End-user acceptability of personal protective equipment disinfection for potential reuse: a survey of health-care workers in Aotearoa New Zealand.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted personal protective equipment (PPE) supply, distribution, and disposal issues worldwide. Calls to conserve PPE stocks and increase supply resulted in the rapid development of potential disinfection methods, with the possibility of improvements in medical waste reduction. However, how receptive health-care workers are to PPE reuse remains unknown. We aimed to examine the views of health-care workers who used PPE during the first COVID-19 wave in Aotearoa New Zealand, in relation to acceptability of PPE disinfection and reuse. METHODS: In this multi-methods survey, health-care workers in New Zealand, were invited via a multimodal recruitment strategy to complete a survey regarding use of PPE during the first COVID-19 wave. Gender question options were male, female, gender diverse, or prefer not to say. Demographic differences in self-reported PPE reuse and acceptability were examined. The survey included closed (single-response, multi-response, ranking, and Likert-scale questions) and open-text questions. Any open-text comments were analysed with thematic analysis. The survey was built and deployed using Qualtrics software. FINDINGS: 1411 health-care workers completed the survey between Oct 7 and Nov 30, 2020. 1397 participants had gender data available (1140 [82%] female and 257 [18%] male) and 995 (74%) of 1347 were of New Zealand European ethnicity. PPE reuse was common and reported by 628 (45%) of the 1411 participants, with 396 (63%) of the 628 reporting reusing PPE multiple times in 1 day. Acceptability of the concept of PPE disinfection for potential reuse was high overall (1196 [85%] of 1411) but varied depending on the type of PPE. Thematic analysis confirmed that PPE reuse was already occurring and respondents recognised the potential benefits of reduced medical wastage and increased PPE supply. Important caveats for consideration included the availability of scientific evidence, level of negotiated risk, and trust in the organisation undertaking PPE disinfection, with clear communication about decontamination processes being crucial to acceptability. INTERPRETATION: PPE reuse occurred frequently during the first wave of COVID-19 in New Zealand. Although support for the disinfection of PPE for reuse was high, the success of any future programmes to reuse PPE will require meaningful engagement and clear communication with health-care workers. Further research into PPE disinfection safety and logistics is warranted, alongside the development of standard operating procedures and clearly communicated policies for the end user, should this more sustainable health-care practice be planned for adoption in certain settings. FUNDING: New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (COVID-19 Innovation Acceleration Fund) and the Medical Assurance Society Foundation.

Learning from healthcare workers' experiences with personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic in Aotearoa/New Zealand: a thematic analysis and framework for future practice.

OBJECTIVES: Safety and welfare are critical as pandemic-related demands on the healthcare workforce continue. Access to personal protective equipment (PPE) has been a central concern of healthcare workers throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Against the backdrop of an already strained healthcare system, our study aimed to explore the experiences of healthcare workers with PPE during the first COVID-19 surge (February-June 2020) in Aotearoa/New Zealand (NZ). We also aimed to use these findings to present a strengths-based framework for supporting healthcare workers moving forward. DESIGN: Web-based, anonymous survey including qualitative open-text questions. Questions were both closed and open text, and recruitment was multimodal. We undertook inductive thematic analysis of the dataset as a whole to explore prominent values related to healthcare workers' experiences. SETTING: October-November 2020 in New Zealand. PARTICIPANTS: 1411 healthcare workers who used PPE during surge one of the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: We identified four interactive values as central to healthcare workers' experiences: transparency, trust, safety and respect. When healthcare workers cited positive experiences, trust and safety were perceived as present, with a sense of inclusion in the process of stock allocation and effective communication with managers. When trust was low, with concerns over personal safety, poor communication and lack of transparency resulted in perceived lack of respect and distress among respondents. Our proposed framework presents key recommendations to support the health workforce in terms of communication relating to PPE supply and distribution built on those four values. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare worker experiences with PPE access has been likened to 'the canary in the coalmine' for existing health system challenges that have been exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. The four key values identified could be used to improve healthcare worker experience in the future.

Hydrothermal deconstruction of single-use personal protective equipment: process design and economic performance.

Increased demand for single-use personal protective equipment (PPE) during the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a marked increase in the amount of PPE waste and associated environmental pollution. Developing efficient and environmentally safe technologies to manage and dispose of this PPE waste stream is imperative. We designed and evaluated a hydrothermal deconstruction technology to reduce PPE waste by up to 99% in weight. Hydrothermal deconstruction of single-use PPE waste was modelled using experimental data in Aspen Plus. Techno-economic and sensitivity analyses were conducted, and the results showed that plant scale, plant lifetime, discount rate, and labour costs were the key factors affecting overall processing costs. For a 200 kg/batch plant under optimal conditions, the cost of processing PPE waste was found to be 10 NZD/kg (6 USD/kg), which is comparable to the conventional practice of autoclaving followed by landfilling. The potential environmental impacts of this process were found to be negligible; meanwhile, this practice significantly reduced the use of limited landfill space.

Mixed-Methods Survey of Healthcare Workers' Experiences of Personal Protective Equipment during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Aotearoa/New Zealand.

There have been widespread issues with the supply and distribution of personal protective equipment (PPE) globally throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, raising considerable public concern. We aimed to understand the experiences of healthcare workers using PPE during the first COVID-19 surge (February-June 2020) in Aotearoa/New Zealand (NZ). This study consisted of an online, voluntary, and anonymous survey, distributed nationwide via multimodal recruitment. Reported domains included PPE supply, sourcing and procurement, fit-testing and fit-checking, perceived protection, trust and confidence in the workplace, mental health, and the likelihood of remaining in the profession. Differences according to demographic variables (e.g., profession and workplace) were examined. We undertook a descriptive analysis of responses to open-text questions to provide explanation and context to the quantitative data. The survey was completed in October-November 2020 by 1411 healthcare workers. Reported PPE shortages were common (26.8%) among healthcare workers during surge one in NZ. This led to respondents personally saving both new (31.2%) and used (25.2%) PPE, purchasing their own PPE (28.2%), and engaging in extended wear practices. More respondents in the public system reported being told not to wear PPE by their organisation compared with respondents in the private sector. Relatively low numbers of respondents who were required to undertake aerosol-generating procedures reported being fit-tested annually (3.8%), a legal requirement in NZ. Healthcare workers in NZ reported a concerning level of unsafe PPE practices during surge one, as well as a high prevalence of reported mental health concerns. As NZ and other countries transition from COVID-19 elimination to suppression strategies, healthcare worker safety should be paramount, with clear communication regarding PPE use and supply being a key priority.

Rapid Development of a Tool for Prioritizing Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 for Intensive Care.

OBJECTIVES: To explain and demonstrate a new approach for rapidly developing a decision-support tool for prioritizing patients with coronovirus 2019 disease for admission to ICUs. DESIGN: An expert group used multi-criteria decision analysis methods to specify criteria and weights, representing their relative importance, for prioritizing patients with coronovirus 2019 disease with respect to likely clinical benefit. Specialized multi-criteria decision analysis software, implementing the "Potentially All Pairwise RanKings of all possible Alternatives" method to determine the weights, was used. Social equity considerations for prioritizing patients were also identified as important. SETTING: The prioritization tool was developed in New Zealand. SUBJECTS: An expert group comprising specialists from intensive care medicine and nursing, Maori (New Zealand's indigenous population) health, infectious diseases, and neonatology was formed. The group's work was supported by health economists and decision analysts and overseen by an ethicist and a senior representative from the New Zealand Ministry of Health. INTERVENTIONS: Multi-criteria decision analysis to create a prioritization tool. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The prioritization tool comprised eight criteria with respect to likely clinical benefit. In decreasing order of importance (weights in parentheses): Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (15.7%), preexisting cardiovascular conditions (15.7%), functional capacity (15.7%), age (12.4%), preexisting respiratory conditions (11.1%), immunocompromised (11.1%), body mass index (9.2%), and other relevant medical conditions (9.2%). Two social equity considerations were also included in the overarching decision framework to be used alongside the clinical criteria: prioritizing Maori and Pacific people (and, potentially, other at-risk groups), and healthcare and other frontline workers. CONCLUSIONS: The criteria and weights in the prioritization tool can be easily revised as new evidence emerges. The approach for developing the tool could be used in other countries whose ICUs are at risk of being overwhelmed by the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic to rapidly develop their own prioritization tools. In the event that future crises threaten to overload ICUs, other prioritization tools could also be rapidly developed.