The Association between the Perceived Adequacy of Workplace Infection Control Procedures and Personal Protective Equipment with Mental Health Symptoms: A Cross-sectional Survey of Canadian Health-care Workers during the COVID-19 Pandemic: L'association entre le caractère adéquat perçu des procédures de contrôle des infections au travail et de l'équipement de protection personnel pour les symptômes de santé mentale. Un sondage transversal des travailleurs de la santé canadiens durant la pandémie COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the relationship between perceived adequacy of personal protective equipment (PPE) and workplace-based infection control procedures (ICP) and mental health symptoms among a sample of health-care workers in Canada within the context of the current COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A convenience-based internet survey of health-care workers in Canada was facilitated through various labor organizations between April 7 and May 13, 2020. A total of 7,298 respondents started the survey, of which 5,988 reported information on the main exposures and outcomes. Anxiety symptoms were assessed using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-2) screener, and depression symptoms using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2) screener. We assessed the perceived need and adequacy of 8 types of PPE and 10 different ICP. Regression analyses examined the proportion of GAD-2 and PHQ-2 scores of 3 and higher across levels of PPE and ICP, adjusted for a range of demographic, occupation, workplace, and COVID-19-specific measures. RESULTS: A total of 54.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 53.5% to 56.1%) of the sample had GAD-2 scores of 3 and higher, and 42.3% (95% CI, 41.0% to 43.6%) of the sample had PHQ-2 scores of 3 and higher. Absolute differences of 18% (95% CI, 12% to 23%) and 17% (95% CI, 12% to 22%) were observed in the prevalence of GAD-2 scores of 3 and higher between workers whose perceived PPE needs and ICP needs were met compared to those who needs were not met. Differences of between 11% (95% CI, 6% to 17%) and 19% (95% CI, 14% to 24%) were observed in PHQ-2 scores of 3 and higher across these same PPE and ICP categories. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest strengthening employer-based infection control strategies likely has important implications for the mental health symptoms among health-care workers in Canada.

Infection Prevention Precautions for Routine Anesthesia Care During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic.

Many health care systems around the world continue to struggle with large numbers of SARS-CoV-2-infected patients, while others have diminishing numbers of cases following an initial surge. There will most likely be significant oscillations in numbers of cases for the foreseeable future, based on the regional epidemiology of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Less affected hospitals and facilities will attempt to progressively resume elective procedures and surgery. Ramping up elective care in hospitals that deliberately curtailed elective care to focus on SARS-CoV-2-infected patients will present unique and serious challenges. Among the challenges will be protecting patients and providers from recurrent outbreaks of disease while increasing procedure throughput. Anesthesia providers will inevitably be exposed to SARS-CoV-2 by patients who have not been diagnosed with infection. This is particularly concerning in consideration that aerosols produced during airway management may be infective. In this article, we recommend an approach to routine anesthesia care in the setting of persistent but variable prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We make specific recommendations for personal protective equipment and for the conduct of anesthesia procedures and workflow based on evidence and expert opinion. We propose practical, relatively inexpensive precautions that can be applied to all patients undergoing anesthesia. Because the SARS-CoV-2 virus is spread primarily by respiratory droplets and aerosols, effective masking of anesthesia providers is of paramount importance. Hospitals should follow the recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for universal masking of all providers and patients within their facilities. Anesthesia providers should perform anesthetic care in respirator masks (such as N-95 and FFP-2) whenever possible, even when the SARS-CoV-2 test status of patients is negative. Attempting to screen patients for infection with SARS-CoV-2, while valuable, is not a substitute for respiratory protection of providers, as false-negative tests are possible and infected persons can be asymptomatic or presymptomatic. Provision of adequate supplies of respirator masks and other respiratory protection equipment such as powered air purifying respirators (PAPRs) should be a high priority for health care facilities and for government agencies. Eye protection is also necessary because of the possibility of infection from virus coming into contact with the conjunctiva. Because SARS-CoV-2 persists on surfaces and may cause infection by contact with fomites, hand hygiene and surface cleaning are also of paramount importance.

Unintended consequences of long-sleeved gowns in a critical care setting during the COVID-19 pandemic.

At the peak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, hand hygiene audits indicated decreased compliance in a 12-bed critical care (CC) area with ventilated COVID-19 patients, where staff used personal protective equipment (PPE), including sessional use of long-sleeved gowns in accordance with the recommendations of Public Health England. There was also a cluster of three central venous catheter (CVC) infections along with increases in the number of patients from whom enteric Gram-negative bacteria (GNB) were isolated from sterile sites. Environmental sampling of near-patient surfaces and frequently touched sites demonstrated that 11.5% of areas were contaminated with enteric GNB in the COVID-19 CC area, compared with 2.6% and 2.7% in COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 general wards, respectively. Following a risk assessment, hospital policy was changed to replace long-sleeved gowns with short-sleeved gowns. The CC unit underwent enhanced cleaning with hypochlorite-based disinfectant and was resampled 8 days later. On resampling, no GNB were isolated from the CC unit. Following this change in PPE, hand hygiene compliance returned to baseline standards and no further CVC infections were identified. Staff reported a preference for short-sleeved gowns. No evidence currently exists that PPE beyond that recommended for pandemic influenza (respiratory protection plus standard PPE) adds to the protection of healthcare workers (HCWs) from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2. Long-sleeved gowns prevent HCWs performing hand hygiene effectively. While it is imperative that HCWs are adequately protected, protection of patients from infection hazards is equally important. Further studies are necessary to establish risks from PPE to inform a review of current guidance.

PPE during a pandemic: The experience of obtaining PPE and lessons learned from a department of obstetrics and gynecology in New York city.

The COVID-19 Pandemic is an ongoing crisis that has strained hospitals and health systems around the globe. The provision of personal protective equipment (PPE) for frontline healthcare workers is of utmost importance in sustaining an effective response to this crisis. New York City has experienced one of the most devastating outbreaks of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. In this article we report the experience of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Columbia University in New York City in managing the supply of PPE for providers and staff during the height of the outbreak. We describe the types of equipment used and aspects of PPE regulation and certification. We also describe our practices in extended use and reuse of PPE in light of the current understanding of the virus characteristics and modes of transmission.

Personal protective equipment and intensive care unit healthcare worker safety in the COVID-19 era (PPE-SAFE): An international survey.

PURPOSE: To survey healthcare workers (HCW) on availability and use of personal protective equipment (PPE) caring for COVID-19 patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). MATERIALS AND METHOD: A web-based survey distributed worldwide in April 2020. RESULTS: We received 2711 responses from 1797 (67%) physicians, 744 (27%) nurses, and 170 (6%) Allied HCW. For routine care, most (1557, 58%) reportedly used FFP2/N95 masks, waterproof long sleeve gowns (1623; 67%), and face shields/visors (1574; 62%). Powered Air-Purifying Respirators were used routinely and for intubation only by 184 (7%) and 254 (13%) respondents, respectively. Surgical masks were used for routine care by 289 (15%) and 47 (2%) for intubations. At least one piece of standard PPE was unavailable for 1402 (52%), and 817 (30%) reported reusing single-use PPE. PPE was worn for a median of 4 h (IQR 2, 5). Adverse effects of PPE were associated with longer shift durations and included heat (1266, 51%), thirst (1174, 47%), pressure areas (1088, 44%), headaches (696, 28%), Inability to use the bathroom (661, 27%) and extreme exhaustion (492, 20%). CONCLUSIONS: HCWs reported widespread shortages, frequent reuse of, and adverse effects related to PPE. Urgent action by healthcare administrators, policymakers, governments and industry is warranted.