Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Adv Skin Wound Care ; 34(7): 356-363, 2021 Jul 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1191097


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.

COVID-19/prevention & control , Eye Protective Devices/adverse effects , Masks/adverse effects , Medical Staff, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Nursing Staff, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Occupational Injuries/etiology , Adult , Cross-Sectional Studies , Disease Transmission, Infectious/prevention & control , Facial Injuries/etiology , Humans , Internet , Male , Middle Aged , Personal Protective Equipment/adverse effects , Pressure Ulcer/etiology , Sweating
Ann Palliat Med ; 10(1): 3-9, 2021 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1063562


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.

Bandages, Hydrocolloid , Eye Protective Devices/adverse effects , Facial Injuries/prevention & control , Masks/adverse effects , Medical Staff, Hospital , Pressure Ulcer/prevention & control , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , China/epidemiology , Facial Injuries/etiology , Female , Humans , Male , Pandemics , Pressure Ulcer/etiology , Skin Temperature
Gastroenterol Hepatol ; 44(9): 637-643, 2021 Nov.
Article in English, Spanish | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-935614


INTRODUCTION: In the midst of the SARS-CoV-2 virus (COVID-19) pandemic, health professionals, specifically gastroenterologists, have had to use personal protective equipment (PPE) to reduce contact with droplets and aerosols generated during gastrointestinal endoscopy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of the use of two types of PPE on quality of vision during gastrointestinal endoscopy. METHODS: A cross-sectional observational pilot study in gastroenterologists who undergo an ophthalmological examination of visual acuity and quality of vision when using two types of PPE. Type #1: 3M N95 1860 green respirator + 3M mono safety glasses + protective screen. Type #2: 3M 6800 full facepiece + 3M NIOSH 7093C HF/P100 filters. RESULTS: Visual acuity and quality of vison parameters while using the PPE that is routinely used when performing gastrointestinal endoscopy during the pandemic were evaluated. It was found that Modality #1 was associated with decreases of up to 37% in visual acuity, 25% in colour visualisation and 75% in contrast sensitivity among digestive endoscopists within minutes of placement. These figures worsened over the course of the procedure, rising to 75%, 60% and 100%, respectively. Modality #2 was not associated with any deterioration in quality of vision. CONCLUSIONS: The different PPE modalities used during gastrointestinal endoscopy could have an impact on the quality of endoscopy studies performed during the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic.

COVID-19/prevention & control , Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal/standards , Gastroenterologists , Pandemics , Personal Protective Equipment/adverse effects , Visual Acuity , Color Perception , Contrast Sensitivity , Cross-Sectional Studies , Eye Protective Devices/adverse effects , Filtration/instrumentation , Humans , Masks , N95 Respirators , Pilot Projects , Respiratory Protective Devices/adverse effects , Time Factors