Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 44
Filter
1.
Am J Surg ; 223(1): 176-181, 2022 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1568479

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Perioperative inefficiency can increase cost. We describe a process improvement initiative that addressed preoperative delays on an academic vascular surgery service. METHODS: First case vascular surgeries from July 2019-January 2020 were retrospectively reviewed for delays, defined as late arrival to the operating room (OR). A stakeholder group spearheaded by a surgeon-informaticist analyzed this process and implemented a novel electronic medical records (EMR) preoperative tool with improved preoperative workflow and role delegation; results were reviewed for 3 months after implementation. RESULTS: 57% of cases had first case on-time starts with average delay of 19 min. Inappropriate preoperative orders were identified as a dominant delay source (average delay = 38 min). Three months post-implementation, 53% of first cases had on-time starts with average delay of 11 min (P < 0.05). No delays were due to missing orders. CONCLUSIONS: Inconsistent preoperative workflows led to inappropriate orders and delays, increasing cost and decreasing quality. A novel EMR tool subsequently reduced delays with projected savings of $1,200/case. Workflow standardization utilizing informatics can increase efficiency, raising the value of surgical care.


Subject(s)
Cost Savings/statistics & numerical data , Efficiency, Organizational/economics , Medical Informatics , Operating Rooms/organization & administration , Vascular Surgical Procedures/organization & administration , Academic Medical Centers/economics , Academic Medical Centers/organization & administration , Academic Medical Centers/statistics & numerical data , Efficiency, Organizational/standards , Efficiency, Organizational/statistics & numerical data , Health Plan Implementation/organization & administration , Health Plan Implementation/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Operating Rooms/economics , Operating Rooms/standards , Operating Rooms/statistics & numerical data , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Program Evaluation , Quality Improvement , Retrospective Studies , Root Cause Analysis/statistics & numerical data , Vascular Surgical Procedures/economics , Vascular Surgical Procedures/statistics & numerical data , Workflow
2.
Anaesthesia ; 76(12): 1577-1584, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1318625

ABSTRACT

Many guidelines consider supraglottic airway use to be an aerosol-generating procedure. This status requires increased levels of personal protective equipment, fallow time between cases and results in reduced operating theatre efficiency. Aerosol generation has never been quantitated during supraglottic airway use. To address this evidence gap, we conducted real-time aerosol monitoring (0.3-10-µm diameter) in ultraclean operating theatres during supraglottic airway insertion and removal. This showed very low background particle concentrations (median (IQR [range]) 1.6 (0-3.1 [0-4.0]) particles.l-1 ) against which the patient's tidal breathing produced a higher concentration of aerosol (4.0 (1.3-11.0 [0-44]) particles.l-1 , p = 0.048). The average aerosol concentration detected during supraglottic airway insertion (1.3 (1.0-4.2 [0-6.2]) particles.l-1 , n = 11), and removal (2.1 (0-17.5 [0-26.2]) particles.l-1 , n = 12) was no different to tidal breathing (p = 0.31 and p = 0.84, respectively). Comparison of supraglottic airway insertion and removal with a volitional cough (104 (66-169 [33-326]), n = 27), demonstrated that supraglottic airway insertion/removal sequences produced <4% of the aerosol compared with a single cough (p < 0.001). A transient aerosol increase was recorded during one complicated supraglottic airway insertion (which initially failed to provide a patent airway). Detailed analysis of this event showed an atypical particle size distribution and we subsequently identified multiple sources of non-respiratory aerosols that may be produced during airway management and can be considered as artefacts. These findings demonstrate supraglottic airway insertion/removal generates no more bio-aerosol than breathing and far less than a cough. This should inform the design of infection prevention strategies for anaesthetists and operating theatre staff caring for patients managed with supraglottic airways.


Subject(s)
Airway Extubation/standards , Environmental Monitoring/standards , Intubation, Intratracheal/standards , Operating Rooms/standards , Particle Size , Supraglottitis/therapy , Airway Extubation/methods , Airway Management/methods , Airway Management/standards , Cough/therapy , Environmental Monitoring/methods , Humans , Intubation, Intratracheal/methods , Operating Rooms/methods , Personal Protective Equipment/standards , Prospective Studies
3.
JAMA Netw Open ; 4(4): e216857, 2021 04 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1192058

ABSTRACT

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic has brought forth new challenges for health care workers, such as the daily use of personal protective equipment, including reusable facial respirators. Poor communication while wearing respirators may have fatal complications for patients, and no solution has been proposed to date. Objective: To examine whether use of an in-ear communication device is associated with improved communication while wearing different personal protective equipment (N95 mask, half-face elastomeric respirator, and powered air-purifying respirator [PAPR]) in the operating room. Design, Setting, and Participants: This quality improvement study was conducted in June 2020. Surgical residents from the Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery at McGill University in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, were recruited. All participants had normal hearing, were fluent in English, and had access to the operating rooms at the Royal Victoria Hospital. Exposures: All participants performed the speech intelligibility tasks with and without an in-ear communication device. Main Outcomes and Measures: Speech intelligibility was measured using a word recognition task (Modified Rhyme Test) and a sentence recognition task (AzBio Sentence Test). A percentage correct score (0% to 100%) was obtained for each speech intelligibility test. Listening effort was assessed using the NASA Task Load Index. An overall workload score, ranging from 0 points (low workload) to 100 points (high workload), was obtained. Results: A total of 12 participants were included (mean [SD] age, 31.2 [1.9] years; 8 women [66.7%]). AzBio Sentence Test results revealed that, while wearing the N95 mask, the mean (SD) speech intelligibility was 98.8% (1.8%) without the in-ear device vs 94.3% (7.4%) with the device. While wearing the half-face elastomeric respirator, the mean speech intelligibility was 58.5% (12.4%) without the in-ear device vs 90.8% (8.9%) with the device. While wearing the PAPR, the mean speech intelligibility was 84.6% (9.8%) without the in-ear device vs 94.5% (5.5%) with the device. Use of the in-ear device was associated with a significant improvement in speech intelligibility while wearing the half-face elastomeric respirator (32.3%; 95% CI, 23.8%-40.7%; P < .001) and the PAPR (9.9%; 95% CI, 1.4%-18.3%; P = .01). Furthermore, use of the device was associated with decreased listening effort. The NASA Task Load Index results reveal that, while wearing the N95 mask, the mean (SD) overall workload score was 12.6 (10.6) points without the in-ear device vs 17.6 (9.2) points with the device. While wearing the half-face elastomeric respirator, the mean overall workload score was 67.7 (21.6) points without the in-ear device vs 29.3 (14.4) points with the in-ear device. While wearing the PAPR, the mean overall workload score was 42.2 (18.2) points without the in-ear device vs 23.8 (12.8) points with the in-ear device. Use of the in-ear device was associated with a significant decrease in overall workload score while wearing the half-face elastomeric respirator (38.4; 95% CI, 23.5-53.3; P < .001) and the PAPR (18.4; 95% CI, 0.4-36.4; P = .04). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that among participants using facial respirators that impaired communication, a novel in-ear device was associated with improved communication and decreased listening effort. Such a device may be a feasible solution for protecting health care workers in the operating room while allowing them to communicate safely, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Communication , Hearing Aids/standards , Hearing , N95 Respirators/adverse effects , N95 Respirators/standards , Operating Rooms , Respiratory Protective Devices/adverse effects , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Canada , Female , Health Personnel , Humans , Infection Control/instrumentation , Male , Operating Rooms/organization & administration , Operating Rooms/standards , Quality Improvement , SARS-CoV-2 , Simulation Training , Speech Discrimination Tests/methods
6.
AANA J ; 89(1): 71-75, 2021 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1049350

ABSTRACT

The ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has created many changes and difficulties in healthcare, and the anesthesia specialty is no exception. Both the increased need for personal protective equipment (PPE) and the potential for infection and contamination through respiratory droplets have been sources of much concern. Policies and protocols have been adapted worldwide to help neutralize infection risk and exposure. Transmission of the virus to healthcare workers has been a major concern, and the risk of infection is exceptionally high for Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs) because of their close contact with infected patients. CRNAs are in a unique position to help decrease exposure for themselves and other members of the healthcare team by taking extra precautions during airway manipulation. A great deal of focus has been placed on reducing risks during intubation, but reports describing methods of reducing contamination and exposure to respiratory droplets during emergence and extubation are scarce. The authors have reviewed techniques to reduce coughing, thereby decreasing the potential of virus exposure through contact with large respiratory droplets and aerosolized particles that may remain suspended in air.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Health Personnel/psychology , Infection Control/methods , Infection Control/standards , Operating Rooms/standards , Pandemics/prevention & control , Personal Protective Equipment/standards , Attitude of Health Personnel , Guidelines as Topic , Humans , Infection Control/statistics & numerical data , Personal Protective Equipment/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2
7.
BJU Int ; 126(6): 670-678, 2020 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-998799

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To assess the risk of viral infection during urological surgeries due to the possible hazards in tissue, blood, urine and aerosolised particles generated during surgery, and thus to understand the risks and make recommendations for clinical practice. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed the available literature on urological and other surgical procedures in patients with virus infections, such as human papillomavirus, human immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis B, and current publications on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). RESULTS: Several possible pathways for viral transmission appear in the literature. Recently, groups have detected severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) in the urine and faeces, even after negative pharyngeal swabs. In addition, viral RNA can be detected in the blood and several tissues. During surgery, viral particles are released, aerosol-borne and present a certain risk of transmission and infection. However, there is currently no evidence on the exact risk of infection from the agents mentioned above. It remains unclear whether or not viral particles in the urine, blood or faeces are infectious. CONCLUSIONS: Whether SARS-CoV-2 can be transmitted by aerosols remains controversial. Irrespective of this, standard surgical masks offer inadequate protection from SARS-CoV-2. Full personal protective equipment, including at least filtering facepiece-2 masks and safety goggles should be used. Aerosolised particles might remain for a long time in the operating theatre and contaminate other surfaces, e.g. floors or computer input devices. Therefore, scrupulous hygiene and disinfection of surfaces must be carried out. To prevent aerosolisation during laparoscopic interventions, the pneumoperitoneum should be evacuated with suction devices. The use of virus-proof high-efficiency particulate air filters is recommended. Local separation of anaesthesia/intubation and the operating theatre can reduce the danger of viral transmission. Lumbar anaesthesia should be considered especially in endourology. Based on current knowledge, COVID-19 is not a contraindication for acute urological surgery. However, if possible, as European guideline committees recommend, non-emergency urological interventions should be postponed until negative SARS-CoV-2 tests become available.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/transmission , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Urologic Surgical Procedures/adverse effects , Aerosols , Contraindications , Feces/virology , Filtration , Humans , Infection Control , Laparoscopy/adverse effects , Laparoscopy/methods , Operating Rooms/standards , Personal Protective Equipment , Practice Guidelines as Topic , RNA, Messenger/analysis , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Urologic Surgical Procedures/methods , Virus Diseases/prevention & control , Virus Diseases/transmission
8.
J Laryngol Otol ; 134(12): 1115-1117, 2020 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-967665

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Mastoid surgery is an aerosol-generating procedure that involves the use of a high-speed drill, which produces a mixture of water, bone, blood and tissue that may contain the viable coronavirus disease 2019 pathogen. This potentially puts the surgeon and other operating theatre personnel at risk of acquiring the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 from contact with droplets or aerosols. The use of an additional drape designed to limit the spread of droplets and aerosols has been described; such drapes include the 'Southampton Tent' and 'OtoTent'. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the use of a novel drape 'tent' that has advantages over established 'tent' designs in terms of having: (1) a CE marking; (2) no requirement for modification during assembly; and (3) no obstruction to the surgical visual field. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: During mastoid surgery, the dispersion of macroscopic droplets and other particulate matter was confined within the novel drape 'tent'. Use of this drape 'tent' had no adverse effects upon the surgeon's manual dexterity or efficiency, the view of the surgical field, or the sterility. Hence, our findings support its use during mastoid surgery in the coronavirus disease 2019 era.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/transmission , Disease Transmission, Infectious/prevention & control , Infection Control/methods , Mastoid/surgery , Surgical Drapes/supply & distribution , Aerosols , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Child, Preschool , Humans , Mastoidectomy/methods , Operating Rooms/standards , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Surgeons/statistics & numerical data , Surgical Drapes/trends , Surgical Equipment/trends
9.
J Perioper Pract ; 31(1-2): 44-50, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-965746

ABSTRACT

One of the priorities at our large Operating Theatres Department is to support awareness and basic education of the multi-disciplinary teams in clinical Human Factors, to help build competence and capacity in healthcare towards a resilient system. From May 2019 until February 2020, our Human Factors Champions embarked on a project called Observation of Non-technical Skills and Teamwork in the operating theatres (ONSeT), to monitor and evaluate the benefits of local Human Factors education. In September 2020, six months after the COVID-19 pandemic hit the UK and caused a major disruption of surgical services, we decided to investigate the usefulness of the project and the impact of COVID-19 in the operating theatres, looking through the eyes of the Human Factors Champions. Results pointed to a consensus about ONSeT having helped during the pandemic, with regards to how teams worked and in enabling team leaders to be more responsive. Human Factors Champions found that feedback on performance was received in a non-threatening way and observation of performance became 'second nature'. As organisations need to develop critical thinking, we think that the ONSeT project has helped us build some capacity for this, from the front-line onwards.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Health Personnel/standards , Infection Control/methods , Infection Control/standards , Operating Rooms/standards , Patient Isolators/standards , Perioperative Care/standards , Adult , COVID-19 , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Practice Guidelines as Topic , SARS-CoV-2
10.
J Perioper Pract ; 31(1-2): 18-23, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-954999

ABSTRACT

The emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19), has rapidly developed into a global pandemic and public health emergency. The transmission and virulence of this new pathogen have raised concern for how best to protect healthcare professionals while effectively providing care to the infected patient requiring surgery. Although negative pressure rooms are ideal for aerosol-generating procedures, such as intubation and extubation, most operating theatres are generally maintained at a positive pressure when compared with the surrounding areas. This article compares negative and positive pressure rooms and the advantages of a negative pressure environment in optimising clinical care and minimising the exposure of patients and health care professionals to SARS-CoV-2.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Infection Control/methods , Infection Control/standards , Operating Rooms/standards , Patient Isolators/standards , Perioperative Care/standards , Ventilation/standards , COVID-19 , Humans , Practice Guidelines as Topic
12.
Clin Genitourin Cancer ; 19(2): e63-e68, 2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-652586

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To investigate the health-related quality of life of uro-oncologic patients whose surgery was postponed without being rescheduled during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From the March 1 to April 26, 2020, major urologic surgeries were drastically reduced at our tertiary-care referral hospital. In order to evaluate health-related quality-of-life outcomes, the SF-36 questionnaire was sent to all patients scheduled for major surgery at our department 3 weeks after the cancellation of the planned surgical procedures because of the COVID-19 emergency. RESULTS: All patients included in the analysis had been awaiting surgery for a median (interquartile range) time of 52.85 (35-72) days. The SF-36 questionnaire measured 8 domains: physical functioning (PF), role limitations due to physical health (PH), role limitations due to emotional problems (RE), energy/fatigue (EF), emotional well-being (EWB), social functioning (SF), bodily pain (BP), general health perceptions (GHP). When considering physical characteristics as measured by the SF-36 questionnaire, PF was 91.5 (50-100) and PH was 82.75 (50-100) with a BP of 79.56 (45-90). For emotional and social aspects, RE was 36.83 (0-100) with a SF of 37.98 (12.5-90). Most patients reported loss of energy (EF 35.28 [15-55]) and increased anxiety (EWB 47.18 [interquartile range, 20-75]). All patients perceived a reduction of their health conditions, with GHP of 49.47 (15-85). Generally, 86% of patients (n = 43) noted an almost intact physical function but a significant emotional alteration characterized by a prevalence of anxiety and loss of energy. CONCLUSION: The lockdown due to the novel coronavirus that has affected most operating rooms in Italy could be responsible for the increased anxiety and decrement in health status of oncologic patients. Without any effective solution, we should expect a new medical catastrophe-one caused by the increased risk of tumor progression and mortality in uro-oncologic patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Pandemics/prevention & control , Quality of Life , Urologic Neoplasms/psychology , Urologic Surgical Procedures/psychology , Aged , Anxiety/diagnosis , Anxiety/epidemiology , Anxiety/etiology , Anxiety/psychology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/transmission , COVID-19/virology , Communicable Disease Control , Female , Health Status , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Operating Rooms/standards , Operating Rooms/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Self Report/statistics & numerical data , Time-to-Treatment/statistics & numerical data , Urologic Neoplasms/surgery , Urologic Surgical Procedures/standards , Urologic Surgical Procedures/statistics & numerical data
13.
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol ; 277(12): 3529-3532, 2020 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-757968

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Mastoidectomy is associated with extensive bone-drilling which makes it a major aerosol generating procedure. Considering the ongoing COVID-19 global pandemic, it is essential to devise methods to minimize aerosolization and hence ensure safety of the healthcare workers during the operative procedure. METHODS: Two disposable surgical drapes are used to create a closed pocket prior to commencement of mastoid bone-drilling. This limits aerosolization of bone-dust in the external operating theatre environment. CONCLUSION: Two-drape closed pocket technique is an easy, cost-effective and safe method to limit aerosolization of tissue particles during mastoidectomy.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Infection Control/methods , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Operating Rooms/standards , Otolaryngology/standards , Pandemics/legislation & jurisprudence , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Aerosols/adverse effects , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Dust , Humans , Mastoid/surgery , Mastoidectomy , Otolaryngology/instrumentation , Pandemics/prevention & control , Personal Protective Equipment/virology , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Surgical Equipment
14.
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc ; 28(9): 2730-2746, 2020 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-730928

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: The Covid-19 pandemic has disrupted health care systems all over the world. Elective surgical procedures have been postponed and/or cancelled. Consensus is, therefore, required related to the factors that need to be in place before elective surgery, including hip and knee replacement surgery, which is restarted. Entirely new pathways and protocols need to be worked out. METHODS: A panel of experts from the European Hip Society and European Knee Association have agreed to a consensus statement on how to reintroduce elective arthroplasty surgery safely. The recommendations are based on the best available evidence and have been validated in a separate survey. RESULTS: The guidelines are based on five themes: modification and/or reorganisation of hospital wards. Restrictions on orthopaedic wards and in operation suite(s). Additional disinfection of the environment. The role of ultra-clean operation theatres. Personal protective equipment enhancement. CONCLUSION: Apart from the following national and local guidance, protocols need to be put in place in the patient pathway for primary arthroplasty to allow for a safe return.


Subject(s)
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip , Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Elective Surgical Procedures/methods , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Anthropology, Medical , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Consensus , Delivery of Health Care/methods , Disinfection/methods , Disinfection/standards , Europe , Hospital Units/organization & administration , Hospital Units/standards , Humans , Operating Rooms/organization & administration , Operating Rooms/standards , Orthopedic Procedures , Orthopedics , Pandemics , Personal Protective Equipment , SARS-CoV-2 , Surveys and Questionnaires
18.
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg ; 160(2): 447-451, 2020 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-661781

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic necessitates aggressive infection mitigation strategies to reduce the risk to patients and healthcare providers. This document is intended to provide a framework for the adult cardiac surgeon to consider in this rapidly changing environment. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative detailed protective measures are outlined. These are guidance recommendations during a pandemic surge to be used for all patients while local COVID-19 disease burden remains elevated.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/pathogenicity , Cardiac Surgical Procedures/standards , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Heart Diseases/surgery , Infection Control/standards , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Infectious Disease Transmission, Professional-to-Patient/prevention & control , Operating Rooms/standards , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Recovery Room/standards , COVID-19 , Cardiac Surgical Procedures/adverse effects , Consensus , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Cross Infection/transmission , Cross Infection/virology , Heart Diseases/epidemiology , Humans , Occupational Health/standards , Patient Safety/standards , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Virulence
19.
Chin Med Sci J ; 35(2): 114-120, 2020 Jun 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-656608

ABSTRACT

A novel coronavirus that emerged in late 2019 rapidly spread around the world. Most severe cases need endotracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation, and some mild cases may need emergent surgery under general anesthesia. The novel coronavirus was reported to transmit via droplets, contact and natural aerosols from human to human. Therefore, aerosol-producing procedures such as endotracheal intubation and airway suction may put the healthcare providers at high risk of nosocomial infection. Based on recently published articles, this review provides detailed feasible recommendations for primary anesthesiologists on infection prevention in operating room during COVID-19 outbreak.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Disease Outbreaks/prevention & control , Operating Rooms/standards , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Anesthesiologists/standards , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Cross Infection/transmission , Humans , Intubation, Intratracheal/methods , Intubation, Intratracheal/standards , Operating Rooms/methods , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , SARS-CoV-2
20.
Surg Infect (Larchmt) ; 21(8): 671-676, 2020 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-656029

ABSTRACT

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has become an increasingly challenging problem throughout the world. Because of the numerous potential modes of transmission, surgeons and all procedural staff represent a unique population that requires standardized procedures to protect themselves and their patients. Although several protocols have been implemented during other infectious disease outbreaks, such as Ebola virus, no standardized protocol has been published in regard to the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A multidisciplinary team of two surgeons, an anesthesiologist, and an infection preventionist was assembled to create a process with sterile attire adapted from the National Emerging Special Pathogen Training and Education Center (NETEC) donning and doffing process. After editing, a donning procedure and doffing procedure was created and made into checklists. The procedures were simulated in an empty operating room (OR) with simulation of all personnel roles. A "dofficer" role was established to ensure real-time adherence to the procedures. Results: The donning and doffing procedures were printed as one-page documents for easy posting in ORs and procedural areas. Pictures from the simulation were also obtained and made into flow chart-style diagrams that were also posted in the ORs. Conclusions: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a quickly evolving pandemic that has spread all over the globe. With the rapid increase of infections and the increasing number of severely ill individuals, healthcare providers need easy-to-follow guidelines to keep themselves and patients as safe as possible. The processes for donning and doffing personal protective equipment (PPE) presented here provide an added measure of safety to surgeons and support staff to provide quality surgical care to positive and suspected COVID-19-positive patients.


Subject(s)
Clinical Protocols/standards , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Infection Control/methods , Operating Rooms/organization & administration , Pandemics/prevention & control , Personal Protective Equipment/standards , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/surgery , Humans , Infection Control/standards , Operating Rooms/standards , Patient Care Team , Pneumonia, Viral/surgery , Program Evaluation , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL