Skin problems associated with the use of personal protective equipment by healthcare workers during COVID-19 pandemic in Türkiye.

Background: Skin problems associated with the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) have been reported during the COVID-19 pandemic. Aims: To determine the skin problems experienced by healthcare workers in Türkiye who used PPE during COVID-19 and the effect of these problems on their quality-of-life. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted from 30 November 2020 to 30 May 2021. Data were collected from 404 healthcare workers recruited via social media. Participants completed a skin problem evaluation form and Skindex-16, which measures the effects of skin disease on quality-of-life. The t test and ANOVA were used to analyse differences between the means. Results: Most (85.1%) of the participants were nurses and 38.6% worked in COVID-19 intensive care units. All the participants wore gloves (53.2% wore double gloves), 99.3% wore surgical masks and 56.2% wore protective glasses. They washed their hands on average 31.94 [standard deviation (SD) 27.55] times a day. Skin problems developed were mostly around the forehead, hands, nose, and ears. The mean (SD) Skindex-16 score was 45.42 (26.31). Based on Skindex scores, respondents with chronic skin problems had a significantly lower quality-of-life than those without skin problems, as did those who developed skin problems during the COVID-19 pandemic than those who did not (P < 0.001). Conclusion: Skin problems associated with the use of PPE increased during the COVID-19 pandemic and these affected the quality-of-life of healthcare workers. Further studies should evaluate how to minimize adverse reactions due to PPE use.

Headache Associated with PPE During COVID-19 Pandemic in Health Care Workers.

PURPOSE: In the pandemic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), health care workers (HCWs) are at very high risk. Personal protective equipment (PPE) and masks are not only difficult to wear while working but also causes various complications. The present self-administered questionnaire- based study aimed to explore the headache and complications in HCWs on wearing PPE during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The present study was performed by obtaining a self-administered questionnaire from HCWs, which provides evidence of various complications due to the use of a PPE and mask. RESULTS: Out of a total of 329 respondents, 189(57.45%), 67(20.36%), 238(72.34%), 213(64.74%), 177(53.80%), and 34(10.33%) reported headache, breathlessness, suffocation, nose pain, ear pain, and leg pain respectively. Out of 329 respondents, 47(14.29%) had pre-existing headaches. Headache was significantly high for those who wore PPE for 4-6h (121/133; 87.05%) than that of those who wore up to 4h (18/26; 69.23%). Of the 34(24.46%) required medication who reported headaches wearing PPE. Acetaminophen is quite helpful in most health care workers to decrease headaches. Nose-related complications occur frequently in health care workers after regular shifts for more than 6 days. Gelatinous adhesives patch was a wonderful prophylactic remedy as it was helpful to prevent nose- related complications in 24 HCWs out of 25(96%). CONCLUSIONS: More than half of the HCWs reported headache, suffocation, nose pain, and ear pain. Duration of PPE use of more than 4h is significantly associated with headache. Short duration PPE use prevent HCWs from headache and various ill effects.

Prevention of Laboratory Animal Allergy and Impact of COVID-19 on Prevention Programs in the United States: A National Survey 10-Year Update.

OBJECTIVE: Laboratory animal allergy (LAA) is common and preventable. This study provides a 10-year update on LAA prevention programs in the United States and the effect of COVID-19 on prevention practices. METHODS: An electronic survey was e-mailed to designated institutional officials at laboratory animal facilities identified by the National Institutes of Health Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare. Results were compared with the prior survey. RESULTS: A total of 141 institutions employing 58,224 laboratory animal workers responded. Results were similar to the prior survey with wide variation in practices. Medical surveillance increased (58%-71%), but N95 respirator use decreased (17%-13%). As before, only 25% of institutions knew their LAA incidence and prevalence rates. COVID-19 had a small time-limited effect on personal protective equipment use. CONCLUSIONS: Universal use of evidence-based practices and improved medical surveillance would provide greater worker protection from LAA.

Skin lesions resulting from use of personal protective equipment in the context of COVID-19: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: During the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic, to prevent the transmission of the virus, the use of personal protection products and equipment were recommended by international and national organisations. The need to use it more frequently and for a long time can damage the skin of health professionals. The aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence and factors associated with skin lesions in health professionals resulting from the use of personal protective equipment (PPE). METHOD: This was a cross-sectional exploratory study through an online questionnaire. The first part of the questionnaire collected socio-labour characterisation data and the second part related to exposure factors. The variables were analysed according to the prevalence and the odds ratio (OR), within a 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Of the 398 participants who met the inclusion criteria, 65.3% were self-diagnosed with skin lesions: 37.3% with pressure injury, 25.8% with contact/allergic dermatitis and 2.7% with acne. Regarding the use of PPE, of the 240 professionals who reported using an N95 mask, 80.4% developed injuries, 70.4% of which related to a work regime of >6 hours per day (OR: 2.08, 95% CI: 1.79-2.42). CONCLUSION: The results of this study showed a significant prevalence of skin lesions in health professionals. Among exposure factors, the N95 mask and goggles stand out. Longer or more frequent exposure time to personal protective products and equipment proved to be important factors to be considered.

Personal protective equipment-related dermatoses in COVID-19 frontline health workers. A lesson learned from 1-year single center in the UAE.

Since COVID-19 was declared a pandemic in March 2020, frontline health care workers wear personal protective equipment (PPE, surgical masks, N95 or similar respirators, gloves, goggles, face shields, and gowns). Alcohol-based sanitizers and wipes were recommended. Such measures lead to disruption of the natural skin habitat and skin barrier and various cutaneous reactions. The aim was to assess the prevalence and characteristics of PPE-related dermatoses among health care workers in Sheikh Khalifa Medical City (SKMC), a COVID-19 facility, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. We conducted a voluntary, cross-sectional anonymous survey among first-line health care workers addressing types of PPE used, dermatoses classified as PPE related, and factors that influence them. Facial, nasal, and hand dermatoses were the most prevalent with 40.2%, 19.9%, and 14.1%, respectively. The changes are primarily attributed to surgical masks, N-95 masks, and gloves. The shift duration is a contributing factor correlating with the severity of skin damage. Results of this study encouraged decision makers to recognize PPE-related dermatoses as a continuously growing burden, reorganized the shift duration and PPE exposure, animated the personal to apply preventive measures, and promoted the well-being of medical professionals in new waves of the pandemic.

Headache related to personal protective equipment in healthcare workers during COVID-19 pandemic in Mexico: baseline and 6-month follow-up.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Headaches related to the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) could affect performance at work in healthcare personnel. Our aim was to describe the prevalence and risk factors for headaches related to PPE, in the personnel of a specialized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) tertiary hospital. METHODS: In this cross-sectional survey study, we invited healthcare workers from COVID-19 referral center in Mexico (May 22-June 19, 2020) to answer a standardized structure questionnaire on characteristics of new-onset PPE-related headache or exacerbation of primary headache disorder. Participants were invited regardless of whether they had a current headache to avoid selection bias. This is the primary analysis of these data. RESULTS: Two hundred and sixty-eight subjects were analyzed, 181/268 (67.5%) women, 177/268 (66%) nurses, mean age 28 years. The prevalence of PPE-related headache was 210/268 (78.4%). Independent risk factors were occupation other than physician (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.20-2.10), age > 30 years (OR 2.54, 95% CI 1.25-5.14), and female sex (OR 3.58, 95% CI 1.86-6.87). In the 6-month follow-up, 13.1% of subjects evolve to chronic headache, with stress as predictive risk factor. CONCLUSION: The frequency of PPE-associated headache is high, and a subgroup could evolve to chronic headache. More studies are necessary to improve the knowledge about this condition.

Investigation of the problems experienced by perioperative nurses due to the use of personal protective equipment and their attitudes towards caregiving roles.

AIM: This study aims to investigate the problems experienced by perioperative nurses due to the use of personal protective equipment and their attitudes towards caregiving roles. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted with 175 volunteer nurses working in surgical clinics across Turkey between March-June 2021. Data were collected online with a personal information form, an information form regarding the personal protective equipment usage times of nurses and the problems experienced, and the Attitude Scale for Nurses in Caregiving Roles. RESULTS: It was found that 98.3% of nurses had problems with personal protective equipment (excluding gloves); 97.7% of them had problems with sterile or non-sterile gloves, and 65.7% of them stated that pressure injuries developed due to personal protective equipment. It was determined that the rate of nurses considering leaving the profession today is higher than before the outbreak. The Attitude Scale for Nurses in Caregiving Roles obtained a mean score of 65.83 ± 9.41. Those who did not intend to leave the nursing profession had higher scale mean scores than those who thought to leave. CONCLUSION: It was determined that perioperative nurses experienced skin problems due to the use of personal protective equipment and most of them developed pressure injuries, nearly half of them considered leaving the profession during the COVID-19 pandemic, and considering leaving the profession adversely affected their caregiver roles. According to the results of this study, it is recommended that attempts should be made to develop strategies to prevent skin problems and pressure injuries in perioperative nurses.

Protective equipment-related pressure ulcers in healthcare workers during COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review.

AIM: This systematic review was carried out to examine pressure ulcers in healthcare staff due to the use of protective equipment during COVID-19 pandemic and the precautions taken to prevent these injuries. METHOD: Relevant studies were retrospectively searched. Seven English keywords identified from MESH were used while searching. The search was carried out in five international databases by trying various combinations of these words during February 15-25, 2021. This systematic review was updated by rescanning databases on December 20, 2021 and a total of 611 studies were attained. RESULTS: 17 studies which met the study inclusion criteria, which were conducted mostly through online survey method in different study designs and which included a total of 24,889 healthcare professionals were examined. The incidence of PPE-related pressure ulcers was found to be between 30% and 92.8%. Grade I pressure ulcers were the most common (44.1%-82%). The incidence of skin problems except PPE-related pressure ulcers such as itching, redness and dry skin was found to be between 42.8-88.1%. Risk factors that frequently played a role in the development of PPE-related pressure ulcers and other skin problems were longer use of PPE and sweating. PPE-related pressure ulcers and other skin problems were more frequent over the nose (nasal bone/nasal bridge), ears, forehead and cheeks. PPE-related itching, redness and dry skin mostly occurred. Several dressing applications were found to be effective in the prevention of PPE-related pressure ulcers and other skin problems that might develop especially on the facial region. CONCLUSION: PPE-related pressure ulcers and other skin problems were found to be higher among healthcare professionals. Data regarding the sealing of dressing applications against viral transmission in the prevention of PPE-related pressure ulcers and other skin problems are limited. It is estimated that future studies will be performed to prevent device-related pressure ulcers in healthcare workers. It is suggested that there is a need to conduct studies with larger samples where expert researchers make observations for pressure ulcers in order to determine the prevalence and incidence of PPE-related pressure ulcers.

Personal protective equipment related skin changes among nurses working in pandemic intensive care unit: A qualitative study.

AIM: The respiratory tract is the main transmission way of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and nurses who care for COVID-19 patients in intensive care units (ICUs) are required to constantly use personal protective equipment (PPE) during their daily work. This study aimed to examine the PPE-related skin changes experienced by the nurses working in pandemic ICU during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Using a descriptive phenomenological approach, semi-structured interviews were conducted between November 1st and December 25th, 2020, in the pandemic ICU of a training and research hospital in Usak, Turkey. The nurses who worked in the pandemic ICU for at least one week and experienced skin changes due to PPE use were included. Individual interviews were carried out online through video conferencing. Colaizzi's method was used in data analysis by using the ATLAS.ti 8.0. RESULTS: The main themes were main causes of PPE-related skin changes, its location along with secondary adverse effects, symptomatology, prevention, and therapeutic interventions used for curing PPE-related skin changes. Nurses mostly reported PPE-related skin changes behind their ears, over their nose, cheeks and jaw due to wearing N95 masks and on the forehead due to wearing face shields. Wearing PPE at least 2 h, the type/quality of PPE, and being dehydrated were identified as the common causes. CONCLUSION: This study provides a deeper understanding into the PPE-related skin change experiences of pandemic ICU nurses and the importance of the quality of the PPE used. It is recommended to enable shortened working shifts and ergonomic PPE materials for ICU nurses.

Indirect consequences of coronavirus disease 2019: Skin lesions caused by the frequent hand sanitation and use of personal protective equipment and strategies for their prevention.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) enforced the use of hand sanitation and of personal protective equipment, such as masks and visors, especially by health-care professionals, but also by the general public. However, frequent hand sanitation and the prolonged and continuous use of personal protective equipment are responsible for constant frictional and pressure forces on skin causing lesions, the most reported being acne, facial itching, dryness, and rash. Thus, it is important to find measures to prevent skin lesions, in order to improve the quality of life of health-care professionals and of the general public. This article gathers the current information regarding measures to prevent human to human transmission of COVID-19, reviews the most common skin lesions caused by the use of hand sanitizers and different types of personal protective equipment, and the possible preventive measures that can be used on a daily basis to minimize the risk of developing skin-related pathologies. Daily skin care routines and the incorporation of a dressing between the skin and the personal protective equipment to serve as a protective barrier are some of the applied measures. Moisturizers and dressings improve the skin's ability to respond to constant aggressions. Lastly, the need for additional studies to evaluate the lubrication properties of different types of dressings is discussed. The understanding of what kind of dressing is more suitable to prevent pressure injuries is crucial to promote healthy skin and wellbeing during pandemic times.

Skin injuries due to Personal Protective Equipment and preventive measures in the COVID-19 context: an integrative review. / Lesões de pele por Equipamentos de Proteção Individual e medidas preventivas no contexto da COVID-19: revisão integrativa.

OBJECTIVE: to identify the diverse scientific evidence on the types of skin lesions caused due to the use of Personal Protective Equipment in health professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic and to verify the recommended prevention measures. METHOD: this is an integrative review carried out in the MEDLINE, CINAHL, LILACS, SCOPUS, Science Direct, Web of Science and SciELO databases. The search was conducted in a paired manner, constituting a sample of 17 studies categorized according to the types of skin lesions and preventive measures. RESULTS: the main types of skin lesions related to mask use were stage 1 pressure ulcers, acne and cutaneous depression. Regarding the use of glasses and face shields, the most frequent were stage 1 and 2 pressure ulcers. Xerosis and irritant contact dermatitis occurred due to using gloves and protective clothing, respectively. The main preventive measures recommended were using hydrocolloid or foam dressing in the pressure regions, moisturizers and emollients. CONCLUSION: a considerable number of skin lesions associated with using the equipment were noticed, and the data obtained can guide the professionals in identifying risks and promoting preventive measures to avoid their occurrence.

Prevalence of dermatological, oral and neurological problems due to face mask use during COVID-19 and its associated factors among the health care workers of Bangladesh.

BACKGROUND: When caring for COVID-19 patients, using personal protective equipment (PPE) may significantly lower the risk of infection of health care workers (HCWs). However, adverse responses due to PPE use have been observed during the 2003 SARS pandemic. This study will highlight the different adverse reactions caused by face mask use, one of the essential components of PPE in the HCWs, and identify the factors associated with these problems. METHODS: This cross-sectional survey was conducted between September and October 2021. 404 HCWs were selected by snowball sampling from four randomly selected healthcare facilities of Bangladesh. Trained volunteers collected data by face-to-face interview using a pretested structured questionnaire. Data were analyzed using STATA (v.16) and summarized using frequency and relative frequency. Later, the chi-square test was used to explore bivariate relationships, and the binary logistic regression model was fit to identify the predictors. RESULTS: The majority of the respondents were 26-36 years (70.30%), male (69.80%), and doctors (74.50%). 48.76% of the respondents had unfavorable skin responses beneath the face masks; female gender, physicians, professionals working more than 32 hours a week, wearing N95, and more than one mask were predictors of skin problem. 28.47% and 60.15% of all participants suffered from some form of oral and neurological problems, respectively. CONCLUSION: Face mask use sequelae, especially skin, oral and neurological problems, are prevalent among health care workers. Therefore, necessary precautionary measures should be taken to safeguard our frontlines.

The prevalence, characteristics, and related factors of pressure injury in medical staff wearing personal protective equipment against COVID-19 in Turkey: A multicenter cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of device-related pressure injury (DRPI) related to the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) among healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic and the associated risk factors effective in the development of DRPI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This descriptive, cross-sectional and correlational study was conducted with 1465 healthcare professionals working in healthcare institutions in Eastern Turkey during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study data were collected by means of an online anonymous survey questioning the prevalence, characteristics, and associated factors of DRPI in the first week of April 2021, using the snowball sampling method. Number, percentage, arithmetic mean, Chi-Square, and regression analysis were used for the evaluation of the study data. RESULTS: The prevalence of DRPI due to the use of PPE use among healthcare professionals was calculated to be 60.5%. Of the developed DRPIs, 79.5% were stage 1, and the most frequent anatomical locations of DRPI were the bridge of the nose (30.2%), behind the ears (24.6%), and cheeks (20.8%). The logistic regression analysis revealed that male gender, age <35 years, being a physician and nurse, prolonged duration of PPE use (>4 h), working in a high-risk clinic (COVID-19 clinic and COVID-19 intensive care unit), and sweating during the use of PPE were predictive factors for the development of DRPI (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of DRPI due to PPE use among healthcare workers was quite high. Gender, age, occupation, long duration of PPE use, working in a high-risk clinic, and sweating during the use of PPE were found to be risk factors in the development of DRPI.

Adverse skin reactions to personal protective equipment during COVID-19 pandemic in Italian health care workers.

To avoid exposure to SARS-COV-2, healthcare professionals must use personal protective equipment (PPE). Their use has been related to a series of adverse effects; the most frequent adverse events were headache, dyspnoea, and pressure injuries. Skin adverse effects are very common, including contact dermatitis, itching, erythema, and acneiform eruptions. The objective of this study is to evaluate the skin problems caused by personal protection equipment (PPE) in health care workers (HCWs) and to individuate eventual risk factors. From May to June 2020 a retrospective observational multi-centric study conducted by an online survey sent by email, involving 10 hospital centers, was performed. We considered as independent variables gender and age, occupational group and sector, time of utilization, type and material of PPE. We tested 3 types of PPE: gloves, bonnet, and mask for different time of utilization (<1, 1-3, 3-6, >6 h). We performed a multiple logistic regression model to correlate them with skin adverse events occurrence. Among all the 1184 participants, 292 workers reported a dermatological pathology: 45 (15.41%) had psoriasis, 54 (18.49%) eczema, 38 (13.01%) acne, 48 (16.44%) seborrheic dermatitis, and 107 (36.64%) other. In our sample previous inflammatory dermatological conditions, female sex, prolonged use of PPE were significant risk factors for developing skin related adverse events considering all the PPE considered. The use of PPE is still mandatory in the hospital setting and skin adverse reactions still represent a global problem. Although data from Europe are limited, our study highlighted the importance of the problem of PPE skin reactions in a large sample of Italian healthcare professionals.

Adverse skin reactions among health care workers using face personal protective equipment during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: A cross-sectional survey of six hospitals in Denmark.

BACKGROUND: Health care workers (HCWs) report frequent adverse skin reactions (ASRs) due to face personal protective equipment (F-PPE) use during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. OBJECTIVES: To describe self-reported ASRs among HCWs using F-PPE; investigate background factors, such as chronic skin diseases and skin types (dry, oily, combination, sensitive), and determine whether HCWs took preventive methods against ASRs. METHODS: An online questionnaire was distributed to 22 993 HCWs at hospitals. RESULTS: The prevalence of ASRs was 61.9% based on 10 287 responders. Different types of F-PPE caused different reactions. The most common ASRs from surgical masks were spots and pimples (37.2%) and from FFP3 masks was red and irritated skin (27.3%). A significantly higher proportion of HCWs with chronic skin diseases had ASRs (71.6%) than those without chronic skin diseases (59.7%) (P < .001). Some skin types were more prone to ASRs (sensitive skin [78.8%] vs dry skin [54.3%]; P = .001). HCWs using F-PPE for >6 hours versus <3 hours per day had a four times higher ASR risk (P = <.001). Nearly all HCWs used preventive and/or counteractive methods (94.2%). CONCLUSIONS: It is important to consider background factors, such as chronic skin diseases and skin types, to prevent and counteract ASRs due to F-PPE use.

Personal protective equipment and adverse dermatological reactions among healthcare workers: Survey observations from the COVID-19 pandemic.

ABSTRACT: The pandemic of the 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has caused an unprecedented mobilization of the United States' healthcare workforce. In addition to working extended hours under increased duress, healthcare professionals (HCP) of all stations have been making use of various types of personal protective equipment (PPE) with greatly increased frequency and duration. Current data regarding adverse skin reactions as a possible consequence of PPE use are, particularly in the United States, largely insufficient for policy-makers to make informed decisions regarding daily PPE use among HCP.The research vehicle employed by this study is a cross-sectional 25-item survey distributed via email to workers currently employed by a five-hospital system in southcentral Kentucky. This survey was used to collect information from hospital workers of all professional roles about their experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on reports of adverse dermatological reactions and associated risk factors.Out of 879 respondents, 54.4% reported some type of skin irritation reaction. Skin irritation was significantly more prevalent among medical and medical support staff than non-medical hospital workers, with the highest prevalence among Certified Nurse Assistant (CNAs). Among clinical workers, those in dedicated COVID-19 units reported the highest prevalence of adverse skin reaction. The most common complaint was dryness/scaling of the skin (306 out of 439, 69.7%), and the most common location was the facial cheeks (305 out of 516, 59.1%). Among those who reported skin irritation, the average self-reported severity of skin reaction (on a scale of 1-5) was 2.00 ±â€Š0.05, and the mean total days of skin reaction per month was 11.70 ±â€Š0.39 days. Total days of irritation per month was found to be significantly related to "total days of PPE use per month," "hours of PPE use per day," "frequency of hand washing," and "use of disinfecting UV irradiation." Severity of skin reaction was found to be significantly related to "hours per day of PPE use," "consecutive days of PPE use," and "female sex."Clinical workers that put in the most face-to-face time with patients, and those in dedicated COVID-19 units, had the highest risk of adverse skin reaction. Overall, skin reactions were found to be mild, even in those hospital workers with the heaviest PPE use. Because the widespread and consistent use of facial masks in public settings has become a key tool in our protracted struggle with SARS-CoV-2, these findings may help to ameliorate concerns that everyday facial mask and/or other PPE usage contributes to significant dermatologic morbidity among both medical professionals and public citizens.

Educational suitability of new channel-type video-laryngoscope with AI-based glottis guidance system for novices wearing personal-protective-equipment.

ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to determine which of 4 laryngoscopes, including A-LRYNGO, a newly developed channel-type video-laryngoscope with an embedded artificial intelligence-based glottis guidance system, is appropriate for tracheal intubation training in novice medical students wearing personal protective equipment (PPE).Thirty healthy senior medical school student volunteers were recruited. The participants underwent 2 tests with 4 laryngoscopes: Macintosh, McGrath, Pentax Airway-Scope and A-LRYNGO. The first test was conducted just after a lecture without any hands-on workshop. The second test was conducted after a one-on-one hands-on workshop. In each test, we measured the time required for tracheal intubation, intubation success rate, etc, and asked all participants to complete a short questionnaire.The time to completely insert the endotracheal tube with the Macintosh laryngoscope did not change significantly (P = .177), but the remaining outcomes significantly improved after the hands-on workshop (all P < .05). Despite being novice practitioners with no intubation experience and wearing PPE, the, 2 channel-type video-laryngoscopes were associated with good intubation-related performance before the hands-on workshop (all P < .001). A-LRYNGO's artificial intelligence-based glottis guidance system showed 93.1% accuracy, but 20.7% of trials were guided by the vocal folds.To prepare to manage the airway of critically ill patients during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, a channel-type video-laryngoscope is appropriate for tracheal intubation training for novice practitioners wearing PPE.

Headache of Wearing PPE; A Survey for Neurological Symptoms with PPE amongst Health Care Workers.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has put the entire medical fraternity into a very challenging and demanding situation. Along with always being at the risk of COVID infection, healthcare workers (HCWs) are also facing neurological problems due to long working hours in personal protective equipment (PPE). These symptoms and their characteristics need to be observed and studied in-depth to understand the problems experienced by HCWs and to design new solutions to overcome such problems. Objectives: This study intends to evaluate the various neurological manifestations among the HCWs wearing PPE for prolonged periods. Materials and Methods: We conducted a questionnaire-based cross-sectional study at a Covid care center from western India from April 20 to June 01, 2021 by using a self-administered web-based questionnaire. A total of 256 HCWs were surveyed. The de-identified data were analyzed using JMP 15.0.0. Results: Among a total of 256 HCWs surveyed for this study, the majority (58.6%) were aged 24-35 years, with a male preponderance (65.62%, n = 168). Participants included doctors (41%), nurses (35%), paramedical staff (22%), and housekeeping staff (1%). The symptoms encountered among the HCWs wearing the PPE were headache, classified further as donning headache in 112 (44.98%), doffing headache in 56 (26.24%), slowed mentation in 48 (21.05%), and excessive sleepiness in 86 (38.74%), which affected their work performance. The age of the HCWs had a significant correlation with all the symptoms. Conclusion: Headache, slowed mentation, and excessive sleepiness was encountered among the HCWs wearing PPE, which depended upon the duration of PPE usage. The most common symptom was headache, which was of moderate to severe intensity.

Health care workers' experience of personal protective equipment use and associated adverse effects during the COVID-19 pandemic response in Singapore.

AIM: One of the greatest challenges in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic is preventing staff exposure and infection by ensuring consistent and effective use of personal protective equipment (PPE). This study explored health care workers' experience of prolonged PPE use in clinical practice settings and their concerns regarding PPE supply, effectiveness and training needs. DESIGN: A descriptive cross-sectional design was adopted in this study. METHODS: Health care workers (N = 592) from an acute care hospital completed an online survey from July to September 2020 assessing: (i) usage frequencies, side effects and interference with patient care; and (ii) perceptions of access to PPE, likelihood of exposure to infection and adequacy of PPE training. RESULTS: PPE-related side effects were reported by 319 (53.8%) participants, the majority being nurses (88.4%) and those working in high-risk areas such as the emergency department (39.5%), respiratory wards (acute 22.3% and non-acute 23.8%) and COVID-19 isolation ward (13.8%). The average time wearing PPE per shift was 6.8 h (SD 0.39). The most commonly reported symptoms were from donning N95 masks and included: pressure injuries (45.5%), mask-induced acne (40.4%) and burning/pain (24.5%). Some 31.3% expressed that PPE-related side effects had negatively affected their work. The odds of having PPE-associated side effects was higher in women (OR 2.10, 95% CI [1.29-03.42], p = .003) and those working in high-risk wards (OR 3.12, 95% CI [2.17-4.60], p < .001]. Most (90.1%) agreed that PPE supplies were readily available, sufficient for all (86.1%) and there was sufficient training in correct PPE use (93.6%). Only 13.7% of participants reported being 'highly confident' of overall PPE protection. CONCLUSIONS: Prevention and management of PPE-related adverse effects is vital to: preserve the integrity of PPE, improve adherence and minimize viral transmission. IMPACT: The high incidence of PPE-associated pressure injuries and perception that PPE use can interfere with clinical care should inform future development of PPE products, and strategies to better equip health care workers to prevent and manage PPE-related side effects.

Comparison of Vie Scope® and Macintosh laryngoscopes for intubation during resuscitation by paramedics wearing personal protective equipment.

BACKGROUND: Endotracheal intubation (ETI) is still the gold standard of airway management, but in cases of sudden cardiac arrest in patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, ETI is associated with risks for both the patient and the medical personnel. We hypothesized that the Vie Scope® is more useful for endotracheal intubation of suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cardiac arrest patients than the conventional laryngoscope with Macintosh blade when operators are wearing personal protective equipment (PPE). METHODS: Study was designed as a prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical trial performed by Emergency Medical Services in Poland. Patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis who needed cardiopulmonary resuscitation in prehospital setting were included. Patients under 18 years old or with criteria predictive of impossible intubation under direct laryngoscopy, were excluded. Patients were randomly allocated 1:1 to Vie Scope® versus direct laryngoscopy with a Macintosh blade. Study groups were compared on success of intubation attempts, time to intubation, glottis visualization and number of optimization maneuvers. RESULTS: We enrolled 90 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients, aged 43-92 years. Compared to the VieScope® laryngoscope, use of the Macintosh laryngoscope required longer times for tracheal intubation with an estimated mean difference of -48 s (95%CI confidence interval [CI], -60.23, -35.77; p < 0.001). Moreover VieScope® improved first attempt success rate, 93.3% vs. 51.1% respectively (odds ratio [OR] = 13.39; 95%CI: 3.62, 49.58; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of the Vie Scope® laryngoscope in OHCA patients improved the first attempt success rate, and reduced intubation time compared to Macintosh laryngoscope in paramedics wearing PPE for against aerosol generating procedures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials registration number NCT04365608.