ABSTRACT
Health professions preventing and controlling coronavirus disease 2019 are prone to skin and mucous membrane injuries, which may cause acute and chronic dermatitis, secondary infections and aggravation of underlying skin diseases. This is a consensus of Chinese experts on measures and advice on hand cleaning- and medical glove-related hand protection, mask-and goggles-related face protection, ultraviolet-related protection, as well as eye, nasal and oral mucosa, outer ear and hair protection. It is necessary to strictly follow standards on wearing protective equipment and specifications on sterilizing and cleaning. Both insufficient and excessive protection will adversely affect the skin and mucous membrane barrier. At the same time, using moisturizing products is highly recommended to achieve better protection.Copyright © 2020 by the Chinese Medical Association.
ABSTRACT
The importance of protecting the eyes from infectious agents in patients' blood and saliva during dental surgery has long been known, but the global COVID-19 pandemic has made this even more important. The use of ATP bioluminescence to investigate the contamination of dental goggles during the surgical removal of impacted teeth in the present study indicates their importance for protecting the eyes from aerosols from the front, from above, and from the sides.Copyright © 2021 The Author(s)
ABSTRACT
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is a challenge for all health care providers (HCPs). Anesthesiologists are vulnerable to acquiring the disease during aerosol-generating procedures in operating theater and intensive care units. High index of suspicion, detailed history including travel history, strict hand hygiene, use of face masks, and appropriate personal protective equipment are some ways to minimize the risk of exposure to disease. Neurologic manifestations of COVID-19, modification of anesthesia regimen based on the procedure performed, and HCP safety are some implications relevant to a neuroanesthesiologist. National and international guidelines, recommendations, and position statements help in risk stratification, prioritization, and scheduling of neurosurgery and neurointervention procedures. Institutional protocols can be formulated based on the guidelines wherein each HCP has a definite role in this ever-changing scenario. Mental and physical well-being of HCPs is an integral part of successful management of patients. We present our experience in managing 143 patients during the lockdown period in India.Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications. All rights reserved.
ABSTRACT
Health care-associated infections (HAIs) are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. Common examples include catheter-associated urinary tract infections, central line-associated bloodstream infections, ventilator-associated pneumonia, surgical site infections, and Clostridioides difficile infections. Standardized infection control processes and precautions have been shown to reduce the rate of HAIs, and targeted practices for HAIs have shown further reductions. Patient safety tools have been developed for various HAIs to help guide administrators and are free for public use through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention STRIVE (States Targeting Reduction in Infections via Engagement) initiative. The Choosing Wisely initiative makes best practice recommendations for physicians to improve quality of care and reduce costs;targeted recommendations were developed to reduce the risk of HAIs. For example, using invasive devices only when indicated and for the shortest time possible reduces the risk of device-related HAIs. The goal of antibiotic stewardship is to reduce C. difficile infections and further development of multidrug-resistant organisms such as vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae. Antibiotic stewardship targets physician behaviors such as reviewing antibiotic therapy choices every 48 to 72 hours, reviewing culture results as soon as available, de-escalating antibiotic therapy when appropriate, and documenting the indications for initiating and continuing antibiotic therapy.Copyright © 2022 American Academy of Family Physicians.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: The advancement of wearable integrated augmented reality (AR) devices has rapidly progressed over recent years. We describe the first use of AR goggles during a revision neuromodulation surgery, which enabled specialist consultant support from remote despite ongoing coronavirus pandemic restrictions. Materials / Methods: This case report describes a revision surgery case in a previously successfully implanted spinal cord stimulator (SCS) patient. The attempt, to revise the existing percutaneous SCS leads failed due to the patient's challenging anatomy, which left the patient without therapy. A further revision via hemi-laminectomy and insertion of a surgical paddle lead was being organised with specialist support due to expected further anatomical challenges. Due to ongoing coronavirus restrictions both in travelling as well as reduced staffing numbers in the operating theatre in particular for visiting staff, the decision was made to use AR goggles to enable an experienced specialist to attend virtually. Result(s): The use of AR googles enabled a specialist colleague to virtually attend the live surgery despite a 200 mile distance. This included being able to see the surgical field on their computer screen as well as all live radiographic imaging displayed on the operating theatre monitors, having live sound, stopping any live images of the surgery to annotate with drawings and writing, speak to the resident surgeon in real time and discuss as if being physically present. Annotated images could be sent back to the lens of the operating surgeon for review as well as live commentary via integrated microphone and speaker in the surgeons AR goggles. The technology enabled remote specialist support and valuable expert input resulting in successful insertion of paddle leads in an anatomically very challenging patient. The patient reported 90% pain reduction after programming of his new paddle leads. Discussion(s): AR technology opens up new exciting avenues in supporting neuromodulation surgeries remotely with expert advice for difficult operations without being locally present. This saves unnecessary travel, reduces the carbon footprint, downtime of the expert in their local institution resulting fewer potential local case cancellations, reduces the risk of spread of infections such as SARS-CoV-2, as well as gives the ability to teach in remote locations. Furthermore, this opens further opportunities for mentoring of novice implanters. Conclusion(s): Augmented reality technology is a new and exciting way of further promoting proctorship and mentoring and might be particularly useful in supporting novice implanters and those who need additional specialist input in selected cases. Supplemental Data: [Formula presented] [Formula presented] [Formula presented] Learning Objectives: 1. Advances in augmented reality technology - raise awareness of available technology and its use 2. Ability to delivery intraoperative live teaching remotely - opening new avenues for teaching opportunities and training in neuromodulation 3. Proctorship - assistance of a specialist without being physically present. Keywords: Augmented Reality, SCS, Teaching, Training, Paddle leads, Surgical paddle leads Copyright © 2022
ABSTRACT
Introduction: Healthcare Workers (HCWs) are repeatedly exposed to SARS-CoV-2 (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Corona Virus 2) or the COVID-19 virus. This study aimed to identify factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 re-infection among HCWs in a tertiary care centre. Methods: We conducted a case–control study. Cases were defined as those with a second positive reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) report after a symptom free period of atleast 30 days after previous positive RT-PCR report and controls were those with a single covid-19 episode (RTPCR positive) during Aug-2020 to Jul-2021. All HCWs (second positive report) were included as cases and matched controls (age, gender) recruited in 1:2 ratio. They were interviewed using a google form and clarifications (if any) were obtained on phone. Analyses were performed using logistic regression models. Results: A total of 53 cases and 110 controls were included. Age>50 (AOR-1.63 95%CI-1.06-5.59), Men (AOR-4.13 95% CI-1.70–10.05), Nurses (AOR-11.24 95% CI-1.05–119.63), not using N95(AOR-2.89 95% CI-1.02–5.05), Diabetic (AOR-3.51 95%CI-2.01-8.73) and inadequate use of personal protective equipment or PPE (AOR 4.82 95% CI 1.18–19.65) were identified as risk factors. Conversely, graduate (AOR 0.06 95% CI 0.01–0.53) and postgraduate (AOR-0.05 95% CI-0.005–0.7) education, feeling scared or nervous (AOR-0.45 95% CI-0.22–0.91), not always wearing any gloves, caps and goggles/face shields (AOR 0.10 95% CI-0.02–0.41), hand hygiene (AOR-0.42 95% CI-0.1-0.94) and consistent use of N95 masks or double masking (AOR-0.27 95% CI-0.09–0.80) even outside the workplace were protective factors. Conclusion: Study highlights protection provided by high-performance filtering masks or double masking among HCWs. These modifiable risk factors should be considered while designing, implementing, and monitoring COVID-19 biosafety protocols.
ABSTRACT
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM/QUESTION: Personal protective equipment (PPE) has allowed medical students to return to the hospital to continue their clinical responsabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic, however problems with use remain. Throughout the pandemic, stewardship of personal protective equipment has been an immense challenge. Multiple surveys have shown that less than 40% of healthcare providers wore all mandatory PPE during a patient encounter. One potential explanation for challenges in compliance, is that no standardized practices exist for keeping track of an individual's PPE during the work day. As a result, resources can be lost or mixed up between individuals, ultimately increasing exposure risks and decreasing compliance with hospital PPE use guidelines. In response, this study sought to design two innovative and inexpensive solutions to promote the effective use of masks and safety glasses in compliance with hospital guidelines. The aim was to determine if providing stewardship devices would increase compliance. DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM/INTERVENTION: Seventy-eight medical students in their third and fourth year clinical rotations at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai participated in the study. The study lasted three weeks. Each intervention week, participants were provided with a new set of PPE stewardshp devices. Device one was a disposable eye protection lanyard. Device two was a breathable and water-dissolvable PPE pocket storage device that could be attached to a hospital gown. MEASURES OF SUCCESS: To monitor whether the devices increased PPE compliance, participants were administered a pre-survey consisting of 21 questions. Three identical surveys were administered each subsequent intervention week, to assess effectiveness of the devices on PPE compliance. The surveys used a likert scale model to measure whether students' PPE use and ease of use and availability differed pre- and post-intervention. FINDINGS TO DATE: These interventions helped students better adhere to hospital PPE guidelines- 75% for lanyard wearers and 44% for PPE pocket users. Our results further showed 86% of participants reported that PPE was more accessible when provided with lanyards. The attachable pocket similarly increased PPE compliance, however there was a high attrition rate with its usage. KEY LESSONS FOR DISSEMINATION: PPE has served as an incredibly effective tool for limiting the spread of COVID-19. These results suggest that providing medical students with a PPE lanyard device can increase the compliance of eye protection use.
ABSTRACT
Objective: To determine the relationship of anxiety and depression with Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) associated headache. Background: Healthcare workers who treat COVID-19 patients were mandated to use PPE to protect themselves. Personal Protective Equipment causes some difficulties and discomfort as well as some side effects, such as headache. Personal Protective Equipment associated headache might be caused by some pathomechanisms, such as mechanic factor, hypercarbia, and stress. Anxiety and depression are thought to trigger or exacerbate PPE-associated headache. Design/Methods: This was a descriptive analytic study with cross-sectional method conducted in June 2021. We involved healthcare workers in Haji Adam Malik General Hospital, a referral centre for COVID-19 in North Sumatera, Indonesia. Personal Protective Equipment associated headache was assesed with The International Classification of Headache Disorder, 3 Edition (ICHD-3) criteria for external compression headache. Depression was screened with Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). Anxiety was screened with Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) scale. Results: There were 110 respondents in this study: 64 (58,2%) were female, aged 31,94 ±6,43 years, occupation nurse 74(67,3%). Personal Protective Equipment associated headache was experienced by 64 (58,2%) respondents. It was correlated with N95 mask usage (p=0,001), goggle usage (p=0,001), female healthcare workers (p= 0,008) and nurse profession (p= 0,001). Anxiety was reported by 13 (11,8%) respondents, with 10 respondents had mild anxiety. The profession of doctor were correlated with anxiety (p=0,009). Depression was reported by 28 (25,5%) respondents, with 24 respondents had mild depression. There was no correlation between respondents characteristic with depression. Study analysis showed that anxiety and depression were not significantly associated with PPE-associated headache, with p value 0,794 dan 0,897. rd Conclusions: Anxiety and depression were not associated with PPE-associated headache in COVID-19 healthcare workers. These results suggest that another pathomechanisms have bigger influence in PPE-associated headache.
ABSTRACT
Objective: This analysis describes strategies to overcome challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic in a clinical study involving Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) patients. Background: COVID-19 presents safety risks and technical difficulties for research involving in-person visits. Design/Methods: A prospective study investigating digital cognitive assessments in MCI patients was conducted in an outpatient memory clinic starting January 2020. In-person assessments were completed via tablet and paper. Recruitment paused during stay-at-home mandates for nonessential employees starting March 2020 and lasted six months. To optimize paused recruitment, study activities shifted to chart screening which also maintained grant supported study personnel. After resuming recruitment, precautions were applied, mitigating infection risk: protective glass, disinfection, temperature checks, six-foot distancing, surgical masks for patients, and respirators for staff. Participants were informed of precautions prior to scheduling a visit. Patient portal direct messaging, SMS appointment reminders, and increased compensation were implemented. Effects of masks on verbal response analysis by a speech recognition algorithm were assessed during a second, three-month pause starting January 2021. Results: 4569 medical charts were screened. 332 patients were eligible of which 190 patients declined participation with three citing COVID-19 as the reason. Four participants were enrolled prior to shutdown, 22 were analyzed for masking effects, and 62 were enrolled after the second pause (n=88, 74.9±6.8 years old, 46 female). Enrollment rates before and after portal messaging alongside increased compensation were 23.6% and 31.5%, respectively. Data suggested that masks had no effect on speech analysis. No COVID-19 cases were reported among research personnel or participants. Conclusions: The applied strategies allowed proper COVID-19 risk management without negatively affecting data quality. Rearranging study tasks mitigated the effect of recruitment pauses and transparent communication with patients regarding precautions helped instill confidence in their decision to participate, allowing for successful execution of the study. This work offers guidance for investigators faced with similar challenges.
ABSTRACT
Objective: To observe the protective effects of 2 kinds of protective stickers made from different materials on facial injury/discomfort caused by wearing protective appliances of military medical members in the medical team supporting Hubei, so as to provide reference for developing convenient and effective protective measures. Methods Totally 147 military medical members in the medical team supporting Hubei were surveyed by the self-designed questionnaire of facial injury/discomfort caused by wearing protective appliances. Cross-sectional survey of the facial injury/discomfort before and after using the protective gel stickers (Haishen stickers, developed by the Faculty of Pharmacy, Naval Medical University [Second Military Medical University]) or 3M hydrophilic dressing was conducted, and the protective effects of the 2 kinds of protective stickers on facial injury/discomfort were compared. Results A total of 78 medical members finished the questionnaires (62 cases with Haishen stickers and 16 cases with 3M hydrophilic dressings). The scores of facial injury/discomfort were significantly reduced in both groups after using the protective stickers (both, P<0.05);however, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups before or after using the protective stickers (both, P>0.05). The top 4 moderate-to-severe facial injury/discomfort were fogging of protective glasses/masks (85.9%, 67/78), skin indentation (80.8%, 63/78), pain at the contact sites (74.4%, 58/78) and sultry (71.8%, 56/78), and the overall proportion of moderate-to-severe injury/discomfort was 80.8% (63/78);after using the protective stickers, the top 4 moderate-to-severe facial injury/discomfort were fogging of glasses/masks (53.8%, 42/78), sultry (41.0%, 32/78), respiratory resistance (41.0%, 32/78) and skin indentation (38.5%, 30/78), with the overall proportion of moderate to severe injury/discomfort being 43.6% (34/78);and the top 4 improvement rates of facial injury/discomfort after using protective stickers were skin erosion (76.5%), skin redness (67.3%), pain at the contact sites (63.8%), and itching at the contact site (52.9%). Conclusion These 2 kinds of protective stickers made from different materials can improve the facial injury/discomfort caused by protective appliances, which is worth popularizing.
ABSTRACT
Background: Frontline healthcare workers play a critical role in the containment of the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, and as they are wearing personal protective equipment to minimize cross-transmission and acquire confidence in fighting the pandemic (PPE) they face health problems and discomfort as well because of long duty hours. Objectives: To explore the health issues associated with use of PPE among healthcare front liners and to find out the possible solutions for the identified problems. Methodology: A cross sectional observational study involving a group of medical staff was done using a pre tested semi structured questionnaire using google forms at a tertiary care teaching hospital. Results: Maximum people said that Goggles and gowns are the most uncomfortable part of the PPE and the problems/health conditions faced most frequently was fog in goggles/shield and feeling hot and suffocating. Females, Intern Doctors and those with indefinite/not fixed duty were mostly unsatisfied with the PPE that was given. Conclusion: To alleviate healthcare workers’ burnout and job pressures, effective strategies for increasing comfort at workplace is required. More training regarding donning /doffing and comfortable and adequate supply of PPE is needed in order to get uninterrupted and quality service from the healthcare workers.
ABSTRACT
Objective: Assessment of awareness about COVID-19 among medical personnel and general public. Study Description: It is a Cross-Sectional study carried out in R.Y.Khan from June 2020 to September 2020. Methodology: About 430 subjects (medical personnel and general public) were asked to fill a pre-designed questionnaire by using convenient sampling technique. The questionnaire included information regarding their bio-data and study questions. Then SPSS Version 21 was used for data analysis. Results: Our study shows that 90.5% study subjects think that they are well aware about COVID-19 while 9.5% subjects think that they aren’t. In response to question “Is it lethal?” 25.3% subjects replied Always, 67% said Sometimes and 7.7% said Never. 68.6% subjects said that it is Always transmissible, 15.8% said Sometimes and 15.6% said Never. Regarding modes of its spread, 76.5% subjects agreed to Cough, 67.9% to Handshake, 27.9% to Food-sharing, 35.6% to Room-sharing, 28.6% to Utensils-sharing, 21.2% to Fomites-sharing. 6.7% subjects said that its vaccine is Available, 72.1% replied as Not-Available and 21.2% said that they don’t know. 24.9% subjects said that its specific treatment is Available, 53.3% replied as Not-Available and 21.9% said that they don’t know. 71.9% subjects said that it is preventable by adopting specific preventive measures, 8.8% said it isn’t and 19.3% said that they don’t know. Regarding effectiveness of PPEs as preventive measures, 85.8% subjects agreed to Mask, 57.2% to Gown, 52.3% to Goggles, 45.6% to Head-cover, 35.1% to Shoe-cover, 55.8% to Gloves, 70.7% to Social-distancing, 58.4% to use of Hand-wash/Hand-Sanitizer. Conclusion: There is observed some lack of knowledge in different areas regarding COVID-19, almost equally, among medical personnel as well as among general public that results in spread of infection at exponential rates due to negligence of people including poor understanding and poor compliance to the preventive measures advised by health authorities worldwide.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) provides physical barrier against hazardous injury or infectious agents. With the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, PPE plays a vital role with face mask and gloves are being most essential. The frontline Healthcare Workers (HCW) utilizes them to minimize the risk of contaminated contact or infected droplet exposure. Aim: To evaluate the appropriate use of personal protective equipment among healthcare workers in tertiary care hospital. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted in SRM Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, Potheri, Chengalpet district, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India, from February 2021 to May 2021, on utility of PPE among the healthcare workers. There were a total of 273 participants including doctors, residents (postgraduate)/interns, nurses and laboratory technicians. A predesigned questionnaire was utilized to collect information, apart from observation of their PPE practice and 360 degree observation from peers were also used to evaluate. Statistical analysis was done using Chi-square test, Fisher’s-exact test and logistic regression model. Results: Among 273 HCWs, there were 58 (21.24%) doctors, 163 (59.71%) residents and interns, 19 (6.96%) nurses and 33 (12.09)% technicians. There was no association in the frequency of mask with the type of HCW (p-value=0.217). However, the usage frequency of gloves (p-value=0.003), face shield/goggles (p-value=0.004), disposable gown (p-value=0.001) and doffing according to protocol (p-value=0.001) showed statistically significant difference between the category of HCWs. Conclusion: In this study, PPE adherence was high among HCW;however, there was a subtle difference in compliance across the varied groups of healthcare professional and type of PPE used. The PPE compliance among HCW cannot be assumed to be good blindly;frequent official training programs, availability of PPE logistics along with scrutinization regarding its appropriate usage and discarding at regular intervals minimizes the non compliance and also helps in curtaining the COVID-19 transmission.
ABSTRACT
(Background) Endoscopic procedures are interventions that have been defined as carrying a high-risk of infection with COVID-19. Most endoscopy units restrict their activity based on pre-endoscopic diagnosis. (Objective) To determine the consequences of endoscopic restrictions as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and their impact on digestive cancer diagnosis. (Design) A comparison of upper digestive endoscopies and colonoscopies with gastrointestinal cancers diagnosed between three endoscopic centers, two of which restricted their procedures and one that did not but performed the procedures under a strict protocol. (Setting) A retrospective analysis was performed collecting data between 15 March 2019 and 15 August 2020. Two-factor ANOVA and a Tukey's a posteriori test were used as statistical tests. (Main outcome measures) There was variation in gastrointestinal cancer diagnosis between 2019 and 2020, considering the endoscopic procedures performed each year. (Result) There was a significant decrease in the total endoscopic procedures performed between 2019 and 2020 (p < 0.001), the result of reduced testing at the two centers (p < 0.001) with pre-endoscopic restrictions, which was not compensated for by a slight increase in procedures at the center without restrictions (p = 0.139). Regarding the total cancers diagnosed, while a significant decrease was observed for the two centers with pre-endoscopic restrictions (p = 0.007), a significant increase was registered in the center that maintained its endoscopic productivity (p < 0.001). After 851 procedures (537 upper digestive endoscopies and 314 colonoscopies) there was no evidence of COVID-19 infection in the endoscopic staff. (Conclusion) Endoscopic restrictions based on preendoscopic diagnosis should be reassessed in consideration of local pandemic situations, and a balance should be sought between COVID-19 infection risk and the detrimental delay of potential cancer diagnosis.
ABSTRACT
Background. While splashes to the eyes, nose and mouth can often be prevented through appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) use, they continue to occur frequently when PPE is not used consistently. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we implemented universal masking and eye protection for all healthcare personnel (HCP) performing direct patient care and observed a subsequent decline in bloodborne pathogen (BBP) splash exposures. Methods. Our healthcare system, employing >12,000 healthcare personnel (HCP), implemented universal masking in April 2020 and eye protection in June 2020. We required HCP to mask at all times, and use a face shield, safety glasses or goggles when providing direct patient care. Occupational Safety tracked all BBP exposures due to splashes to the eyes, nose, mouth and/or face, and compared exposures during 2020 to those in 2019. We estimated costs, including patient and HCP testing, related to splash exposures, as well as the additional cost of PPE incurred. Results. In 2019, HCP reported 90 splashes, of which 57 (63%) were to the eyes. In 2020, splashes decreased by 54% to 47 (36 [77%] to eyes). In both years, nurses were the most commonly affected HCP type (62% and 72%, respectively, of all exposures). Physicians (including residents) had the greatest decrease in 2020 (10 vs. 1 splash exposures [90%]), while nurses had a 39% decrease (56 vs. 34 exposures). Nearly all of the most common scenarios leading to splash exposures declined in 2020 (Table). We estimated the cost of each BBP exposure as $2,940;this equates to a savings of $123,228. During 2020, we purchased 65,650 face shields, safety glasses and goggles (compared to 5303 similar items in 2019), for an additional cost of $238,440. Specific activities identified as leading to bloodborne pathogen splash exposures, 2019 vs. 2020. Conclusion. We observed a significant decline in splash-related BBP exposures after implementing universal masking and eye protection for the COVID-19 pandemic. While cost savings were not observed, we were unable to incorporate the avoided pain and emotional trauma for the patient, exposed HCP, and coworkers. This unintended but positive consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic exemplifies the need for broader use of PPE, particularly masks and eyewear, for all patient care scenarios where splashes may occur.
ABSTRACT
AIM: The COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) infection that emerged in 2019 has caused difficult conditions for healthcare workers. The aim of this study was to evaluate the situation of employees in the Respiratory Function Tests (PFT), polysomnography (PSG) and Bronchoscopy laboratories, which are among the most risky units in terms of droplet infection, in terms of their exposure to COVID-19 infection. METHODS: Permission was obtained from the Scientific Research Board of TC. Ministry of Health. The study is a multicenter, cross-sectional survey study. The questionnaire form was sent to the participants by e-mail by the Turkish Thoracic Society. The study was limited to healthcare professionals working in PFT, PSG and bronchoscopy laboratories, and the data obtained were compared using the chi-square test. RESULTS: 156 employments (71 PFT, 52 PSG and 33 bronchoscopy laboratories) participated. The mean age was 37±8.6 (23-60), 47 (30%) were male. The vaccination rate was 91%, and 14 (9%) participants were not vaccinated voluntarily. Of the 48 (30.8%) participants who had COVID-19, 36 (75%) were diagnosed only with PCR, 3 (1%) only radiologically, and 9 (19%) with both tests. Before vaccination, 36 (73%) people had COVID-19. Two people got COVID-19 right after the first dose of vaccine, 12 (25%) people got COVID-19 after the second dose of vaccine. 4 of them were hospitalized and one person was taken to intensive care. Full compliance with the personal protective equipment of laboratory staff (goggles/visor, N95/FPP2.2 mask, gloves, overalls) is 62%. When the conditions of the laboratories were questioned, 7 (10%) laboratories did not meet any requirements for clean air. When those who had COVID-19 were asked about the sources of transmission, 61.2% answered as hospital/patient, 16.3% family contact, 14.3% social environment, 8.2% did not express an opinion. CONCLUSION: A higher number of COVID-19 infections were detected in PFT and Bronchoscopy units compared to PSG workers. Although they have been educated about health and have taken various preventive measures;The incidence of COVID-19 in those working in this laboratory was found to be 30.6%. This rate is TC. According to the data of the Ministry of Health (3 July 2021, 8%), it is significantly higher than the general population. In a meta-analysis conducted by examining 25 articles and 168,200 healthcare workers in total, the average seroprevalence was shown to be 8%. This value is higher than our findings. Reasons for this may include intense contact with patients, inadequate laboratory conditions, and inadequate personal precautions. This cross-sectional study is a starting point for more extensive and detailed research on this subject. Additional measures should be taken to protect both patients and employees from infection.
ABSTRACT
Background: Covid 19 infection is spreading like a wild fire world wide. More worrisome thing is that it has spread in health workers too which are the sole care takers of affected patients, despite of use of personal protective equipments and taking other precautions. Aim: To conduct a study at local level to see causes of high frequency of Covid 19 infection in health care workers. Methods: We conducted a cross sectional observational study in which we enrolled 195 doctors, nurses and paramedics from different hospitals of punjab, who were affected from covid 19 infection and gave them a questionnaire to fill regarding use of mask, (surgical, cloth, n=95)/duration of its use, use of surgical cap, goggles, soap or hand sanitizer use/frequency, technique of donning/doffing of PPE etc, to find out that where is the fault. Results: Out of total 195 participants 148 were doctors from various specialties, departments and with different work experience.47 were nurses and other paramedical staff including lab workers, pharmacists, ward boys and others. Out of 195 participants 42(21.5%) did not use PPE (cover-all with surgical apron, mask KN-95 or N-95, goggles/face shield) whereas 153(78.5%) used it. Conclusion: We concluded at the end of our study that improper doffing techniques, overuse of masks for more than 3 days, and infrequent hand washing may be the reasons for increased rate of infection and need to be dealt promptly.
ABSTRACT
Objective: To assess the gap between knowledge and practice of PPEs among healthcare professionals during COVID-19. Study design: Cross-Sectional study. Study setting: Sheikh Zayed Medical College/Hospital, Rahim Yar Khan. Study Duration: May-August 2020. Methodology: A total of 214 Healthcare professionals (including medical and paramedical staff) were included in this study using convenient sampling technique. Data was collected on pre-designed questionnaire. The questionnaire included information regarding age, sex, job title, working station, etc. then data was entered in and analyzed by using SPSS Version. 21. Numerical variables like age was presented as mean ± standard deviation. Categorical variables like sex, job title, working station were shown as percentages. Results: Our study included the subjects with 88 (41.1%) males and 126 (58.9%) females. Mean age of study subjects came out to be 26.6±3.954 years. It is observed that only 95 (44.4%) of the subjects have PPEs;only 85 (39.7%) were provided PPEs from their respective healthcare authorities and 137 (64%) can afford purchasing PPEs on their own. And there is a major gap seen between the knowledge about PPEs/appreciation of their effectiveness and the practice of PPEs by these healthcare professionals. Regarding PPEs (which include gown, surgical mask, N-95 mask, gloves, goggles, head cover, shoe cover, social distancing, hand sanitizer and hand washing), this lag is seen majorly among the healthcare professionals working in general wards;less among emergency staff and least among the subjects working at flu filter clinic or isolation wards. Conclusion: Majority of healthcare professionals appreciate the effectiveness of PPEs against corona virus but don't bring them into practice;either due to non-availability of PPEs or they have some attitude problem towards it.