ABSTRACT
Background: Current personal protective equipment (PPE) practices in UK intensive care units involve "sessional" use of long-sleeved gowns, risking nosocomial infection transmitted via gown sleeves. Data from the first wave of the COVID19 pandemic demonstrated that these changes in infection prevention and control protocols were associated with an increase in healthcare associated bloodstream infections. We therefore explored the use of a protocol using short-sleeved gowns with hand and arm hygiene to reduce this risk. Methods: ICU staff were trained in wearing short-sleeved gowns and using a specific hand and arm washing technique between patients (experimental protocol). They then underwent simulation training, performing COVID-19 intubation and proning tasks using either experimental protocol or the standard (long-sleeved) control protocol. Fluorescent powder was used to simulate microbial contamination, detected using photographs under ultraviolet light. Teams were randomised to use control or experimental PPE first. During the simulation, staff were questioned on their feelings about personal safety, comfort and patient safety. Results: Sixty-eight staff and 17 proning volunteers were studied. Experimental PPE completely prevented staff contamination during COVID-19 intubation, whereas this occurred in 30/67 staff wearing control PPE (p = .003, McNemar). Proning volunteers were contaminated by staff in 15/17 control sessions and in 1/17 with experimental PPE (p = .023 McNemar). Staff comfort was superior with experimental PPE (p< .001, Wilcoxon). Their personal safety perception was initially higher with control PPE, but changed towards neutrality during sessions (p < .001 start, 0.068 end). Their impressions of patient safety were initially similar (p = .87), but finished strongly in favour of experimental PPE (p < .001). Conclusions: Short-sleeved gowns with hand and forearm cleansing appear superior to sessional long-sleeved gowns in preventing cross-contamination between staff and patients.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Short-haul pilots have largely been neglected in studies of fatigue, sleep loss and circadian disruption created by flight operations, but anecdotal evidence from pilots suggests that with the increasing amount of low-cost air travel, commercial pilots working short-haul operations may be becoming seriously fatigued. AIMS: This study attempted to ascertain how much subjective fatigue short-haul pilots reported, and makes comparisons between low-cost and scheduled airline pilots. METHODS: Pilots completed anonymous questionnaires (encompassing aviation factors, flight experience and a fatigue scale) posted on the Professional Pilots' Rumours Network website. RESULTS: Data were collected from 162 short-haul pilots and statistical adjustment for operational factors was made. Seventy-five percent reported severe fatigue and 81% reported the fatigue to be worse than 2 years ago. Eighty percent considered their thought processes were reduced while flying. Severe fatigue was reported more frequently by low-cost airline pilots than scheduled airline pilots (P = 0.05) and fatigue ratings were higher in this group (P = 0.03). Pilots who reported regularly flying into their 'discretion' hours had lower physical and psychological health, and overall fatigue scores, and poorer self-rated general health. Flying into discretion time occurred no more frequently in low-cost airline pilots than scheduled airline pilots. CONCLUSIONS: Identifiable fatigue problems are reported by short-haul pilots, but this cannot be attributed solely to the work schedules of low-cost airlines as regular use of discretion time appears to be associated with fatigue regardless of airline.
