric and attachment-style on discomfort.

Cloth masks are a tool for controlling community transmission during pandemics, as well as during other outbreak situations. However, cloth masks vary in their designs, and the consequences of this variability for their effectiveness as source control have received little attention, particularly in terms of user discomfort and problematic mask-wearing behaviors. In the present studies, common design parameters of cloth masks were systematically varied to ascertain their effect(s) on the subjective discomfort and frequency of problematic mask-wearing behaviors, which detract from the effectiveness of cloth masks as source control. The type of fabric comprising a mask (flannel or twill made of 100% cotton) and the attachment-style of a mask (i.e., ear loops or fabric ties) were varied in adults (18 to 65 years) and children (ages 6 to 11 years). For adults, ear loops were less comfortable than ties (p = .035) and were associated with greater face- (p = .005) and mask-touching (p = .001). Children, however, found flannel masks to be more breathable than twill masks (p = .007) but touched their masks more frequently when wearing a mask made of flannel than twill (p = .033). Common design parameters of cloth masks not only affect user discomfort and behavior but do so differently in adults and children. To improve the effectiveness of cloth masks as source control, the present studies highlight the importance of measuring the effect(s) of design decisions on user discomfort and behavior in different populations.

Understanding Experience of Patients With Highly Infectious Diseases During Extended Isolation: A Design Perspective.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to develop a better understanding of the unique needs of patients with highly infectious diseases and their perceptions of being placed in isolation. We explore the subjective experiences of patients treated for Ebola in a biocontainment unit (BCU) and the healthcare personnel who cared for them. BACKGROUND: The 2014 Ebola outbreak and the COVID-19 pandemic have brought to focus some major challenges of caring for patients with serious infectious diseases. Previous studies on BCU design have looked at ways to prevent self- and cross-contamination, but very few have examined how the built environment can support an improved patient experience. METHOD: A qualitative study was conducted with four patients treated for Ebola and two critical care nurses who provided direct care to them at a single BCU in the U.S. Data were collected through in-depth semi-structured interviews to capture the actual patients' perception and experience of isolation. The interviews were analyzed using the thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: The Ebola patients placed in source isolation perceived the BCU as an artificial environment where they lacked control, agency, autonomy, and independence. The physical separation from other patients, visitor restrictions, and staff wearing PPE contributed to feelings of social and emotional isolation, and loneliness. CONCLUSIONS: The isolation can take a toll on physiological and psychological well-being. A thoughtful design of isolation units may improve patients' experience by supporting human and social interactions, empowering patients through space flexibility and personalization of space, and supporting a more holistic approach to isolation care.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: Guidelines on the Management of Critically Ill Adults with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).

BACKGROUND: The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed. METHODS: We formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which four are best practice statements, nine are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for six questions. The topics were: 1) infection control, 2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, 3) hemodynamic support, 4) ventilatory support, and 5) COVID-19 therapy. CONCLUSION: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. When available, we will provide new evidence in further releases of these guidelines.

Healthcare design to improve safe doffing of personal protective equipment for care of patients with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: Understand how the built environment can affect safety and efficiency outcomes during doffing of personal protective equipment (PPE) in the context of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patient care. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted (1) field observations and surveys administered to healthcare workers (HCWs) performing PPE doffing, (2) focus groups with HCWs and infection prevention experts, and (3) a with healthcare design experts. SETTINGS: This study was conducted in 4 inpatient units treating patients with COVID-19, in 3 hospitals of a single healthcare system. PARTICIPANTS: The study included 24 nurses, 2 physicians, 1 respiratory therapist, and 2 infection preventionists. RESULTS: The doffing task sequence and the layout of doffing spaces varied considerably across sites, with field observations showing most doffing tasks occurring around the patient room door and PPE support stations. Behaviors perceived as most risky included touching contaminated items and inadequate hand hygiene. Doffing space layout and types of PPE storage and work surfaces were often associated with inadequate cleaning and improper storage of PPE. Focus groups and the design charrette provided insights on how design affording standardization, accessibility, and flexibility can support PPE doffing safety and efficiency in this context. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need to define, organize and standardize PPE doffing spaces in healthcare settings and to understand the environmental implications of COVID-19-specific issues related to supply shortage and staff workload. Low-effort and low-cost design adaptations of the layout and design of PPE doffing spaces may improve HCW safety and efficiency in existing healthcare facilities.

Development and validation of the discomfort of cloth Masks-12 (DCM-12) scale.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of face masks by the public has helped to slow the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in the community. Cloth masks have been recommended because of their effectiveness, availability, and reusability. Like other types of face masks, however, user discomfort while wearing cloth masks is thought to engender behaviors that limit the effectiveness of cloth masks as source control (e.g., adjusting or removing one's mask temporarily while in public). To design cloth masks that are more tolerable, a measurement instrument for assessing subjective user discomfort is needed. Across two studies, we identified and confirmed a two-dimensional factor structure underlying the discomfort of cloth masks - discomfort related to the breathability and discomfort related to the tightness of the mask against the face and head. Additionally, we provide replicable evidence that both factor-subscales predict the self-reported frequencies of problematic mask-wearing behaviors.

Bioaerosol sampling of a ventilated patient with COVID-19.

Bioaerosol samples were collected in an airborne infection isolation room, bathroom, and anteroom of a ventilated patient with coronavirus disease 2019. Twenty-eight samples were negative for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleic acid, possibly due to the patient being on a closed-circuit ventilator or the efficiency of the air exchanges in the room.

Managing ICU surge during the COVID-19 crisis: rapid guidelines.

Given the rapidly changing nature of COVID-19, clinicians and policy makers require urgent review and summary of the literature, and synthesis of evidence-based guidelines to inform practice. The WHO advocates for rapid reviews in these circumstances. The purpose of this rapid guideline is to provide recommendations on the organizational management of intensive care units caring for patients with COVID-19 including: planning a crisis surge response; crisis surge response strategies; triage, supporting families, and staff.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: guidelines on the management of critically ill adults with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).

BACKGROUND: The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed. METHODS: We formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which 4 are best practice statements, 9 are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for 6 questions. The topics were: (1) infection control, (2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, (3) hemodynamic support, (4) ventilatory support, and (5) COVID-19 therapy. CONCLUSION: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. When available, we will provide new recommendations in further releases of these guidelines.