Method for investigating nursing behaviors related to isolation care

Improving compliance with isolation measures in the operating room: a prospective simulation study comparing the effectiveness and costs of simulation-based training vs video-based training

BACKGROUND

Different isolation measures are required according to the routes of transmission of pathogens. Few studies have compared different forms of hygiene training in terms of efficiency and/or improvement of perception towards hygiene measures. This study aimed to evaluate the benefits of different forms of isolation training in the operating room, and their respective effects on the perception of hygiene measures by comparing simulation training with video-based training.

METHODS

This multi-centre, prospective, randomized, controlled trial compared hygiene knowledge, psychological safety and perception of training among healthcare workers after in-centre simulation training and conventional video-based training.

RESULTS

Neither type of training led to a significant improvement in knowledge or perceived psychological safety (F=0.235, P=0.629, η2=0.003). Participants in the simulation group reported higher levels of willingness to speak up in the depicted scenario compared with participants who received video-based training. Participants perceived the simulation-based training significantly more positively than the video-based training.

CONCLUSION

Clear definition of the goals of training based on the pre-existing level of knowledge of the participants is crucial. For future studies, it would be interesting to investigate the long-term effect and continuing benefits concerning the implementation of hygiene regulations after different types of training.

The sourcing and use of high physical resemblance personal protective equipment to train healthcare workers, improve confidence and conserve medical-grade equipment

Personal protective equipment (PPE) is essential for healthcare worker (HCW) safety. Conservation of PPE for clinical use during the COVID-19 pandemic reduced its availability for training, necessitating an innovative approach to sourcing high physical resemblance PPE (HPR-PPE). We present a case study of crowd-sourcing of HPR-PPE to train HCWs. Survey results indicated that HPR-PPE enabled high-fidelity practise of PPE application and removal, aided procedure recall, improved user confidence and was sufficiently similar to medical-grade PPE. HPR-PPE provided a novel and cost-effective alternative. We also demonstrated that medical-grade PPE can be sourced from non-medical institutions and businesses during a pandemic.

Prácticas de retiro del equipo de protección personal para personal sanitario

RESUMENCuando se retira el equipo de protección personal (EPP), los patógenos pueden transferirse desde el EPP al cuerpo de los trabajadores de la salud, poniendo en riesgo de exposición e infección tanto a ellos mismos como a sus pacientes. Entre marzo de 2017 y abril de 2018 se observaron las prácticas de retirada del EPP del personal sanitario que atendía pacientes con infecciones respiratorias virales en un hospital de atención de enfermedades agudas. Un observador capacitado registró el desempeño del personal sanitario cuando retiraba el EPP dentro de las habitaciones de los pacientes, utilizando una lista de verificación predefinida basada en las directrices de los Centros para el Control y Prevención de Enfermedades (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC). Se observaron 162 prácticas de retirada durante el cuidado de 52 pacientes infectados con patógenos virales respiratorios. De estos 52 pacientes, 30 estaban en aislamiento por gota y contacto, 21 en aislamiento por gota y uno en aislamiento de contacto. En general, en 90% de los casos la retirada del EPP observada se realizó de manera incorrecta, ya sea en cuanto a la secuencia de retirada, la técnica de retirada o el uso del EPP apropiado. Los errores más comunes consistieron en quitarse la bata por adelante, retirar la pantalla facial de la mascarilla y tocar superficies y EPP potencialmente contaminados durante el proceso. Las desviaciones del protocolo recomendado para retirar el EPP son comunes y pueden aumentar el potencial de contaminación de la ropa o la piel del personal sanitario después de proporcionar atención. Existe una clara necesidad de cambiar el enfoque utilizado para capacitar al personal en las prácticas de retirada del EPP.

A simulation approach to measure critical safety behaviors when evaluating training methods for respirator education in healthcare workers

•

N95 respirators are a common tool in healthcare for airborne isolation and pandemic response.

•

Simulation can be used to train healthcare workers.

•

Reflective practice may be a training intervention to improve N95 respirator use compared to video alone.

Background

The N95 respirator is the most common safety tool used in hospitals to protect health care workers (HCW) from inhaling airborne particles. Focusing on HCW behavior related to respirator use is an effective route to improve HCW safety and respiratory health.

Methods

Participants were asked to perform the donning and doffing of an N95 respirator to camera. Then they were randomized to a video alone or a reflective practice intervention. After the intervention they repeated the donning and doffing to camera. A critical safety behavior scoring tool (CSBST) was developed to compare the performance of the participants over time at pretest, post-test and 1 month later for follow-up.

Results

The reflective practice intervention group was found to have significantly higher scores on the CSBST at post-test and follow-up than the video alone group. In the reflective practice intervention group, the participants perceived they were better at performing the N95 donning and doffing than the experts scored them.

Conclusions

The CSBST is a tool to measure the performance of HCWs on a specific targeted safety behaviors. The addition of a reflective practice intervention may result in a measurable and sustained improvement in the safety behaviors demonstrated when using the N95 respirator.

Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff

BACKGROUND

In epidemics of highly infectious diseases, such as Ebola, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), or coronavirus (COVID-19), healthcare workers (HCW) are at much greater risk of infection than the general population, due to their contact with patients' contaminated body fluids. Personal protective equipment (PPE) can reduce the risk by covering exposed body parts. It is unclear which type of PPE protects best, what is the best way to put PPE on (i.e. donning) or to remove PPE (i.e. doffing), and how to train HCWs to use PPE as instructed.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate which type of full-body PPE and which method of donning or doffing PPE have the least risk of contamination or infection for HCW, and which training methods increase compliance with PPE protocols.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL to 20 March 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all controlled studies that evaluated the effect of full-body PPE used by HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases, on the risk of infection, contamination, or noncompliance with protocols. We also included studies that compared the effect of various ways of donning or doffing PPE, and the effects of training on the same outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in included trials. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses were appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

Earlier versions of this review were published in 2016 and 2019. In this update, we included 24 studies with 2278 participants, of which 14 were randomised controlled trials (RCT), one was a quasi-RCT and nine had a non-randomised design. Eight studies compared types of PPE. Six studies evaluated adapted PPE. Eight studies compared donning and doffing processes and three studies evaluated types of training. Eighteen studies used simulated exposure with fluorescent markers or harmless microbes. In simulation studies, median contamination rates were 25% for the intervention and 67% for the control groups. Evidence for all outcomes is of very low certainty unless otherwise stated because it is based on one or two studies, the indirectness of the evidence in simulation studies and because of risk of bias. Types of PPE The use of a powered, air-purifying respirator with coverall may protect against the risk of contamination better than a N95 mask and gown (risk ratio (RR) 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.43) but was more difficult to don (non-compliance: RR 7.5, 95% CI 1.81 to 31.1). In one RCT (59 participants) coveralls were more difficult to doff than isolation gowns (very low-certainty evidence). Gowns may protect better against contamination than aprons (small patches: mean difference (MD) -10.28, 95% CI -14.77 to -5.79). PPE made of more breathable material may lead to a similar number of spots on the trunk (MD 1.60, 95% CI -0.15 to 3.35) compared to more water-repellent material but may have greater user satisfaction (MD -0.46, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.08, scale of 1 to 5). According to three studies that tested more recently introduced full-body PPE ensembles, there may be no difference in contamination. Modified PPE versus standard PPE The following modifications to PPE design may lead to less contamination compared to standard PPE: sealed gown and glove combination (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.78), a better fitting gown around the neck, wrists and hands (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.55), a better cover of the gown-wrist interface (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.78, low-certainty evidence), added tabs to grab to facilitate doffing of masks (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.80) or gloves (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.31). Donning and doffing Using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations for doffing may lead to less contamination compared to no guidance (small patches: MD -5.44, 95% CI -7.43 to -3.45). One-step removal of gloves and gown may lead to less bacterial contamination (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.77) but not to less fluorescent contamination (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28) than separate removal. Double-gloving may lead to less viral or bacterial contamination compared to single gloving (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.66) but not to less fluorescent contamination (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28). Additional spoken instruction may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -0.9, 95% CI -1.4 to -0.4) and to fewer contamination spots (MD -5, 95% CI -8.08 to -1.92). Extra sanitation of gloves before doffing with quaternary ammonium or bleach may decrease contamination, but not alcohol-based hand rub. Training The use of additional computer simulation may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -1.2, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.7). A video lecture on donning PPE may lead to better skills scores (MD 30.70, 95% CI 20.14 to 41.26) than a traditional lecture. Face-to-face instruction may reduce noncompliance with doffing guidance more (odds ratio 0.45, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.98) than providing folders or videos only.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low- to very low-certainty evidence that covering more parts of the body leads to better protection but usually comes at the cost of more difficult donning or doffing and less user comfort. More breathable types of PPE may lead to similar contamination but may have greater user satisfaction. Modifications to PPE design, such as tabs to grab, may decrease the risk of contamination. For donning and doffing procedures, following CDC doffing guidance, a one-step glove and gown removal, double-gloving, spoken instructions during doffing, and using glove disinfection may reduce contamination and increase compliance. Face-to-face training in PPE use may reduce errors more than folder-based training. We still need RCTs of training with long-term follow-up. We need simulation studies with more participants to find out which combinations of PPE and which doffing procedure protects best. Consensus on simulation of exposure and assessment of outcome is urgently needed. We also need more real-life evidence. Therefore, the use of PPE of HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases should be registered and the HCW should be prospectively followed for their risk of infection.

Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff

BACKGROUND

In epidemics of highly infectious diseases, such as Ebola, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), or coronavirus (COVID-19), healthcare workers (HCW) are at much greater risk of infection than the general population, due to their contact with patients' contaminated body fluids. Personal protective equipment (PPE) can reduce the risk by covering exposed body parts. It is unclear which type of PPE protects best, what is the best way to put PPE on (i.e. donning) or to remove PPE (i.e. doffing), and how to train HCWs to use PPE as instructed.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate which type of full-body PPE and which method of donning or doffing PPE have the least risk of contamination or infection for HCW, and which training methods increase compliance with PPE protocols.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL to 20 March 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all controlled studies that evaluated the effect of full-body PPE used by HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases, on the risk of infection, contamination, or noncompliance with protocols. We also included studies that compared the effect of various ways of donning or doffing PPE, and the effects of training on the same outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in included trials. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses were appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

Earlier versions of this review were published in 2016 and 2019. In this update, we included 24 studies with 2278 participants, of which 14 were randomised controlled trials (RCT), one was a quasi-RCT and nine had a non-randomised design. Eight studies compared types of PPE. Six studies evaluated adapted PPE. Eight studies compared donning and doffing processes and three studies evaluated types of training. Eighteen studies used simulated exposure with fluorescent markers or harmless microbes. In simulation studies, median contamination rates were 25% for the intervention and 67% for the control groups. Evidence for all outcomes is of very low certainty unless otherwise stated because it is based on one or two studies, the indirectness of the evidence in simulation studies and because of risk of bias. Types of PPE The use of a powered, air-purifying respirator with coverall may protect against the risk of contamination better than a N95 mask and gown (risk ratio (RR) 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.43) but was more difficult to don (non-compliance: RR 7.5, 95% CI 1.81 to 31.1). In one RCT (59 participants), people with a long gown had less contamination than those with a coverall, and coveralls were more difficult to doff (low-certainty evidence). Gowns may protect better against contamination than aprons (small patches: mean difference (MD) -10.28, 95% CI -14.77 to -5.79). PPE made of more breathable material may lead to a similar number of spots on the trunk (MD 1.60, 95% CI -0.15 to 3.35) compared to more water-repellent material but may have greater user satisfaction (MD -0.46, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.08, scale of 1 to 5). Modified PPE versus standard PPE The following modifications to PPE design may lead to less contamination compared to standard PPE: sealed gown and glove combination (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.78), a better fitting gown around the neck, wrists and hands (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.55), a better cover of the gown-wrist interface (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.78, low-certainty evidence), added tabs to grab to facilitate doffing of masks (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.80) or gloves (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.31). Donning and doffing Using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations for doffing may lead to less contamination compared to no guidance (small patches: MD -5.44, 95% CI -7.43 to -3.45). One-step removal of gloves and gown may lead to less bacterial contamination (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.77) but not to less fluorescent contamination (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28) than separate removal. Double-gloving may lead to less viral or bacterial contamination compared to single gloving (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.66) but not to less fluorescent contamination (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28). Additional spoken instruction may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -0.9, 95% CI -1.4 to -0.4) and to fewer contamination spots (MD -5, 95% CI -8.08 to -1.92). Extra sanitation of gloves before doffing with quaternary ammonium or bleach may decrease contamination, but not alcohol-based hand rub. Training The use of additional computer simulation may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -1.2, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.7). A video lecture on donning PPE may lead to better skills scores (MD 30.70, 95% CI 20.14 to 41.26) than a traditional lecture. Face-to-face instruction may reduce noncompliance with doffing guidance more (odds ratio 0.45, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.98) than providing folders or videos only.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low- to very low-certainty evidence that covering more parts of the body leads to better protection but usually comes at the cost of more difficult donning or doffing and less user comfort, and may therefore even lead to more contamination. More breathable types of PPE may lead to similar contamination but may have greater user satisfaction. Modifications to PPE design, such as tabs to grab, may decrease the risk of contamination. For donning and doffing procedures, following CDC doffing guidance, a one-step glove and gown removal, double-gloving, spoken instructions during doffing, and using glove disinfection may reduce contamination and increase compliance. Face-to-face training in PPE use may reduce errors more than folder-based training. We still need RCTs of training with long-term follow-up. We need simulation studies with more participants to find out which combinations of PPE and which doffing procedure protects best. Consensus on simulation of exposure and assessment of outcome is urgently needed. We also need more real-life evidence. Therefore, the use of PPE of HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases should be registered and the HCW should be prospectively followed for their risk of infection.

Personal protective equipment doffing practices of healthcare workers

During the doffing of personal protective equipment (PPE), pathogens can be transferred from the PPE to the bodies of healthcare workers (HCWs), putting HCWs and patients at risk of exposure and infection. PPE doffing practices of HCWs who cared for patients with viral respiratory infections were observed at an acute care hospital from March 2017 to April 2018. A trained observer recorded doffing performance of HCWs inside the patient rooms using a pre-defined checklist based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guideline. Doffing practices were observed 162 times during care of 52 patients infected with respiratory viral pathogens. Out of the 52 patients, 30 were in droplet and contact isolation, 21 were in droplet isolation, and 1 was in contact isolation. Overall, 90% of observed doffing was incorrect, with respect to the doffing sequence, doffing technique, or use of appropriate PPE. Common errors were doffing gown from the front, removing face shield of the mask, and touching potentially contaminated surfaces and PPE during doffing. Deviations from the recommended PPE doffing protocol are common and can increase potential for contamination of the HCW's clothing or skin after providing care. There is a clear need to change the approach used to training HCWs in PPE doffing practices.

Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff

BACKGROUND

In epidemics of highly infectious diseases, such as Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) or Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), healthcare workers (HCW) are at much greater risk of infection than the general population, due to their contact with patients' contaminated body fluids. Contact precautions by means of personal protective equipment (PPE) can reduce the risk. It is unclear which type of PPE protects best, what is the best way to remove PPE, and how to make sure HCW use PPE as instructed.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate which type of full body PPE and which method of donning or doffing PPE have the least risk of self-contamination or infection for HCW, and which training methods increase compliance with PPE protocols.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE (PubMed up to 15 July 2018), Cochrane Central Register of Trials (CENTRAL up to 18 June 2019), Scopus (Scopus 18 June 2019), CINAHL (EBSCOhost 31 July 2018), and OSH-Update (up to 31 December 2018). We also screened reference lists of included trials and relevant reviews, and contacted NGOs and manufacturers of PPE.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all controlled studies that compared the effects of PPE used by HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases with serious consequences, such as Ebola or SARS, on the risk of infection, contamination, or noncompliance with protocols. This included studies that used simulated contamination with fluorescent markers or a non-pathogenic virus.We also included studies that compared the effect of various ways of donning or doffing PPE, and the effects of training in PPE use on the same outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in included trials. We planned to perform meta-analyses but did not find sufficiently similar studies to combine their results.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 studies with 1950 participants evaluating 21 interventions. Ten studies are Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs), one is a quasi RCT and six have a non-randomised controlled design. Two studies are awaiting assessment.Ten studies compared types of PPE but only six of these reported sufficient data. Six studies compared different types of donning and doffing and three studies evaluated different types of training. Fifteen studies used simulated exposure with fluorescent markers or harmless viruses. In simulation studies, contamination rates varied from 10% to 100% of participants for all types of PPE. In one study HCW were exposed to Ebola and in another to SARS.Evidence for all outcomes is based on single studies and is very low quality.Different types of PPEPPE made of more breathable material may not lead to more contamination spots on the trunk (Mean Difference (MD) 1.60 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) -0.15 to 3.35) than more water repellent material but may have greater user satisfaction (MD -0.46; 95% CI -0.84 to -0.08, scale of 1 to 5).Gowns may protect better against contamination than aprons (MD large patches -1.36 95% CI -1.78 to -0.94).The use of a powered air-purifying respirator may protect better than a simple ensemble of PPE without such respirator (Relative Risk (RR) 0.27; 95% CI 0.17 to 0.43).Five different PPE ensembles (such as gown vs. coverall, boots with or without covers, hood vs. cap, length and number of gloves) were evaluated in one study, but there were no event data available for compared groups.Alterations to PPE design may lead to less contamination such as added tabs to grab masks (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.80) or gloves (RR 0.22 95% CI 0.15 to 0.31), a sealed gown and glove combination (RR 0.27; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.78), or a better fitting gown around the neck, wrists and hands (RR 0.08; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.55) compared to standard PPE.Different methods of donning and doffing proceduresDouble gloving may lead to less contamination compared to single gloving (RR 0.36; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.78).Following CDC recommendations for doffing may lead to less contamination compared to no guidance (MD small patches -5.44; 95% CI -7.43 to -3.45).Alcohol-based hand rub used during the doffing process may not lead to less contamination than the use of a hypochlorite based solution (MD 4.00; 95% CI 0.47 to 34.24).Additional spoken instruction may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -0.9, 95% CI -1.4 to -0.4).Different types of trainingThe use of additional computer simulation may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -1.2, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.7).A video lecture on donning PPE may lead to better skills scores (MD 30.70; 95% CI 20.14,41.26) than a traditional lecture.Face to face instruction may reduce noncompliance with doffing guidance more (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.98) than providing folders or videos only.There were no studies on effects of training in the long term or on resource use.The quality of the evidence is very low for all comparisons because of high risk of bias in all studies, indirectness of evidence, and small numbers of participants.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found very low quality evidence that more breathable types of PPE may not lead to more contamination, but may have greater user satisfaction. Alterations to PPE, such as tabs to grab may decrease contamination. Double gloving, following CDC doffing guidance, and spoken instructions during doffing may reduce contamination and increase compliance. Face-to-face training in PPE use may reduce errors more than video or folder based training. Because data come from single small studies with high risk of bias, we are uncertain about the estimates of effects.We still need randomised controlled trials to find out which training works best in the long term. We need better simulation studies conducted with several dozen participants to find out which PPE protects best, and what is the safest way to remove PPE. Consensus on the best way to conduct simulation of exposure and assessment of outcome is urgently needed. HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases should have their use of PPE registered and should be prospectively followed for their risk of infection in the field.

Environmental and Personal Protective Equipment Contamination during Simulated Healthcare Activities

Providing care to patients with an infectious disease can result in the exposure of healthcare workers (HCWs) to pathogen-containing bodily fluids. We performed a series of experiments to characterize the magnitude of environmental contamination—in air, on surfaces and on participants—associated with seven common healthcare activities. The seven activities studied were bathing, central venous access, intravenous access, intubation, physical examination, suctioning and vital signs assessment. HCWs with experience in one or more activities were recruited to participate and performed one to two activities in the laboratory using task trainers that contained or were contaminated with fluorescein-containing simulated bodily fluid. Fluorescein was quantitatively measured in the air and on seven environmental surfaces. Fluorescein was quantitatively and qualitatively measured on the personal protective equipment (PPE) worn by participants. A total of 39 participants performed 74 experiments, involving 10–12 experimental trials for each healthcare activity. Healthcare activities resulted in diverse patterns and levels of contamination in the environment and on PPE that are consistent with the nature of the activity. Glove and gown contamination were ubiquitous, affirming the value of wearing these pieces of PPE to protect HCW’s clothing and skin. Though intubation and suctioning are considered aerosol-generating procedures, fluorescein was detected less frequently in air and at lower levels on face shields and facemasks than other activities, which suggests that the definition of aerosol-generating procedure may need to be revised. Face shields may protect the face and facemask from splashes and sprays of bodily fluids and should be used for more healthcare activities.

Effect of Different Instructional Methods on Contamination and Personal Protective Equipment Protocol Adherence among Veterinary Students

Proper use of personal protective equipment (PPE) is crucial to prevent disease spread. Recent studies in human medicine have shown disconcerting inconsistencies in the use of PPE in hospital wards. In this study, we compared the effect of three instructional methods for PPE use on contamination and protocol adherence among veterinary students. Students were divided into three groups according to the instructional method to which they had access (instructional video, wall chart, or both). They underwent an isolation exercise consisting of donning, patient examination (mock patient prepared with contamination marker), and doffing. Student contamination after the exercise was evaluated using UV light. Videos of student performance were reviewed for errors committed. Results showed that the number of students with contamination was higher in the group who only had access to video instruction than in the two other groups. The number of students with contamination on forearms, hands, and wrists was higher in the group who only had access to charts. Disinfecting gloves between doffing steps was the most frequently omitted step. The number of students who touched the environment with unprotected areas of their bodies was higher in the group who only had access to video instruction than in the other two groups. In conclusion, video instruction was less effective in achieving PPE protocol adherence among veterinary students than was instruction with a chart or chart-video combination. Incorporating video instruction as part of the instructions may be valuable to reinforce individual steps of donning and doffing.

High-Level Isolation Unit Infection Control Procedures

The 2014-2016 Ebola outbreak in West Africa prompted a select group of US hospitals to establish high-level isolation units equipped with advanced engineering controls, trained staff, and stringent protocols to safely treat highly infectious disease patients. This survey details the comprehensive infection control protocols developed by these units, including for decontamination of units, post-mortem management, liquid waste disposal, and personal protective equipment (PPE) use. In spring 2016, a survey was electronically distributed to the 56 original Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-designated high-level isolation units. Responses were collected via a fillable PDF and analyzed using descriptive statistics. Thirty-six (64%) high-level isolation units responded; 33 completed the survey, and 3 reported they no longer maintained high-level isolation unit capabilities. Nearly all responding units had written procedures for decontamination, liquid waste disposal, and PPE use; however, infection control protocols varied between units. High-level isolation units implemented multiple strategies in promoting hand hygiene among staff and in monitoring correct PPE use. Maximum time allowed in full PPE was restricted in all but 2 units (average of 3.45 hours per shift). Almost all (94%) had written procedures for the management of human remains, although only 2 units had written protocols for an autopsy of a patient with a highly infectious disease. While the vast majority of high-level isolation units reported having written protocols for infection control practices, staff compliance and procedural application are the true indicators of the state of preparedness. Therefore, rigorous training and staff adherence to infection control practices is critical to minimizing exposure risks.

Observed variation in N95 respirator use by nurses demonstrating isolation care

Video review and scoring was used to evaluate the behaviors of nurses wearing N95 filtering face piece respirators while providing isolation care in a simulated patient care environment. This study yielded a detailed description of behaviors related to N95 respirator use in a health care setting. Developing a more robust and systematic behavior analysis tool for use in demonstration, simulation, and clinical care would allow for improved respiratory protection of health care workers.

Role of Human Factors Engineering in Infection Prevention: Gaps and Opportunities

Human factors engineering (HFE), with its focus on studying how humans interact with systems, including their physical and organizational environment, the tools and technologies they use, and the tasks they perform, provides principles, tools, and techniques for systematically identifying important factors, for analyzing and evaluating how these factors interact to increase or decrease the risk of Healthcare-associated infections (HAI), and for identifying and implementing effective preventive measures. We reviewed the literature on HFE and infection prevention and control and identified major themes to document how researchers and infection prevention staff have used HFE methods to prevent HAIs and to identify gaps in our knowledge about the role of HFE in HAI prevention and control. Our literature review found that most studies in the healthcare domain explicitly applying (HFE) principles and methods addressed patient safety issues not infection prevention and control issues. In addition, most investigators who applied human factors principles and methods to infection prevention issues assessed only one human factors element such as training, technology evaluations, or physical environment design. The most significant gap pertains to the limited use and application of formal HFE tools and methods. Every infection prevention study need not assess all components in a system, but investigators must assess the interaction of critical system components if they want to address latent and deep-rooted human factors problems.

Evaluating Isolation Behaviors by Nurses Using Mobile Computer Workstations at the Bedside

This secondary analysis from a larger mixed methods study with a sequential explanatory design investigates the clinical challenges for nurses providing patient care, in an airborne and contact isolation room, while using a computer on wheels for medication administration in a simulated setting. Registered nurses, who regularly work in clinical care at the patient bedside, were recruited as study participants in the simulation and debriefing experience. A live volunteer acted as the standardized patient who needed assessment and intravenous pain medication. The simulation was video recorded in a typical hospital room to observe participating nurses conducting patient care in an airborne and contact isolation situation. Participants then reviewed their performance with study personnel in a formal, audio-recorded debriefing. Isolation behaviors were scored by an expert panel, and the debriefing sessions were analyzed. Considerable variation was found in behaviors related to using a computer on wheels while caring for a patient in isolation. Currently, no nursing care guidelines exist on the use of computers on wheels in an airborne and contact isolation room. Specific education is needed on nursing care processes for the proper disinfection of computers on wheels and the reduction of the potential for disease transmission from environmental contamination.

Simulation education as a single intervention does not improve hand hygiene practices: A randomized controlled follow-up study

BACKGROUND

To evaluate how critical nurses' knowledge of and adherence to current care hand hygiene (HH) guidelines differ between randomly allocated intervention and control groups before and after simulation education in both a simulation setting and clinical practice during a 2-year follow-up period. It was hypothesized that intervention group knowledge of and adherence to current HH guidelines might increase compared with a control group after simulation education.

METHODS

A prospective, parallel, randomized controlled trial with repeated measurements was conducted in a 22-bed adult mixed medical-surgical intensive care unit in Oulu, Finland. Thirty out of 40 initially randomized critical care nurses participated in the baseline measurements; of these, 17 completed all the study procedures. Participants' HH adherence was observed only in high-risk contact situations prior to and postendotracheal suctioning events using a direct, nonparticipatory method of observation. Participants' HH knowledge was evaluated at the end of each observational session.

RESULTS

The overall HH adherence increased from a baseline value of 40.8% to 50.8% in the final postintervention measurement at 24 months (P = .002). However, the linear mixed model did not identify any significant group (P = .77) or time-group interactions (P = .17) between the study groups after 2 years of simulation education. In addition, simulation education had no impact on participants' HH knowledge.

CONCLUSIONS

After a single simulation education session, critical care nurses' knowledge of and adherence to current HH guidelines remained below targeted behavior rates.

Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff

BACKGROUND

In epidemics of highly infectious diseases, such as Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) or SARS, healthcare workers (HCW) are at much greater risk of infection than the general population, due to their contact with patients' contaminated body fluids. Contact precautions by means of personal protective equipment (PPE) can reduce the risk. It is unclear which type of PPE protects best, what is the best way to remove PPE, and how to make sure HCWs use PPE as instructed.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate which type or component of full-body PPE and which method of donning or removing (doffing) PPE have the least risk of self-contamination or infection for HCWs, and which training methods most increase compliance with PPE protocols.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE (PubMed up to 8 January 2016), Cochrane Central Register of Trials (CENTRAL up to 20 January 2016), EMBASE (embase.com up to 8 January 2016), CINAHL (EBSCOhost up to 20 January 2016), and OSH-Update up to 8 January 2016. We also screened reference lists of included trials and relevant reviews, and contacted NGOs and manufacturers of PPE.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all eligible controlled studies that compared the effect of types or components of PPE in HCWs exposed to highly infectious diseases with serious consequences, such as EVD and SARS, on the risk of infection, contamination, or noncompliance with protocols. This included studies that simulated contamination with fluorescent markers or a non-pathogenic virus.We also included studies that compared the effect of various ways of donning or removing PPE, and the effects of various types of training in PPE use on the same outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in included trials. We intended to perform meta-analyses but we did not find sufficiently similar studies to combine their results.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine studies with 1200 participants evaluating ten interventions. Of these, eight trials simulated the exposure with a fluorescent marker or virus or bacteria containing fluids. Five studies evaluated different types of PPE against each other but two did not report sufficient data. Another two studies compared different types of donning and doffing and three studies evaluated the effect of different types of training.None of the included studies reported a standardised classification of the protective properties against viral penetration of the PPE, and only one reported the brand of PPE used. None of the studies were conducted with HCWs exposed to EVD but in one study participants were exposed to SARS. Different types of PPE versus each otherIn simulation studies, contamination rates varied from 25% to 100% of participants for all types of PPE. In one study, PPE made of more breathable material did not lead to a statistically significantly different number of spots with contamination but did have greater user satisfaction (Mean Difference (MD) -0.46 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) -0.84 to -0.08, range 1 to 5, very low quality evidence). In another study, gowns protected better than aprons. In yet another study, the use of a powered air-purifying respirator protected better than a now outdated form of PPE. There were no studies on goggles versus face shields, on long- versus short-sleeved gloves, or on the use of taping PPE parts together. Different methods of donning and doffing procedures versus each otherTwo cross-over simulation studies (one RCT, one CCT) compared different methods for donning and doffing against each other. Double gloving led to less contamination compared to single gloving (Relative Risk (RR) 0.36; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.78, very low quality evidence) in one simulation study, but not to more noncompliance with guidance (RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.70 to 1.67, very low quality evidence). Following CDC recommendations for doffing led to less contamination in another study (very low quality evidence). There were no studies on the use of disinfectants while doffing. Different types of training versus each otherIn one study, the use of additional computer simulation led to less errors in doffing (MD -1.2, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.7) and in another study additional spoken instruction led to less errors (MD -0.9, 95% CI -1.4 to -0.4). One retrospective cohort study assessed the effect of active training - defined as face-to-face instruction - versus passive training - defined as folders or videos - on noncompliance with PPE use and on noncompliance with doffing guidance. Active training did not considerably reduce noncompliance in PPE use (Odds Ratio (OR) 0.63; 95% CI 0.31 to 1.30) but reduced noncompliance with doffing procedures (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.98, very low quality evidence). There were no studies on how to retain the results of training in the long term or on resource use.The quality of the evidence was very low for all comparisons because of high risk of bias in studies, indirectness of evidence, and small numbers of participants. This means that it is likely that the true effect can be substantially different from the one reported here.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found very low quality evidence that more breathable types of PPE may not lead to more contamination, but may have greater user satisfaction. We also found very low quality evidence that double gloving and CDC doffing guidance appear to decrease the risk of contamination and that more active training in PPE use may reduce PPE and doffing errors more than passive training. However, the data all come from single studies with high risk of bias and we are uncertain about the estimates of effects.We need simulation studies conducted with several dozens of participants, preferably using a non-pathogenic virus, to find out which type and combination of PPE protects best, and what is the best way to remove PPE. We also need randomised controlled studies of the effects of one type of training versus another to find out which training works best in the long term. HCWs exposed to highly infectious diseases should have their use of PPE registered and should be prospectively followed for their risk of infection.

Randomized, controlled trial of the effectiveness of simulation education: A 24-month follow-up study in a clinical setting

BACKGROUND

Critical care nurses' knowledge and skills in adhering to evidence-based guidelines for avoiding complications associated with intubation and mechanical ventilation are currently limited. We hypothesized that single simulation education session would lead to a long-lasting higher level of skills among critical care nurses.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A randomized controlled trial was conducted in a 22-bed adult mixed medical-surgical intensive care unit in Finland during the period February 2012-March 2014. Thirty out of 40 initially randomized critical care nurses participated in a 24-month follow-up study. Behavior and cognitive development was evaluated through a validated Ventilator Bundle Observation Schedule and Questionnaire at the baseline measurement and repeated 3 times during simulation and real-life clinic settings.

RESULTS

After simulation education, the average skills score increased from 46.8%-58.8% of the total score in the final postintervention measurement (Ptime < .001, Ptime × group = .040, and Pgroup = .11). The average knowledge scores within groups did not change significantly. The average between-group difference in skills scores was significant only at the measurement taken at 6 months (P = .006).

CONCLUSIONS

Critical care nurses' skills in adhering to evidence-based guidelines improved in both groups over time, but the improvements between the study groups was significantly different only at 6 months and was no longer evident after 2 years following a single simulation education.

Clinical challenges in isolation care

OVERVIEW

In 2014, the authors published the results of a study investigating nurses' use of personal protective equipment (PPE) in the care of a live simulated patient requiring contact and airborne precautions. The 24 participants were video-recorded as they donned and doffed PPE. Variations in practices that had the potential to cause contamination were noted. In this article, the authors comment on those variations, analyzing each element of proper PPE protocols and examining why the behaviors are a safety concern for the nurse and a potential risk for disease transmission in the hospital or other clinical area. The authors note that making use of reflective practice for complicated care situations such as infection control may help nurses improve decision making in isolation care.