Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 185
Filter
Add filters

Document Type
Year range
2.
Antimicrob Resist Infect Control ; 10(1): 159, 2021 11 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1505725

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In the COVID-19 pandemic context, a massive shortage of personal protective equipment occurred. To increase the available stocks, several countries appealed for donations from individuals or industries. While national and international standards to evaluate personal protective equipment exist, none of the previous research studied how to evaluate personal protective equipment coming from donations to healthcare establishments. Our aim was to evaluate the quality and possible use of the personal protective equipment donations delivered to our health care establishment in order to avoid a shortage and to protect health care workers throughout the COVID-19 crisis. METHODS: Our intervention focused on evaluation of the quality of donations for medical use through creation of a set of assessment criteria and analysis of the economic impact of these donations. RESULTS: Between 20th March 2020 and 11th May 2020, we received 239 donations including respirators, gloves, coveralls, face masks, gowns, hats, overshoes, alcohol-based hand rubs, face shields, goggles and aprons. A total of 448,666 (86.3%) products out of the 519,618 initially received were validated and distributed in health care units, equivalent to 126 (52.7%) donations out of the 239 received. The budgetary value of the validated donations was 32,872 euros according to the pre COVID-19 prices and 122,178 euros according to the current COVID-19 prices, representing an increase of 371.7%. CONCLUSIONS: By ensuring a constant influx of personal protective equipment and proper stock management, shortages were avoided. Procurement and distribution of controlled and validated personal protective equipment is the key to providing quality care while guaranteeing health care worker safety.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Eye Protective Devices/supply & distribution , Health Personnel/psychology , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Masks/supply & distribution , Personal Protective Equipment/supply & distribution , Protective Clothing/supply & distribution , Safety Management , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , Infection Control , Pandemics , Personal Protective Equipment/statistics & numerical data , Protective Clothing/statistics & numerical data , Quality Improvement , SARS-CoV-2
3.
Turk J Ophthalmol ; 51(5): 269-281, 2021 10 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1497595

ABSTRACT

Objectives: To investigate the effect of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on the clinical practice of ophthalmologists in our country. Materials and Methods: A questionnaire consisting of 22 questions was delivered to 250 ophthalmologists via e-mail and a smartphone messaging application. A total of 113 ophthalmologists completed the survey. The questions included the participants' demographic data (age, years in practice, institution, and city), changes in their working conditions and institutional preventive measures implemented during the pandemic, their personal COVID-19 experiences, the prevalence of telemedicine applications, and their attitudes toward these practices. Results: Nearly half (47.8%) of the 113 ophthalmologists were 36 to 45 years old. In terms of years in practice, the largest proportion of respondents (28.3%) had 6-10 years of experience. Most of the participants worked in private/foundation universities (37.2%), while 22.1% worked in education and research clinics. Participants working at public universities most often reported that they or a close contact had to work in COVID wards (89.5%). Triage was performed in 51.5% of ophthalmology outpatient clinics, with 88.0% of these participants reporting that patients with fever, cough, or dyspnea were directed to the pandemic clinic without ophthalmological examination. All participants working in public hospitals, education and research clinics, and public university hospitals had postponed elective surgeries, whereas 12.5% of those working in private practice and 20.5% of those working in private/foundation universities reported that they continued elective surgeries. While 80.8% of the participants did not conduct online interviews or examinations, 40.4% stated that they considered telemedicine applications beneficial. Seventy-seven percent of participants expressed concern about a decrease in their income during the pandemic, with this being especially common among participants working in private practice (87.5%) and private/foundation university hospitals (85.7%). Conclusion: Ophthalmologists across our country have been affected by this pandemic at a level that will change their clinical approach. We think that ophthalmologists impacted by the difficulty of providing personal protective equipment and economic concerns should be supported more during the pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Ophthalmologists/statistics & numerical data , Ophthalmology/trends , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2 , Adult , Aged , Delivery of Health Care , Elective Surgical Procedures/statistics & numerical data , Female , Health Surveys , Hospitals, Private , Hospitals, Public , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Ophthalmologists/psychology , Patient Care , Personal Protective Equipment/statistics & numerical data , Surveys and Questionnaires , Telemedicine , Turkey/epidemiology
4.
Gac Med Mex ; 157(3): 313-317, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1478924

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, adherence to hygiene measures is an objective aimed at reducing morbidity and mortality. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate adherence to hand hygiene and protection measures during the COVID-19 pandemic in a tertiary care hospital. METHODS: Cross-sectional study on health personnel handwashing at the five moments recommended by the World Health Organization, as well as on the use of specific personal protective equipment. RESULTS: One hundred and seventeen hand hygiene opportunities were observed in health personnel. Hand washing was observed in 40 (34 %) and omission in 76 (65 %). Adherence to the use of face shield was observed in five (4 %), and lack of adherence in 112 (96%). Adherence to the use of face mask was observed in 65 nursing professionals (87 %), with appropriate use of the mask in 56 of them (60 %) and use of face shield in one (1 %). CONCLUSION: Health personnel showed low proportions of adherence to hand hygiene and use of equipment for specific protection during the COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Guideline Adherence/statistics & numerical data , Hand Hygiene/statistics & numerical data , Personal Protective Equipment/statistics & numerical data , Personnel, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Hand Hygiene/standards , Humans , Male , Personnel, Hospital/standards , Prospective Studies , Tertiary Care Centers , Time Factors
5.
Pan Afr Med J ; 39: 265, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1472498

ABSTRACT

Introduction: dental procedures produce bio-aerosols that can carry the highly contagious COVID-19 virus. Hence, the entire dental care team has to follow the current COVID-19 related infection control protocols. The study aims to assess the knowledge, attitude, and practices associated with infection control methods during dental procedures among dental practitioners during the COVID-19 pandemic in India. Methods: the online questionnaire consisted of four sections namely, demographic details, eight questions on knowledge, four questions on attitude and eight questions on the practice of dentists during COVID-19 pandemic. One point was attributed for a correct response and zero point for an incorrect response. The study used descriptive statistics and binary logistic regression models in Jamovi 1.8.1 to establish relationships between knowledge, attitude, and practices among dental professionals and their demographic characteristics. Results: among 384 dentists, 294 (76.6%) were aware of the hand hygiene methods, 372 dentists (96.9%) were aware of the Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), 343 dentists (89.3%) recorded the body temperature of the patients. One hundred and thirty eight (138) dentists (35.9%) did not use rubber dam and 158 dentists (41.1%) were not aware of the four-handed dentistry. Among the study participants, 57.8% displayed adequate knowledge, 63.8% possessed good attitude and 93.5% followed good practices on COVID-19 appropriate infection control measures during dental procedures. The mean knowledge, attitude, and practice scores were found to be 6.61, 2.04, and 3.38 respectively. Based on multivariable binary logistic regression analysis, it is observed that males (aOR: 0.55, 95% CI 0.35-0.87; p=0.011) have a lower likelihood of having a good knowledge when compared with females after adjusting for the other independent variables in the model. Also, individuals with higher qualifications (aOR: 0.57, 95% CI 0.36-0.92; p=0.022) appear to have lower likelihood of having good knowledge on COVID-19 infection control methods during dental procedure. Conclusion: the study concludes that participants possess sound knowledge, attitude and practice on hand hygiene, PPE, patient triage and waiting area modifications at the workplace. However, poor response was noted on the use of rubber dam, remote telephonic screening and four-handed dentistry practice.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Dental Health Services/standards , Dentists/psychology , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Infection Control/methods , Pandemics/prevention & control , Personal Protective Equipment/statistics & numerical data , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Adult , Attitude of Health Personnel , COVID-19/epidemiology , Dentists/statistics & numerical data , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Professional Role
7.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 100(37): e27240, 2021 Sep 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1434546

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the mandatory use of personal protective equipment (PPE) has resulted in a significant reduction in the infection rate among health care workers (HCWs). However, there are some ongoing concerns about the negative impact of using PPE for prolonged periods.This study examined the impact of wearing PPE on surgeons' performance and decision making during the COVID-19 pandemic.In this cross-sectional study, an anonymous online questionnaire was created and disseminated to surgeons all over the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia. The questionnaire included the demographic data, the local hospital policies, the non-technical skills (e.g., communication, vision, and comfort) and the technical skills, and the process of decision making.From June 2020 to August 2020, 162 surgeons participated in this questionnaire. Of them, 80.2% were aged from 26 to 45 years, 70.4% have received a special training for PPE, and 59.3% of participants have operated on COVID-19 confirmed cases. A negative impact of wearing PPE was reported on their overall comfort, vision, and communication skills (92.6%, 95.1%, and 82.8%, respectively). The technical skills and decision making were not significantly affected (60.5% and 72.8%, respectively). More preference for conservative approach, damage control procedures, and/or open approach was reported.Despite its benefits, PPE is associated with a significant negative impact on the non-technical skills (including vision, communication, and comfort) as well as a non-significant negative impact on technical skills and decision making of surgeons. Extra efforts should be directed to improve PPE, especially during lengthy pandemics.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Decision Making , Personal Protective Equipment/standards , Surgeons/psychology , Adult , COVID-19/psychology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Personal Protective Equipment/statistics & numerical data , Saudi Arabia , Surgeons/statistics & numerical data , Surveys and Questionnaires
9.
West J Emerg Med ; 22(5): 1045-1050, 2021 Aug 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1405508

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has reinforced the importance of facial protection against droplet transmission of diseases. Healthcare workers wear personal protection equipment (PPE), including face shields and masks. Plastic face shields may have advantages over regular medical masks. Although many designs of face shields exist, there is a paucity of evidence regarding the efficacy of shield designs against droplet transmissions. There is even less published evidence comparing various face shields. Due to the urgency of the pandemic and the health and safety of healthcare workers, we aimed to study the efficacy of various face shields against droplet transmission. METHODS: We simulated droplet transmission via coughing using a heavy-duty chemical spray bottle filled with fluorescein. A standard-adult sized mannequin head was used. The mannequin head wore various face shields and was positioned to face the spray bottle at either a 0°, 45°, or 90° angle. The spray bottle was positioned at and sprayed from 30 centimeters (cm), 60 cm, or 90 cm away from the head. These steps were repeated for all face shields used. Control was a mannequin that wore no PPE. A basic mask was also tested. We collected data for particle count, total area of particle distribution, average particle size, and percentage area covered by particles. We analyzed percent covered by particles using a repeated measures mixed-model regression with Tukey-Kramer pairwise comparison. RESULTS: We used least square means to estimate the percentage area covered by particles. Wearing PPE regardless of the design reduced particle transmission to the mannequin compared to the control. The LCG mask had the lowest square means of 0.06 of all face-shield designs analyzed. Tukey-Kramer pairwise comparison showed that all PPEs had a decrease in particle contamination compared to the control. LCG shield was found to have the least contamination compared to all other masks (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Results suggest the importance of wearing a protective covering against droplet transmission. The LCG shield was found to decrease facial contamination by droplets the most of any tested protective equipment.


Subject(s)
Aerosols/analysis , COVID-19/prevention & control , Infection Control , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Inhalation Exposure/prevention & control , Masks/statistics & numerical data , Personal Protective Equipment/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cough , Delivery of Health Care , Humans , Manikins , Masks/standards , Particle Size , Personal Protective Equipment/standards , SARS-CoV-2
11.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 69(43): 1605-1610, 2020 Oct 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1389857

ABSTRACT

Health care personnel (HCP) are at increased risk for infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), as a result of their exposure to patients or community contacts with COVID-19 (1,2). Since the first confirmed case of COVID-19 in Minnesota was reported on March 6, 2020, the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) has required health care facilities* to report HCP† exposures to persons with confirmed COVID-19 for exposure risk assessment and to enroll HCP with higher-risk exposures into quarantine and symptom monitoring. During March 6-July 11, MDH and 1,217 partnering health care facilities assessed 21,406 HCP exposures; among these, 5,374 (25%) were classified as higher-risk§ (3). Higher-risk exposures involved direct patient care (66%) and nonpatient care interactions (e.g., with coworkers and social and household contacts) (34%). Within 14 days following a higher-risk exposure, nearly one third (31%) of HCP who were enrolled in monitoring reported COVID-19-like symptoms,¶ and more than one half (52%) of enrolled HCP with symptoms received positive SARS-CoV-2 test results. Among all HCP with higher-risk exposures, irrespective of monitoring enrollment, 7% received positive SARS-CoV-2 test results. Compared with HCP with higher-risk exposures working in acute care settings, those working in congregate living or long-term care settings more often returned to work (57%), worked while symptomatic (5%), and received a positive test result (10%) during 14-day postexposure monitoring than did HCP working outside of such settings. These data highlight the need for awareness of nonpatient care SARS-CoV-2 exposure risks and for targeted interventions to protect HCP, in addition to residents, in congregate living and long-term care settings. To minimize exposure risk among HCP, health care facilities need improved infection prevention and control, consistent personal protective equipment (PPE) availability and use, flexible sick leave, and SARS-CoV-2 testing access. All health care organizations and HCP should be aware of potential exposure risk from coworkers, household members, and social contacts.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional , Occupational Exposure/adverse effects , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Humans , Middle Aged , Minnesota/epidemiology , Occupational Exposure/statistics & numerical data , Pandemics/prevention & control , Personal Protective Equipment/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Risk Assessment , Young Adult
12.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 69(35): 1221-1226, 2020 Sep 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1389852

ABSTRACT

Health care personnel (HCP) caring for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) might be at high risk for contracting SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Understanding the prevalence of and factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection among frontline HCP who care for COVID-19 patients are important for protecting both HCP and their patients. During April 3-June 19, 2020, serum specimens were collected from a convenience sample of frontline HCP who worked with COVID-19 patients at 13 geographically diverse academic medical centers in the United States, and specimens were tested for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2. Participants were asked about potential symptoms of COVID-19 experienced since February 1, 2020, previous testing for acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, and their use of personal protective equipment (PPE) in the past week. Among 3,248 participants, 194 (6.0%) had positive test results for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Seroprevalence by hospital ranged from 0.8% to 31.2% (median = 3.6%). Among the 194 seropositive participants, 56 (29%) reported no symptoms since February 1, 2020, 86 (44%) did not believe that they previously had COVID-19, and 133 (69%) did not report a previous COVID-19 diagnosis. Seroprevalence was lower among personnel who reported always wearing a face covering (defined in this study as a surgical mask, N95 respirator, or powered air purifying respirator [PAPR]) while caring for patients (5.6%), compared with that among those who did not (9.0%) (p = 0.012). Consistent with persons in the general population with SARS-CoV-2 infection, many frontline HCP with SARS-CoV-2 infection might be asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic during infection, and infection might be unrecognized. Enhanced screening, including frequent testing of frontline HCP, and universal use of face coverings in hospitals are two strategies that could reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/blood , Betacoronavirus/immunology , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Personnel, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Academic Medical Centers , Adult , Asymptomatic Diseases , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Female , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Professional-to-Patient/prevention & control , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics/prevention & control , Personal Protective Equipment/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , SARS-CoV-2 , Seroepidemiologic Studies , United States/epidemiology
13.
Health Qual Life Outcomes ; 19(1): 207, 2021 Aug 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1376587

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The effect of COVID-19 on Health-Care Professionals' mental health has received increased attention in the last year's literature. However, previous studies essentially evaluated psychopathological symptoms and not the presence of positive mental health. Therefore, the first objective of the present research is to evaluate health-care professionals' mental illness (i.e., anxiety and traumatic intensity) and positive mental health (i.e., well-being) using the Complete State Model of Health. Our second objective is to study the effect of Personal Protection Equipment availability on professionals' mental health. METHODS: Two-hundred and thirty-two health-care professionals working in Spain in the first line of COVID-19 patient care participated in the study. To measure anxiety, traumatic intensity and well-being participants completed the State Trait Anxiety Inventory, the Davidson Trauma Scale, and the Mental Health Continuum-Short Form. Pearson correlations were used to examine the relationships between all scales. In order to test the two continua model of mental health, we used parallel analysis and exploratory factor analysis. To analyze anxiety, traumatic intensity, and well-being differences between health-care professionals with and without Personal Protection Equipment availability we conducted different ANOVAS. To test our hypothesis regarding the moderating role of Personal Protection Equipment availability in the effect of mental illness on positive mental health, data were subjected to a hierarchical regression analysis. RESULTS: As in previous studies, health-care professionals showed high levels of anxiety and traumatic intensity. They also presented low levels of well-being indicators. According to our hypothesis, results of parallel analysis and exploratory factorial analysis indicated that the measures of mental illness and positive mental health loaded on separate but correlated factors. Finally, Personal Protection Equipment availability moderated the effects of state anxiety and traumatic intensity on professionals' well-being. CONCLUSIONS: Health-care professionals' mental illness and positive mental health reflect distinct continua, rather than the extreme ends of a single spectrum. Therefore, it is essential to measure both psychopathology and the presence of positive health to comprehensively evaluate professionals' mental health. Finally, our results indicated that Personal Protection Equipment availability is essential not only for professionals' physical health, but also for their mental health.


Subject(s)
Anxiety/psychology , COVID-19/psychology , Health Personnel/psychology , Personal Protective Equipment/supply & distribution , Quality of Life/psychology , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Personal Protective Equipment/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2 , Spain/epidemiology
14.
Infect Dis Health ; 26(3): 214-217, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1364067

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused unprecedented global demand for personal protective equipment (PPE). A paucity of data on PPE burn rate (PPE consumption over time) in pandemic situations exacerbated these issues as there was little historic research to indicate volumes of PPE required to care for surges in infective patients and thus plan procurement requirements. METHODS: To better understand PPE requirements for care of suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients in our Australian quaternary referral hospital, the number of staff-to-patient interactions in a 24-h period for three patient groups (ward-based COVID suspect, ward-based COVID confirmed, intensive care COVID confirmed) was audited prospectively from 1st to 30th April 2020. RESULTS: The average number of staff-to-patient interactions in a 24-h period was: 13.1 ± 5.0 (mean ± SD) for stable ward-managed COVID-19 suspect patients; 11.9 ± 3.8 for stable ward-managed confirmed COVID-19 patients; and 30.0 ± 5.3 for stable, mechanically ventilated, ICU-managed COVID-19 patients. This data can be used in PPE demand simulation modelling for COVID-19 and potentially other respiratory illnesses. CONCLUSION: Data on the average number of staff-to-patient interactions needed for the care of COVID-19 patients is presented. This data can be used for PPE demand simulation modelling.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Hospitals/statistics & numerical data , Personal Protective Equipment/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , New South Wales/epidemiology , Patient-Centered Care , Personal Protective Equipment/trends
15.
Clin Med (Lond) ; 20(5): e154-e159, 2020 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1360886

ABSTRACT

There is disagreement between international guidelines on the level of personal protective equipment (PPE) required for chest compressions for patients with suspected COVID-19. This discrepancy centres on whether they are considered to be an aerosol-generating procedure (AGP), thus requiring airborne protection to prevent transmission to healthcare workers (HCWs). The need to don higher-level PPE has to be weighed against the resulting delay to emergency treatment.We performed a literature search on this topic which found eight relevant studies. All were observational with low patient numbers and multiple confounding factors, but describe cases of acute respiratory infection transmission during chest compressions. One systematic review concluded that chest compressions were not an AGP. Two simulated studies (released as preprints) potentially demonstrate aerosol generation. Given that there is evidence for infection transmission during chest compressions, we conclude that a precautionary approach with appropriate PPE is necessary to protect HCW from contracting a potentially fatal infection.


Subject(s)
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation/adverse effects , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Pandemics/prevention & control , Personal Protective Equipment/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Practice Guidelines as Topic/standards , Aerosols/adverse effects , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Disease Outbreaks/statistics & numerical data , Female , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Male , Occupational Health , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Patient Safety , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , United Kingdom
16.
Appl Environ Microbiol ; 87(19): e0031421, 2021 09 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1319372

ABSTRACT

Decontamination helps limit environmental transmission of infectious agents. It is required for the safe reuse of contaminated medical, laboratory, and personal protective equipment, and for the safe handling of biological samples. Heat treatment is a common decontamination method, notably used for viruses. We show that for liquid specimens (here, solution of SARS-CoV-2 in cell culture medium), the virus inactivation rate under heat treatment at 70°C can vary by almost two orders of magnitude depending on the treatment procedure, from a half-life of 0.86 min (95% credible interval [CI] 0.09, 1.77) in closed vials in a heat block to 37.04 min (95% CI 12.64, 869.82) in uncovered plates in a dry oven. These findings suggest a critical role of evaporation in virus inactivation via dry heat. Placing samples in open or uncovered containers may dramatically reduce the speed and efficacy of heat treatment for virus inactivation. Given these findings, we reviewed the literature on temperature-dependent coronavirus stability and found that specimen container types, along with whether they are closed, covered, or uncovered, are rarely reported in the scientific literature. Heat-treatment procedures must be fully specified when reporting experimental studies to facilitate result interpretation and reproducibility, and must be carefully considered when developing decontamination guidelines. IMPORTANCE Heat is a powerful weapon against most infectious agents. It is widely used for decontamination of medical, laboratory, and personal protective equipment, and for biological samples. There are many methods of heat treatment, and methodological details can affect speed and efficacy of decontamination. We applied four different heat-treatment procedures to liquid specimens containing SARS-CoV-2. Our results show that the container used to store specimens during decontamination can substantially affect inactivation rate; for a given initial level of contamination, decontamination time can vary from a few minutes in closed vials to several hours in uncovered plates. Reviewing the literature, we found that container choices and heat treatment methods are only rarely reported explicitly in methods sections. Our study shows that careful consideration of heat-treatment procedure-in particular the choice of specimen container and whether it is covered-can make results more consistent across studies, improve decontamination practice, and provide insight into the mechanisms of virus inactivation.


Subject(s)
Decontamination/methods , Hot Temperature , Personal Protective Equipment/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2/physiology , Specimen Handling/methods , Virus Inactivation , Decontamination/instrumentation , Reproducibility of Results , Specimen Handling/instrumentation
18.
Isr J Health Policy Res ; 10(1): 41, 2021 07 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1317128

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a highly infectious viral pandemic that has claimed the lives of millions. Personal protective equipment (PPE) may reduce the risk of transmission for health care workers (HCWs), especially in the emergency setting. This study aimed to compare the adherence to PPE donning and doffing protocols in the Emergency Department (ED) vs designated COVID-19 wards and score adherence according to the steps in our protocol. DESIGN: Prior to managing COVID-19 patients, mandatory PPE training was undertaken for all HCWs. HCWs were observed donning or doffing COVID-19 restricted areas. SETTING: Donning and doffing was observed in COVID-19 designated Emergency department and compared to COVID-19 positive wards. PARTICIPANTS: All HCWs working in the aforementioned wards during the time of observation. RESULTS: We observed 107 donning and doffing procedures (30 were observed in the ED). 50% HCWs observed donned PPE correctly and 37% doffed correctly. The ED had a significantly lower mean donning score (ED: 78%, Internal: 95% ICU: 96%, p < 0.001); and a significantly lower mean doffing score (ED: 72%, Internal: 85% ICU: 91%, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: As hypothesized, HCWs assigned to the designated ED wing made more protocol deviations compared with HCWs positive COVID-19 wards. Time management, acuity, lack of personnel, stress and known COVID-19 status may explain the lesser adherence to donning and doffing protocols. Further studies to assess the correlation between protocol deviations in use of PPE and morbidity as well as improvement implementations are required. Resources should be invested to ensure PPE is properly used.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Emergency Service, Hospital/standards , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Personal Protective Equipment/statistics & numerical data , Guideline Adherence/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Infection Control/methods , Infection Control/standards , Israel , Personal Protective Equipment/standards , Personnel, Hospital/standards , Personnel, Hospital/statistics & numerical data
19.
Ann Glob Health ; 87(1): 56, 2021 06 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1296122

ABSTRACT

Background: The adherence of medical laboratory technicians (MLT) to infection control guidelines is essential for reducing the risk of exposure to infectious agents. This study explored the adherence of MLT towards infection control practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Method: The study population consisted of MLT (n = 444) who worked in private and government health sectors in Jordan. A self-reported survey was used to collect data from participants. Findings: More than 87% of the participants reported adherence to hand-washing guidelines and using personal protective equipment (PPE) when interacting with patients (74.5%), and handling clinical samples (70.0%). Besides, 88.1%, 48.2%, and 7.7% reported wearing of lab coats, face masks, and goggles, at all times, respectively. The majority reported increased adherence to infection control practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. This includes increased PPE use at the workplace (94.2%), increased frequency of disinfection of laboratory surfaces (92.4%) and laboratory equipment (86.7%), and increased frequency of handwashing/use of antiseptics (94.6%). Having a graduate degree was significantly associated with increased adherence of participants to the daily use of goggles/eye protection (p = 0.002), and the use of PPE while handling clinical samples (p = 0.011). Having work experience of >10 years was associated with increased adherence to the use of PPE while handling clinical samples (p = 0.001). Conclusion: MLT reported very good adherence with most assessed infection control practices. In addition, they reported increased conformity with infection control guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Guideline Adherence , Infection Control , Laboratories , Medical Laboratory Personnel , Personal Protective Equipment , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Female , Guideline Adherence/standards , Guideline Adherence/statistics & numerical data , Hand Disinfection/methods , Hand Disinfection/standards , Health Care Surveys , Humans , Infection Control/instrumentation , Infection Control/methods , Infection Control/standards , Jordan/epidemiology , Laboratories/organization & administration , Laboratories/standards , Male , Medical Laboratory Personnel/standards , Medical Laboratory Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Personal Protective Equipment/statistics & numerical data , Personal Protective Equipment/supply & distribution , Practice Guidelines as Topic , SARS-CoV-2 , Self Report
20.
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet ; 43(5): 374-376, 2021 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1284746

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To analyze effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the consumption of personal protective equipment and products (PPEP), as well as the frequency of surgical site infection (SSI) among non-COVID-19 patients submitted to cesarean sections. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted in a maternity unity of a public teaching hospital which was not part of the reference service for COVID-19 treatment. It compared PPEP consumption and the occurrence of SSI after cesarean sections in monthly periods before and after the occurrence of the first case of COVID-19 in Porto Alegre, state of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Personal protective equipment and products consumption was measured as units of masks, gloves, gowns, and caps, and use of alcohol-based products or soap for hand sanitation as ml/patient/day. The SSI index was calculated as the proportion of cases of SSI over the number of cesarean sections performed monthly during the study period. RESULTS: There was an increase in all measured items of PPEP, with consumption of disposable masks with a median of 1,450 units in the pre-COVID period, and of 2550 in the post-COVID period (a 75.9% increase). A decrease of 49% in SSI was detected, with a median of 1.74 in the pre-COVID period and of 0.89 in the post-COVID period. CONCLUSION: The increase in consumption of PPEP could be a result of safer practices adopted by healthcare workers with the advent of COVID-19, of which the following reduction in the occurrence of SSI could be a direct consequence. Despite the severity of the crisis, one could state that extreme situations can lead to valuable reflections and opportunities for improvement.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cesarean Section , Hand Sanitizers , Personal Protective Equipment/statistics & numerical data , Surgical Wound Infection/epidemiology , Surgical Wound Infection/prevention & control , COVID-19/prevention & control , Female , Health Personnel , Humans , Pregnancy , Retrospective Studies
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...