Adverse skin reactions among health care workers using face personal protective equipment during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: A cross-sectional survey of six hospitals in Denmark.

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.

Evidence-based training as primary prevention of hand eczema in a population of hospital cleaning workers.

BACKGROUND: Skin disorders accounted for one third of all recognised occupational diseases in Denmark in 2010. Wet work is a risk factor for the development of occupational hand eczema. The consequences of occupational hand eczema include sick leave, loss of job and impaired quality of life. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to investigate exposures related to cleaning and the effect of an evidence-based educational intervention on the prevention of hand eczema among hospital cleaners. PATIENTS/MATERIALS/METHODS: The intervention consisted of a 1 hr course in hand protective behaviour. All full-time cleaners working at Bispebjerg Hospital in January 2013 were invited to participate. The outcome measures were self-reported skin behaviour, exposures, knowledge of skin protection and hand eczema severity index (HECSI). RESULTS: One hundred and five cleaners were invited to participate, of these 86 (82%) were included. At follow-up after 3 months there was a shift towards fewer daily hand washings and hand disinfections (p < 0.001 and p = 0.001 respectively). The number of correct answers to the knowledge questions rose from 6.3 to 7.3 (p = 0.006). The mean HECSI score decreased from 2.8 to 1.8 at follow-up (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Data indicates a positive effect of a low-cost on-site educational intervention for hospital cleaners.