Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 9 de 9
Filter
3.
Workplace Health Saf ; 69(8): 352-358, 2021 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1317118

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Eye health has garnered increased attention since the COVID-19 pandemic. This Round Table explored the impact mask wearing, delays in eye examinations, and increased screen time have on vision and ultimately the worker. METHODS: Leading experts in the areas of occupational health, risk management, eye health, and communication were identified and invited to participate in a Round Table discussion. Questions posed to experts were based on literature that addressed eye health, such as mask wearing, communication and managing expectations when accessing professional eye health appointments, and increased screen time. FINDINGS: Experts agreed that eye health considerations must be in place. These considerations should address not only clinical care of the patient but ways to protect workers from occupational injury associated with the eye. CONCLUSION/APPLICATION TO PRACTICE: The occupational health professional is a key resource for assessment and training that pertains to eye health.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Eye Diseases/therapy , Health Personnel/psychology , Interior Design and Furnishings/standards , Occupational Health/standards , Occupational Injuries/prevention & control , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Adult , Female , Humans , Male , Masks , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Physical Distancing , SARS-CoV-2 , United States/epidemiology
4.
Clin Dermatol ; 39(1): 92-97, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1300695

ABSTRACT

The life of medical specialists worldwide has dramatically changed due to the spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Health care professionals (HCPs) have personally faced the outbreak by being on the first line of the battlefield with the disease and, as such, compose a significant number of people who have contracted COVID-19. We propose a classification and discuss the pathophysiology, clinical findings, and treatments and prevention of the occupational skin hazards COVID-19 poses to HCPs. The multivariate pattern of occupational skin diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic can be classified into four subgroups: mechanical skin injury, moisture-associated skin damage, contact reactions, and exacerbation of preexisting dermatoses. The clinical pattern is versatile, and the most affected skin sites were the ones in contact with the protective equipment. Dermatologists should recognize the plethora of HCPs' occupational skin reactions that are occurring during the COVID-19 pandemic and implement treatment and preventive strategies.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Health Personnel , Occupational Diseases/classification , Personal Protective Equipment/adverse effects , Skin Diseases/classification , Skin/injuries , COVID-19/prevention & control , Disease Progression , Humans , Occupational Diseases/etiology , Occupational Diseases/prevention & control , Occupational Injuries/etiology , Occupational Injuries/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Skin Diseases/etiology , Skin Diseases/prevention & control
5.
J Occup Environ Med ; 63(3): 221-225, 2021 Mar 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1189509

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To assess impact of personal protective equipment (PPE) on healthcare providers (HCPs) in caring for COVID-19 patients. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted over 50 hospitals in China. Descriptive analyses and Chi-square tests were performed on the collected data. RESULTS: All 104 frontline HCPs report negative impacts of PPE on their clinical performance, 97% of them experienced discomfort and injuries caused by wearing PPE for long hours. Frontline HCPs provided suggestions to alleviate the negative impacts and to enhance communication between healthcare staff and patients. Two hundred eighty two non-frontline HCPs also revealed similar problems; however, we recorded a few discrepancies between answers given by frontline and non-frontline HCPs. CONCLUSIONS: Wearing PPE for long hours degrades health performance. Measures were suggested to improve the design of PPE for protecting HCPs and enhancing their services to COVID patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Occupational Injuries/prevention & control , Personal Protective Equipment/statistics & numerical data , Adult , COVID-19/prevention & control , China/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Health Personnel/psychology , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Male , Occupational Injuries/epidemiology , Occupational Injuries/etiology , Occupational Medicine/instrumentation , Occupational Medicine/statistics & numerical data , Personal Protective Equipment/adverse effects , SARS-CoV-2 , Surveys and Questionnaires , Work Performance/statistics & numerical data
6.
J Wound Care ; 30(3): 162-170, 2021 Mar 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1138941

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine the impact of a specially designed care bundle on the development of facial pressure injuries (PI) among frontline healthcare workers wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) during the COVID-19 pandemic. The primary outcome of interest was the incidence of facial PIs. The secondary outcomes of interest were facial pain while wearing PPE and ease of use of the care bundle. METHODS: This study used a voluntary survey by questionnaire, supplemented by a qualitative analysis of interviews from a small purposive sample that took place in one large Irish hospital over a two-month period in 2020. The hospital was a city-based public university teaching hospital with 800 inpatient beds. The intervention was a care bundle consisting of skin protection, face mask selection, material use, skin inspection, cleansing and hydration developed in line with international best practice guidelines. All staff working in COVID-19 wards, intensive care units and the emergency department in the hospital were given a kitbag containing the elements of the care bundle plus an information pamphlet. Data were collected via a survey and interviews. RESULTS: A total of 114 staff provided feedback on the use of the care bundle. Before using the care bundle 29% (n=33) of the respondents reported developing a facial PI, whereas after using the care bundle only 8% (n=9) of the respondents reported developing a facial PI. The odds ratio (OR) of skin injury development was 4.75 (95% confidence interval (CI): 2.15-10.49; p=0.0001), suggesting that after the care bundle was issued, those who responded to the survey were almost five times less likely to develop a skin injury. Interviews with 14 staff determined that the bundle was easy to use and safe. CONCLUSION: Among those who responded to the survey, the use of the bundle was associated with a reduction in the incidence of skin injury from 29% to 8%, and respondents found the bundle easy to use, safe and effective. As with evidence from the international literature, this study has identified that when skincare is prioritised, and a systematic preventative care bundle approach is adopted, there are clear benefits for the individuals involved.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Facial Injuries/etiology , Medical Staff, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Nursing Staff, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Occupational Injuries/etiology , Personal Protective Equipment/adverse effects , Disease Transmission, Infectious/prevention & control , Facial Injuries/prevention & control , Humans , Masks/adverse effects , Occupational Injuries/prevention & control
7.
Acta Biomed ; 91(4): e2020160, 2020 11 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1058717

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The massive use of personal protective equipment is required by the medical and paramedical staff of the COVID-19 dedicated departments. This often causes painful pressure injuries. The aim of this study is to value the use of anesthetic cream and collagen veil masks for the treatment of pain. We also evaluated the possible psychological impact on healthcare workers involved in the emergency, which is currently a hot topic in the worldwide literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We applied lidocaine idrochloride 5% cream and a collagen veil mask respectively  before and after each work shift. We evaluated the improvement of pain symptoms through VAS assessments. We used a modified Maslach burnout inventory as well to evaluate the psychological impact of our treatments on  healthcare workers. RESULTS: A significant reduction of pain was detected within the first 3 days, but this was not significant over the long period (10 days). Otherwise, we saw a significant improvement of the psychological assessment (p<0,05). CONCLUSIONS: Parameters such as pain or psychological stress are not objective, but, anyway, our data show a  reduction of pain due to continuative PPE wearing and a significant improvement of psychological wellness of healthcare workers from two different countries, a finding which should not be undervalued by all the health caregivers not directly involved in COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
Anesthetics, Local/administration & dosage , Burnout, Professional/prevention & control , COVID-19 , Collagen/administration & dosage , Health Personnel , Lidocaine/administration & dosage , Masks/adverse effects , Occupational Injuries/etiology , Occupational Injuries/prevention & control , Burnout, Professional/etiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/transmission , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Occupational Injuries/complications , Physician's Role , Retrospective Studies , Surgery, Plastic , Time Factors
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL