Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 120
Filter
1.
PLoS One ; 17(4): e0266790, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1785205

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Masks , Bangladesh/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Health Personnel , Humans , Male , Masks/adverse effects , Personal Protective Equipment/adverse effects , Prevalence , SARS-CoV-2
2.
Contact Dermatitis ; 86(4): 266-275, 2022 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1741353

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , COVID-19/prevention & control , Cross-Sectional Studies , Denmark/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Health Personnel , Hospitals , Humans , Pandemics/prevention & control , Personal Protective Equipment/adverse effects , SARS-CoV-2
3.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 101(9): e29003, 2022 Mar 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1730762

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Personal Protective Equipment/adverse effects , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Pandemics , Personnel, Hospital , SARS-CoV-2 , Surveys and Questionnaires
4.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 101(9): e28890, 2022 Mar 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1730757

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Intubation, Intratracheal/instrumentation , Laryngoscopes , Laryngoscopy/instrumentation , Personal Protective Equipment/adverse effects , Adult , Artificial Intelligence , Equipment Design , Female , Glottis , Humans , Male , Manikins , SARS-CoV-2 , Students, Medical
5.
Neurol India ; 70(1): 122-126, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1726260

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Personal Protective Equipment , Adult , Cross-Sectional Studies , Headache/epidemiology , Headache/etiology , Health Personnel , Humans , Male , Pandemics , Personal Protective Equipment/adverse effects , SARS-CoV-2 , Surveys and Questionnaires , Young Adult
6.
Am J Emerg Med ; 53: 122-126, 2022 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1638161

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Allied Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Intubation, Intratracheal/instrumentation , Laryngoscopes/standards , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Airway Management/instrumentation , Airway Management/methods , Airway Management/statistics & numerical data , Allied Health Personnel/standards , Female , Humans , Intubation, Intratracheal/methods , Intubation, Intratracheal/statistics & numerical data , Laryngoscopes/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , Personal Protective Equipment/adverse effects , Personal Protective Equipment/standards , Personal Protective Equipment/statistics & numerical data , Prospective Studies , Resuscitation/instrumentation , Resuscitation/methods , Resuscitation/statistics & numerical data
7.
J. coloproctol. (Rio J., Impr.) ; 41(4): 367-374, Out.-Dec. 2021. tab, ilus
Article in English | WHO COVID, LILACS (Americas) | ID: covidwho-1596029

ABSTRACT

Introduction: The prolonged or incorrect use of facial masks, respirators and glasses or visors results in friction, pressure and shear forces that constantly act on the facial skin, leading to lesions and dermatitis. Objective: To develop and validate algorithms to guide health professionals in the correct use of personal protective equipment (PPE) and indicate preventive measures against skin injuries caused by inappropriate use during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: For the develoment of the algorithms, an integrative literature review was performed using the following databases: PubMed, SciELO, and LILACS. The algorithms were evaluated by 59 health professionals (nurses, doctors, and physiotherapists), using the Delphi technique. A content validity index (CVI) was used for the statistical analysis. Results: The experts classified the items of the algorithms from fully inadequate to fully adequate in the first round of consultations, and from partially adequate to fully adequate in the second round. The overall CVI values were of 0.83 and 1.0 in the first and second rounds respectively. Conclusion: The algorithms validated by the expert panel can be used by health professionals when donning and doffing PPE, and to prevent the facial-skin lesions caused by their use. (AU)


Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Algorithms , Personal Protective Equipment/adverse effects , COVID-19/prevention & control , Skin/injuries
8.
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth ; 21(1): 810, 2021 Dec 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1555052

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Like many countries, the government of Bangladesh also imposed stay-at-home orders to restrict the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (COVID-19) in March, 2020. Epidemiological studies were undertaken to estimate the early possible unforeseen effects on maternal mortality due to the disruption of services during the lockdown. Little is known about the constraints faced by the pregnant women and community health workers in accessing and providing basic obstetric services during the pandemic in the country. This study was conducted to explore the lived experience of pregnant women and community health care providers from two southern districts of Bangladesh during the pandemic of COVID-19. METHODS: The study participants were recruited through purposive sampling and non-structured in-depth interviews were conducted. Data was collected over the telephone from April to June, 2020. The data collected was analyzed through a phenomenological approach. RESULTS: Our analysis shows that community health care providers are working under tremendous strains of work load, fear of getting infected and physical and mental fatigue in a widely disrupted health system. Despite the fear of getting infected, the health workers are reluctant to wear personal protective suits because of gender norms. Similarly, the lived experience of pregnant women shows that they are feeling helpless; the joyful event of pregnancy has suddenly turned into a constant fear and stress. They are living in a limbo of hope and despair with a belief that only God could save their lives. CONCLUSION: The results of the study present the vulnerability of pregnant women and health workers during the pandemic. It recognizes the challenges and constraints, emphasizing the crucial need for government and non-government organizations to improve maternal and newborn health services to protect the pregnant women and health workers as they face predicted waves of the pandemic in the future.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/psychology , Community Health Workers/psychology , Maternal Health Services/organization & administration , Pregnant Women/psychology , Adult , Bangladesh/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Community Health Workers/organization & administration , Female , Humans , Pandemics , Personal Protective Equipment/adverse effects , Poverty , Pregnancy , Qualitative Research , Risk Assessment , SARS-CoV-2 , Young Adult
9.
Adv Skin Wound Care ; 34(12): 651-655, 2021 Dec 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1528177

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency of hand dermatitis among nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic and factors affecting its prevalence. METHODS: The research sample consisted of 175 nurses working in state hospitals. Research data were collected via Google survey between September and October 2020. The data were collected using a sociodemographic data collection form, and a self-assessment form was used to determine dermatologic symptoms. RESULTS: The frequency of hand dermatitis among nurses was 70.9%. A statistically significant difference was found between sex, allergy history, and increased frequency of handwashing and the frequency of hand dermatitis. No significant difference in terms of the frequency of hand dermatitis was found between nurses who provided care to patients who were COVID-19 positive versus nurses who provided care to patients who were COVID-19 negative. However, the frequency of washing hands and using hand disinfectants and hand creams was found to have increased significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to the prepandemic period. CONCLUSIONS: The frequency of hand dermatitis increased among nurses during the pandemic. The increased frequency of handwashing during the pandemic poses a risk for hand dermatitis among nurses, although this should not discourage nurses from appropriate hygiene.


Subject(s)
Dermatitis/diagnosis , Hand/physiopathology , Nurses/statistics & numerical data , Adult , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/transmission , Dermatitis/epidemiology , Female , Hand Disinfection , Humans , Infection Control/instrumentation , Infection Control/methods , Male , Middle Aged , Personal Protective Equipment/adverse effects , Personal Protective Equipment/statistics & numerical data , Prevalence , Turkey/epidemiology
11.
J Med Virol ; 93(10): 5756-5767, 2021 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1432444

ABSTRACT

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) has become a significant health problem globally. The virus has spread widely and become a global pandemic. The pathophysiology for SARS-CoV-2 has not been explained clearly. It has been associated with several multiorgan symptoms, among which its dermatological manifestations are of great interest. Primarily, there has been no report of skin features among COVID-19 patients. Nevertheless, recently there have been several reports regarding COVID-19 patients who presented with cutaneous manifestations. In the current review, we focus on the various cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 infection.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Skin Diseases/etiology , COVID-19/drug therapy , Dermatitis, Occupational/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Occupational/etiology , Dermatitis, Occupational/pathology , Dermatitis, Occupational/therapy , Diagnosis, Differential , Drug Eruptions/diagnosis , Drug Eruptions/etiology , Drug Eruptions/pathology , Drug Eruptions/therapy , Humans , Personal Protective Equipment/adverse effects , SARS-CoV-2 , Skin Diseases/diagnosis , Skin Diseases/pathology , Skin Diseases/therapy
14.
J Occup Environ Hyg ; 18(9): 430-435, 2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1354224

ABSTRACT

Personal protective equipment used by healthcare workers to mitigate disease transmission risks while caring for patients with high-consequence infectious diseases can impair normal body cooling mechanisms and exacerbate physiological strain. Symptoms of heat strain (e.g., cognitive impairment, confusion, muscle cramping) are especially harmful in the high-risk environment of high-consequence infectious disease care. In this pilot study, the core body temperatures of healthcare workers were assessed using an ingestible, wireless-transmission thermometer while performing patient care tasks common to a high-level isolation unit setting in powered air purifying respirator (PAPR)-level. The objective was to determine the potential for occupational health hazard due to heat stress in an environmentally controlled unit. Maximum core temperatures of the six participants ranged from 37.4 °C (99.3 °F) to 39.9 °C (103.8°F) during the 4-hr shift; core temperatures of half (n = 3) of the participants exceeded 38.5 °C (101.3 °F), the upper core temperature limit. Future investigations are needed to identify other heat stress risks both in and outside of controlled units. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic offers unique opportunities for field-based research on risks of heat stress related to personal protective equipment in healthcare workers that can lead to both short- and long-term innovations in this field.


Subject(s)
Body Temperature/physiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Heat Stress Disorders/etiology , Patient Isolation , Personal Protective Equipment/adverse effects , Adult , Body Mass Index , Female , Health Personnel , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Occupational Health , Pandemics , Pilot Projects , SARS-CoV-2
15.
Continuum (Minneap Minn) ; 27(3): 652-664, 2021 06 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1344140

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: This article provides an overview of a diverse group of primary headache disorders that are categorized in the International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd Edition (ICHD-3), as "other primary headache disorders." This article provides clinicians with a distilled understanding of the diagnoses and their epidemiology, pathophysiology, and management. RECENT FINDINGS: Cough-induced headache requires neuroimaging to exclude posterior fossa pathology and recently has been reported as a common symptom in patients with CSF-venous fistula. Clinical overlap is observed between patients with primary exercise headache and primary headache associated with sexual activity. Patients with recurrent thunderclap headache associated with sexual activity should be presumed to have reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome until proven otherwise. De novo external-pressure headache is a common sequela among health care workers using personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic. New daily persistent headache is an important mimicker of chronic migraine or chronic tension-type headache and is distinguished by a daily-from-onset progression of persistent headache; a treatment-refractory course is often observed, and early involvement of a multidisciplinary team, including a psychotherapist, is advised. SUMMARY: Patients with primary headache disorders that are classified as "other primary headache disorders" have presentations with unique diagnostic and management considerations. The disorders are highly recognizable, and an appreciation of the diagnoses will aid clinicians in providing safe and effective care for patients presenting with headache.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Headache Disorders, Primary/epidemiology , Headache Disorders, Primary/physiopathology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Cough/complications , Cough/epidemiology , Cough/physiopathology , Exercise/physiology , Headache Disorders, Primary/etiology , Humans , Personal Protective Equipment/adverse effects , Personal Protective Equipment/trends , Sexual Behavior/physiology
16.
Rev Neurol ; 73(5): 151-164, 2021 09 01.
Article in Spanish | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1335601

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic and the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) in the healthcare setting provide a unique opportunity to study PPE-associated headaches (PPEAH). SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We conducted an online survey to assess the prevalence and clinical characteristics of PPEAH. The survey was voluntary, anonymous and addressed to medical and non-medical personnel. We used descriptive statistics and univariate and multivariate comparative analyses to identify factors associated with the development of PPEAH and its impact on work capacity. RESULTS: Out of 886 respondents, 88% (780) reported wearing PPE. Most of them were physicians (81%), 52.4% of whom were women. The prevalence of PPEAH was 65.5% (511/780) and 73.8% (377/511) were de novo headaches. PPEAH was acute, oppressive, bifrontal and of moderate intensity, and subsided with the removal of the PPE. Accompanying symptoms were common, and migraine and/or dysautonomic features were highly prevalent. Female sex, age > 40 years, use of PPE > 6 hours/day and the combination of an N95 mask and goggles were associated with the occurrence of PPEAH. There were factors associated with a negative impact on the ability to work because of the PPEAH. DISCUSSION: PPEAH may be a form of external compression headache (ECH); however, it has distinctive features that overlap with other primary and/or secondary headache disorders. CONCLUSIONS: PPEAH is prevalent and impacts on work-related activities. One subgroup presents characteristics not previously described in ECH.


TITLE: Cefalea asociada con el uso de equipo de protección personal durante la pandemia de COVID-19: una encuesta internacional.Introducción. La pandemia de COVID-19 y el uso de equipo de protección personal (EPP) en el entorno de la atención médica brindan una oportunidad única para estudiar la cefalea relacionada con el EPP (CREPP). Sujetos y métodos. Realizamos una encuesta en línea para evaluar la prevalencia y las características clínicas de la CREPP. La encuesta fue voluntaria, anónima y dirigida a personal médico y no médico. Utilizamos estadística descriptiva y análisis comparativos univariados y multivariados para identificar factores asociados con el desarrollo de CREPP y su impacto en la capacidad de trabajo. Resultados. De 886 encuestados, el 88% (780) notificó que usaba EPP. La mayoría eran médicos (81%), un 52,4% mujeres. La prevalencia de CREPP fue del 65,5% (511/780) y el 73,8% (377/511) fueron cefaleas de novo. La CREPP fue aguda, opresiva, bifrontal y de intensidad moderada, y remitía con el retiro del EPP. Los síntomas acompañantes fueron comunes, y las características migrañosas y/o disautonómicas fueron altamente prevalentes. El sexo femenino, la edad > 40 años, el uso de EPP > 6 horas/día y la combinación de mascarilla N95 y gafas se asociaron con la aparición de CREPP. Hubo factores asociados con un impacto negativo en la capacidad para trabajar debido a la CREPP. Discusión. La CREPP podría ser una forma de cefalea por compresión externa (CCE); no obstante, tiene características distintivas que se superponen con otros trastornos de cefaleas primarias y/o secundarias. Conclusiones. La CREPP es frecuente e impacta en las actividades relacionadas con el trabajo. Un subgrupo presenta características no descritas previamente en la CCE.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Headache/etiology , Health Personnel , Occupational Diseases/etiology , Personal Protective Equipment/adverse effects , Female , Humans , Male , Surveys and Questionnaires
17.
Adv Skin Wound Care ; 34(12): 651-655, 2021 Dec 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1310944

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency of hand dermatitis among nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic and factors affecting its prevalence. METHODS: The research sample consisted of 175 nurses working in state hospitals. Research data were collected via Google survey between September and October 2020. The data were collected using a sociodemographic data collection form, and a self-assessment form was used to determine dermatologic symptoms. RESULTS: The frequency of hand dermatitis among nurses was 70.9%. A statistically significant difference was found between sex, allergy history, and increased frequency of handwashing and the frequency of hand dermatitis. No significant difference in terms of the frequency of hand dermatitis was found between nurses who provided care to patients who were COVID-19 positive versus nurses who provided care to patients who were COVID-19 negative. However, the frequency of washing hands and using hand disinfectants and hand creams was found to have increased significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to the prepandemic period. CONCLUSIONS: The frequency of hand dermatitis increased among nurses during the pandemic. The increased frequency of handwashing during the pandemic poses a risk for hand dermatitis among nurses, although this should not discourage nurses from appropriate hygiene.


Subject(s)
Dermatitis/diagnosis , Hand/physiopathology , Nurses/statistics & numerical data , Adult , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/transmission , Dermatitis/epidemiology , Female , Hand Disinfection , Humans , Infection Control/instrumentation , Infection Control/methods , Male , Middle Aged , Personal Protective Equipment/adverse effects , Personal Protective Equipment/statistics & numerical data , Prevalence , Turkey/epidemiology
18.
J Med Virol ; 93(10): 5756-5767, 2021 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1303274

ABSTRACT

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) has become a significant health problem globally. The virus has spread widely and become a global pandemic. The pathophysiology for SARS-CoV-2 has not been explained clearly. It has been associated with several multiorgan symptoms, among which its dermatological manifestations are of great interest. Primarily, there has been no report of skin features among COVID-19 patients. Nevertheless, recently there have been several reports regarding COVID-19 patients who presented with cutaneous manifestations. In the current review, we focus on the various cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 infection.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Skin Diseases/etiology , COVID-19/drug therapy , Dermatitis, Occupational/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Occupational/etiology , Dermatitis, Occupational/pathology , Dermatitis, Occupational/therapy , Diagnosis, Differential , Drug Eruptions/diagnosis , Drug Eruptions/etiology , Drug Eruptions/pathology , Drug Eruptions/therapy , Humans , Personal Protective Equipment/adverse effects , SARS-CoV-2 , Skin Diseases/diagnosis , Skin Diseases/pathology , Skin Diseases/therapy
19.
Ital J Dermatol Venerol ; 156(2): 220-225, 2021 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1302863

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: During the recent COVID-19 outbreak, masks became mandatory and shortages frequent, therefore the prevalence of non-CE (European Conformity Mark) approved masks increased in the general population. We aimed to quantify the prevalence of mask-related cutaneous side effects and the differences between CE and non-CE approved masks. METHODS: In this multicenter prospective observational study conducted from March 20, 2020 to May 12, 2020(during and after quarantine), patients attending emergency departments for a dermatological consult were clinically assessed and their masks were inspected to detect CE marks and UNI (Italian National Unification Entity) norms. Patients with history of facial dermatoses or under current treatment for facial dermatoses were excluded. RESULTS: We enrolled 412 patients (318 during quarantine and 94 after quarantine). CE-approved masks were observed 52.8% vs. 24.5%, whilst subsets of non-CE approved masks were 9.7% vs. 14.9% (Personal protective equipment (PPE)-masks), 16.4% vs. 12.8% (surgical masks [SM]), and 21.1% vs. 47.9%(non-PPE) and (non-SM masks), respectively during and after quarantine. Remarkably, non-CE-approved masks resulted in patients displaying a statistically significant higher incidence of facial dermatoses and irritant contact dermatitis compared to CE-approved masks, and these differences were mainly driven by non-PPE non-SM masks. Comparing quarantine and after quarantine periods, no statistically significant differences were found for CE-approved masks, whilst differences were detected in non-CE-approved masks regarding incidence of facial dermatoses (P<0.0001)and irritant contact dermatitis (P=0.0041). CONCLUSIONS: Masks are essential to prevent COVID-19 but at the same time higher awareness regarding mask specifications should be promoted in the general population. Non-PPE and non-SM masks should undergo more rigorous testing to prevent the occurrence of cutaneous side effects and future patients' lawsuit damages.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Dermatitis, Occupational/etiology , Disease Outbreaks , Facial Dermatoses/etiology , Masks/adverse effects , Personal Protective Equipment/adverse effects , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Masks/standards , Personal Protective Equipment/standards , Prospective Studies
20.
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
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL