ABSTRACT
Background: Face shields protect healthcare workers (HCWs) from fluid and large droplet contamination. Their effect on smaller aerosolized particles is unknown. Materials & methods: An ultrasonic atomizer was used to simulate particle sizes equivalent to human breathing and forceful cough. Particles were measured at positions correlating to anesthetic personnel in relation to a patient inside an operating theatre environment. The effect of the application of face shields on HCW exposure was measured. Results & Conclusion: Significant reductions in particle concentrations were measured after the application of vented and enclosed face shields. Face shields appear to reduce the concentration of aerosolized particles that HCWs are exposed to, thereby potentially conferring further protection against exposure to aerosolized particles in an operating theatre environment.
Face shields protect health workers from splash contamination. We do not know if they protect against smaller invisible aerosol drops that can carry diseases like coronavirus 2019/COVID-19. The authors tested whether face shields can stop floating droplets using different types of face shields. This included one that was designed and made by a 3D printer, and traditional face shields. The shields were tested in a hospital operating room. A machine was designed that made invisible saltwater droplets. A monitor was used to measure the droplets present at a doctor's or nurse's mouth and then if this changed when a face shield was used. The face shield might be helpful in stopping health workers from catching diseases by stopping the flow of aerosol drops.
ABSTRACT
The number of older, frail patients undergoing surgery is increasing, prompting consideration of the benefits of intensive treatment. Despite collaborative decision-making processes such as advance care planning being supported by recent Australian legislation, their role in perioperative care is yet to be defined. Furthermore, there has been little evaluation of the quality of end-of-life care in the surgical population. We investigated documentation of the premorbid functional status, severity of illness, intensity of treatment, operative management and quality of end-of-life care in patients who died in a surgical unit, with a retrospective study of surgical mortality which was performed across three hospitals over a 23-month period in Victoria, Australia. Among 99 deceased patients in the study cohort, 68 had a surgical operation. Preoperative functional risk assessment by medical staff was infrequently documented in the medical notes (5%) compared with activities of daily living (69%) documented by nursing staff. Documented preoperative discussions regarding the risk of death were rarely and inconsistently done, but when done were extensive. Documented end-of-life care discussions were identified in 71%, but were frequently brief, inconsistent, and in 60% did not occur until 48 hours from death. In 35.4% of instances, documented discussions involved junior staff (registrars or residents), and 43.4% involved intensive care unit staff. Palliative or terminal care referrals also occurred late (1-2 days prior to death). Not-for-resuscitation orders were frequently changed when approaching the end of life. Overall, 57% of deceased patients had a documented opportunity for farewell with family. We conclude that discussions and documentation of end-of-life care practices could be improved and recommend that all surgical units undertake similar audits to ensure that end-of-life care discussions occur for high-risk and palliative care surgical patients and are documented appropriately.
