Coronavirus disease 2019: Repeated immersion of chlorine-containing disinfectants has adverse effects on goggles.

Introduction: During COVID-19, some front-line personnel experienced varying degrees of eye discomfort due to the use of goggles repeatedly disinfected with chlorine-containing disinfectant. Methods: The eye damage information of 276 front-line personnel who used goggles in a hospital from October 1, 2021, to December 1, 2021, was collected by filling out a questionnaire. To study the effect of chlorinated disinfectants on goggles, we immersed the goggles in the same volume of water and chlorinated disinfectant buckets. We tested the light transmittance, color and texture, and airtightness of the goggles at different times (1, 3, 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, 72, 96, 120, 144, 168, 192, 216, 240, and 268 h). In addition, we detected where chlorinated disinfectant remained in the goggles by using disinfectant concentration test paper. Results: 60 (21.82%) people experienced dry eyes, stinging pain, photophobia and tearing, conjunctival congestion, eyelid redness, and swelling. After treatment or rest, the patient's ocular symptoms were significantly relieved within 3 days. With the extension of disinfection time, the light transmission of the lenses gradually decreased, and the light transmission reduced when immersion occurred at 216 h. After 72 h of disinfection, the color of the goggle frame began to change to light yellow, the texture gradually became hard and brittle, and the color became significantly darker at 268 h of disinfection. The airtightness of the goggles began to decrease after 168 h of disinfection, the airtightness decreased substantially at 268 h, and the shape changed significantly. In addition, the concentration test paper results show that the disinfection solution mainly resides in the goggle frame seam and goggles' elastic bands' bundle. Conclusions: Repeated chlorine disinfectant disinfection will reduce the effectiveness of goggles protection and damage front-line personnel's eye health.

Effectiveness of 2 Pretreatment Methods in Antifogging of Goggles in a COVID-19 Isolation Ward: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of the pretreatment of goggles with iodophor solution and antibacterial hand sanitizer to reduce the fogging of goggles. METHODS: A total of 90 health care workers were divided into a control group (n = 30), an iodophor solution group (n = 30), and an antibacterial hand sanitizer group (n = 30). This study evaluated the degree of fogging of goggles and the light transmission, comfort, eye irritation, and the impact of goggles on the medical work of staff. RESULTS: The antibacterial hand sanitizer group had the lowest amount of goggle fogging and the most transparent view. Participants in the control group reported the worst light transmission and comfort level, followed by the iodophor solution group. In contrast, the goggles in the antibacterial hand sanitizer group had the best light transmission and comfort level. The iodophor solution group participants reported more eye irritation. Participants in the control group reported that the goggles severely impacted their medical work, with a less severe impact reported by the iodophor solution group. The antibacterial hand sanitizer group did not report any impact on their medical work. DISCUSSION: When the goggles were internally coated with antibacterial hand sanitizer solution (diluted 1:1 with distilled water), the antifog effect was significant. Moreover, the goggles treated with antibacterial hand sanitizer had a clearer field of vision, were reported as non-irritating to the eyes, and significantly improved the efficiency of COVID-19 health care workers, including emergency nurses and providers.

Impact of face masks and sunglasses on emotion recognition in South Koreans.

Due to the prolonged COVID-19 pandemic, wearing masks has become essential for social interaction, disturbing emotion recognition in daily life. In the present study, a total of 39 Korean participants (female = 20, mean age = 24.2 years) inferred seven emotions (happiness, surprise, fear, sadness, disgust, anger, surprise, and neutral) from uncovered, mask-covered, sunglasses-covered faces. The recognition rates were the lowest under mask conditions, followed by the sunglasses and uncovered conditions. In identifying emotions, different emotion types were associated with different areas of the face. Specifically, the mouth was the most critical area for happiness, surprise, sadness, disgust, and anger recognition, but fear was most recognized from the eyes. By simultaneously comparing faces with different parts covered, we were able to more accurately examine the impact of different facial areas on emotion recognition. We discuss the potential cultural differences and the ways in which individuals can cope with communication in which facial expressions are paramount.

Management of donations of personal protective equipment in response to the massive shortage during the COVID-19 health crisis: providing quality equipment to health care workers.

BACKGROUND: In the COVID-19 pandemic context, a massive shortage of personal protective equipment occurred. To increase the available stocks, several countries appealed for donations from individuals or industries. While national and international standards to evaluate personal protective equipment exist, none of the previous research studied how to evaluate personal protective equipment coming from donations to healthcare establishments. Our aim was to evaluate the quality and possible use of the personal protective equipment donations delivered to our health care establishment in order to avoid a shortage and to protect health care workers throughout the COVID-19 crisis. METHODS: Our intervention focused on evaluation of the quality of donations for medical use through creation of a set of assessment criteria and analysis of the economic impact of these donations. RESULTS: Between 20th March 2020 and 11th May 2020, we received 239 donations including respirators, gloves, coveralls, face masks, gowns, hats, overshoes, alcohol-based hand rubs, face shields, goggles and aprons. A total of 448,666 (86.3%) products out of the 519,618 initially received were validated and distributed in health care units, equivalent to 126 (52.7%) donations out of the 239 received. The budgetary value of the validated donations was 32,872 euros according to the pre COVID-19 prices and 122,178 euros according to the current COVID-19 prices, representing an increase of 371.7%. CONCLUSIONS: By ensuring a constant influx of personal protective equipment and proper stock management, shortages were avoided. Procurement and distribution of controlled and validated personal protective equipment is the key to providing quality care while guaranteeing health care worker safety.

The effect of eye protection on SARS-CoV-2 transmission: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The effect of eye protection to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection in the real-world remains uncertain. We aimed to synthesize all available research on the potential impact of eye protection on transmission of SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: We searched PROSPERO, PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library for clinical trials and comparative observational studies in CENTRAL, and Europe PMC for pre-prints. We included studies that reported sufficient data to estimate the effect of any form of eye protection including face shields and variants, goggles, and glasses, on subsequent confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: We screened 898 articles and included 6 reports of 5 observational studies from 4 countries (USA, India, Columbia, and United Kingdom) that tested face shields, goggles, and wraparound eyewear on 7567 healthcare workers. The three before-and-after and one retrospective cohort studies showed statistically significant and substantial reductions in SARS-CoV-2 infections favouring eye protection with odds ratios ranging from 0.04 to 0.6, corresponding to relative risk reductions of 96% to 40%. These reductions were not explained by changes in the community rates. However, the one case-control study reported odds ratio favouring no eye protection (OR 1.7, 95% CI 0.99, 3.0). The high heterogeneity between studies precluded any meaningful meta-analysis. None of the studies adjusted for potential confounders such as other protective behaviours, thus increasing the risk of bias, and decreasing the certainty of evidence to very low. CONCLUSIONS: Current studies suggest that eye protection may play a role in prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection in healthcare workers. However, robust comparative trials are needed to clearly determine effectiveness of eye protections and wearability issues in both healthcare and general populations.

Association Between Skin Injuries in Medical Staff and Protective Masks Combined with Goggles During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the relationship between wearing protective masks and goggles and skin injuries in medical staff during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Researchers conducted a cross-sectional, multicenter online survey. Respondents voluntarily completed the questionnaire on their smartphones. Ordinal and multinomial logistic regressions were used to identify factors related to skin injuries. RESULTS: In total, 1,611 respondents wore protective masks combined with goggles in 145 hospitals in China; 1,281 skin injuries were reported (overall prevalence, 79.5%). Multiple concomitant skin injuries (68.5%) and injuries in four anatomic locations (24.0%) were the most common, followed by injuries in three (22.8%), two (21.7%), and one location (11.0%). Multinomial logistic regression indicated that sweating increased the risk of injuries in one to four anatomic locations (95% confidence interval for odds ratio 16.23-60.02 for one location and 38.22-239.04 for four locations), and wearing an N95 mask combined with goggles and a daily use longer than 4 hours increased the risk of injuries in four locations (95% confidence interval for odds ratio 1.18-5.31 and 1.14-3.93, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of skin injuries among medical staff wearing protective masks combined with goggles was very high. These were mainly device-related pressure injuries, moisture-associated skin damage, and skin tears. The combination of various factors resulted in skin injuries at multiple sites. Preventing and managing sweating should be a focus for medical staff who wear protective masks combined with goggles for more than 4 hours.

Prevention of fogging inside safety goggles for healthcare professionals during COVID-19 pandemic: A low-cost solution in resource-limited settings.

Fogging inside the safety goggles is a common problem experienced by more healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic than ever. Various anti-fogging remedies are available on the market. We have adopted a low-cost alternative that can be extremely useful in resource-limited settings.

The Association between the Perceived Adequacy of Workplace Infection Control Procedures and Personal Protective Equipment with Mental Health Symptoms: A Cross-sectional Survey of Canadian Health-care Workers during the COVID-19 Pandemic: L'association entre le caractère adéquat perçu des procédures de contrôle des infections au travail et de l'équipement de protection personnel pour les symptômes de santé mentale. Un sondage transversal des travailleurs de la santé canadiens durant la pandémie COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the relationship between perceived adequacy of personal protective equipment (PPE) and workplace-based infection control procedures (ICP) and mental health symptoms among a sample of health-care workers in Canada within the context of the current COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A convenience-based internet survey of health-care workers in Canada was facilitated through various labor organizations between April 7 and May 13, 2020. A total of 7,298 respondents started the survey, of which 5,988 reported information on the main exposures and outcomes. Anxiety symptoms were assessed using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-2) screener, and depression symptoms using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2) screener. We assessed the perceived need and adequacy of 8 types of PPE and 10 different ICP. Regression analyses examined the proportion of GAD-2 and PHQ-2 scores of 3 and higher across levels of PPE and ICP, adjusted for a range of demographic, occupation, workplace, and COVID-19-specific measures. RESULTS: A total of 54.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 53.5% to 56.1%) of the sample had GAD-2 scores of 3 and higher, and 42.3% (95% CI, 41.0% to 43.6%) of the sample had PHQ-2 scores of 3 and higher. Absolute differences of 18% (95% CI, 12% to 23%) and 17% (95% CI, 12% to 22%) were observed in the prevalence of GAD-2 scores of 3 and higher between workers whose perceived PPE needs and ICP needs were met compared to those who needs were not met. Differences of between 11% (95% CI, 6% to 17%) and 19% (95% CI, 14% to 24%) were observed in PHQ-2 scores of 3 and higher across these same PPE and ICP categories. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest strengthening employer-based infection control strategies likely has important implications for the mental health symptoms among health-care workers in Canada.

Effectiveness of using hydrocolloid dressing combined with 3M Cavilon No-Sting Barrier Film to prevent facial pressure injury on medical staff in a COVID-19 designated hospital in China: a self-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is rapidly transmitted and has aroused enormous concern globally. This study aimed to investigate the effect of hydrocolloid dressing combined with 3M Cavilon No-Sting Barrier Film on the prevention of facial pressure injury in medical staff tasked with preventing and controlling COVID-19. METHODS: This was a self-controlled study. Medical staff who treated patients with COVID-19 infection in isolation wards from 6 January to 2 February, 2020, were selected to participate. Phase I was defined as the first 2 weeks of medical personnel entering the isolation ward, with phase II being the following 2 weeks. In phase I, medical workers only used hydrocolloid dressing on their faces, and in phase II, they used both hydrocolloid dressing and 3M Cavilon No-Sting Barrier Film. RESULTS: A total of 116 medical workers were selected as research subjects. The average facial local temperature in phase I was higher than that in phase II from the baseline (day 1) to the end of the study (day 14); however, there was no statistically significant difference (P>0.05). The incidence of facial pressure injury in phase II was lower than that in phase I (P<0.05); the facial skin comfort level among medical staff in phase II was higher than that in phase I (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Hydrocolloid dressing combined with 3M Cavilon No-Sting Barrier Film for facial skin care can effectively reduce the incidence of facial pressure injury and can improve skin comfort level while ensuring isolation and a protective effect.

Management of tracheostomy in COVID-19 patients: The Japanese experience.

OBJECTIVE: Involvement in the tracheostomy procedure for COVID-19 patients can lead to a feeling of fear in medical staff. To address concerns over infection, we gathered and analyzed experiences with tracheostomy in the COVID-19 patient population from all over Japan. METHODS: The data for health-care workers involved in tracheostomies for COVID-19-infected patients were gathered from academic medical centers or their affiliated hospitals from all over Japan. RESULTS: Tracheostomies have been performed in 35 COVID-19 patients with a total of 91 surgeons, 49 anesthesiologists, and 49 surgical staff members involved. Twenty-eight (80%) patients underwent surgery more than 22 days after the development of COVID-19-related symptoms (11: 22-28 days and 17: ≥29 days). Thirty (85.7%) patients underwent surgery ≥ 15 days after intubation (14: 15-21 days, 6: 22-28 days, and 10: ≥29 days). Among the total of 189 health-care workers involved in the tracheostomy procedures, 25 used a powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR) and 164 used a N95 mask and eye protection. As a result, no transmission to staff occurred during the 2 weeks of follow-up after surgery. CONCLUSION: No one involved in tracheostomy procedures were found to have been infected with COVID-19 in this Japanese study. The reason is thought to be that the timing of the surgery was quite late after the infections, and the surgery was performed using appropriate PPE and surgical procedure. The indications for and timing of tracheostomy for severe COVID-19 patients should be decided through multidisciplinary discussion.

A systematic review of the literature on the role of tracheostomy in COVID-19 patients.

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a viral infection caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which emerged in East Asia and spread around the world from December 2019. The most severe stage of COVID-19 pathology is characterized by respiratory distress requiring intubation. In specific cases, tracheostomy is indicated to ensure the safety of the procedure. The aim of our study was to analyze the scientific literature identifying the indications for tracheostomy and safety precautions to reduce contamination. We analyzed the literature from February 2003 to April 2020, including papers on pandemics of other coronaviruses, such As Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 1 and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus, to obtain a variety of relevant information. We focused on indications for tracheostomy in patients affected by COVID-19 or related viruses and the measures adopted to perform a safe procedure. We included 35 papers, of which 24 (68.57%) discussed guidelines for tracheostomy indications. All 35 studies discussed the procedures for performing tracheostomy safely. Data obtained indicated that the authors generally agreed on safety measures but expressed different opinions about indications. Therefore, we provided guidelines addressing safety recommendations. After the pandemic has been resolved, we plan to conduct an international retrospective study to identify the criteria for tracheostomy indications.

Community use of face masks and similar barriers to prevent respiratory illness such as COVID-19: a rapid scoping review.

BackgroundEvidence for face-mask wearing in the community to protect against respiratory disease is unclear.AimTo assess effectiveness of wearing face masks in the community to prevent respiratory disease, and recommend improvements to this evidence base.MethodsWe systematically searched Scopus, Embase and MEDLINE for studies evaluating respiratory disease incidence after face-mask wearing (or not). Narrative synthesis and random-effects meta-analysis of attack rates for primary and secondary prevention were performed, subgrouped by design, setting, face barrier type, and who wore the mask. Preferred outcome was influenza-like illness. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) quality assessment was undertaken and evidence base deficits described.Results33 studies (12 randomised control trials (RCTs)) were included. Mask wearing reduced primary infection by 6% (odds ratio (OR): 0.94; 95% CI: 0.75-1.19 for RCTs) to 61% (OR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.32-2.27; OR: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.18-0.84 and OR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.45-0.85 for cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies respectively). RCTs suggested lowest secondary attack rates when both well and ill household members wore masks (OR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.48-1.37). While RCTs might underestimate effects due to poor compliance and controls wearing masks, observational studies likely overestimate effects, as mask wearing might be associated with other risk-averse behaviours. GRADE was low or very low quality.ConclusionWearing face masks may reduce primary respiratory infection risk, probably by 6-15%. It is important to balance evidence from RCTs and observational studies when their conclusions widely differ and both are at risk of significant bias. COVID-19-specific studies are required.

The Need for Ocular Protection for Health Care Workers During SARS-CoV-2 Outbreak and a Hypothesis for a Potential Personal Protective Equipment.

SARS-CoV-2 is a coronavirus with high infectivity and has caused dramatic pressure on health systems all over the world. Appropriate personal protection for medical staffs is critical. For ocular protection, there is ongoing hot debate and concern for potential ocular transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Ocular manifestations and positive detection of viral RNA in ocular samples were only reported in very small number of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. However, health care workers need to face patients more closely and have higher risk of aerosol contamination. Thus, appropriate ocular protection for medical workers is still recommended by organizations such as WHO and American Academy of Ophthalmology. Although eye goggles provide excellent protection and are mandatory for medical practitioners with high risk of exposure, they are not ideal for common clinical practice, because they can disturb vision due to extensive formation of water droplets and frequently cause moderate to severe discomfort after longtime wearing, which have been reported to interfere with working status. For the majority of medical workers who don't deal with high risk patients, they are not advised to wear goggles in daily practice. However, they also face the risk of infection due to the presence of asymptomatic carriers. Especially in situations with high risk of ocular exposure, such as close physical examination, eye surgery, dental clinics and surgery, ocular protection may be needed. Griffithsin has been shown to directly bind to spike proteins and has anti-viral activity against a broad spectrum of viruses, including coronavirus. Griffithsin is found to inhibit the entry of SARS-CoV at relatively low concentration and is stable and non-toxic. SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV share the same entry receptors and their spike proteins are similar in conformation. We hypothesize that contact lenses containing nanoparticles loaded with griffithsin may provide sufficient ocular protection for medical staffs without high risk of exposure during the outbreak period of SARS-CoV-2. If proven effective, griffithsin-loaded contact lens can be considered as a supplementary ocular protective equipment for medical workers who can tolerate well. The daily disposable contact lens should be applied as needed and refrain from extended wearing in order to reduce potential side effects.