Does wearing personal protective equipment affect the performance and decision of physicians? A cross-sectional study during the COVID-19 pandemic

Needle Stick Injury Among Healthcare Workers in a Tertiary Care Setting in Dehradun, Sub-Himalayan Region: A Four-Year Record-Based Study

INTRODUCTION

Needlestick injuries (NSIs) represent a significant occupational health risk in healthcare settings. These injuries, caused by contaminated sharps such as needles, vials, and scalpel blades, can lead to percutaneous exposure to infectious materials. Despite the severity of NSIs, they often go unreported, highlighting a critical gap in occupational safety protocols.

AIMS

This study aimed to investigate the occurrence of NSIs among healthcare workers (HCWs) by sex, profession, and working areas. It also sought to explore the underlying reasons for these injuries and the factors contributing to their underreporting.

METHODOLOGY

Adhering to the RECORD guidelines (Reporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely Collected Data), this record-based study involved a retrospective analysis of reported NSIs. Data were collected from voluntary reports by HCWs who experienced NSIs or exposure to potentially infectious materials such as blood and body fluids. Statistical analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 16 (Released 2007; IBM Corp., Armonk, New York) and Microsoft Excel 2010 (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Washington).

RESULTS

Data from 142 participants indicated a higher proportion of females experiencing NSIs compared to males, with rates of 57.7% pre-COVID and 60.6% during COVID. There were notable shifts in NSI rates across professions, with increases observed among staff nurses and ward attendants/helpers. Analysis of injury circumstances revealed a decrease in sampling procedure-related injuries but an increase during intravenous procedures and biomedical waste segregation. Injuries occurring on the right-hand index finger decreased from 52.1% pre-COVID to 31% during COVID, while those on the left-hand index finger increased from 19.7% pre-COVID to 39.4% during COVID. Statistically significant associations were found between the injury site and the place of occurrence (p=0.021). Healthcare professionals commonly cleansed the site with disinfectants and used personal protective equipment (PPE) kits, with increased PPE usage noted during the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings emphasize the evolving dynamics of NSIs among HCWs and underscore the importance of tailored preventive measures during pandemics.

ETView SL versus Macintosh Direct Laryngoscope for Endotracheal Intubation Amid Simulated COVID-19 Cardiac Arrest: A Randomized Crossover Study

Airway management procedures, such as endotracheal intubation (ETI), pose a significant risk of aerosol generation, requiring robust personal protective equipment (PPE) against aerosol-generating procedures (AGP). This study aimed to assess the impact of PPE-AGP on intubation success rates, time to intubation, and glottic visualization using ETView and a standard Macintosh laryngoscope (MAC). A total of 52 physicians participated in this prospective, observational, randomized crossover study conducted in a medical simulation setting. Participants included COVID-19 patients with cardiac arrest scenarios with and without PPE-AGP who were intubated with ETView and MAC. During intubation without PPE-AGP, ETView showed a similar first-pass success rate (FPS) but had a shorter intubation time and better glottal hydration compared to MAC. In scenario B (with PPE-AGP), ETView outperformed MAC in FPS, initiation time, and glottic visualization. The use of PPE-AGP had little impact on ETView's performance. However, it negatively affected the Macintosh laryngoscope, reducing FPS and glottic visibility. Participants found intubation with ETView easier in both scenarios. In conclusion, as compared to the Macintosh laryngoscope, ETView demonstrated higher performance under the circumstances of the simulation, especially when PPE-AGP was used.

Knowledge and practice of personal protective measures against COVID-19 in Africa: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic being a newly evolving disease, its response measures largely depend on the practice of and compliance with personal protective measures (PPMs).

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aimed to examine the knowledge and practice of COVID-19 PPMs in African countries, as documented in the published literature.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted on Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science databases using appropriate keywords and predefined eligibility criteria for the selection of relevant studies. Only population-based original research studies (including qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-method studies) done in Africa, and published in the English language were included. The screening process and data extraction were performed according to a pre-registered protocol in PROSPERO (CRD42022355101) and followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Mixed-Method Appraisal Tool. Thematic analysis was used to systematically summarise the studies into four predefined domains: i) knowledge and perception about PPMs, ii) mask use, iii) social/physical distancing, and iv) hand washing/hygiene, including their respective levels and associated factors.

RESULTS

A total of 58 studies across 12 African countries were included, and these were published between 2019 and 2022. African communities, including various population groups, had varying levels of knowledge and practice of COVID-19 PPMs, with lack of personal protective equipment (PPE) (mainly face masks), and side effects (among health care workers) being the major reasons for poor compliance. Lower rates of handwashing/ hygiene were particularly noted in several African countries, especially among the urban poor and slum-dwellers, with the main barrier being the lack of safe and clean water. Various cognitive (knowledge and perception), socio-demographic and economic factors were associated with the practice of COVID-19 PPMs. Moreover, there were evident research inequalities on the regional level, where East Africa contributed 36.2%, West Africa 20.7%, North Africa 17.2%, Southern Africa 6.9%, and no single-country study from Central Africa. Nonetheless, the overall quality of the included studies was generally good, as they satisfied most of the quality assessment criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need to enhance local capacity to produce and supply PPE. Consideration of various cognitive, demographic and socioeconomic differences, with extra focus on the most vulnerable, is crucial for inclusive and more effective strategies against the pandemic. Moreover, more focus and involvement in community behavioral research are needed to fully understand and address the dynamics of the current pandemic in Africa.

CLINICALTRIAL

The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022355101).

Impact of SARS-CoV-2 Virus (COVID-19) Preventative Measures on Communication: A Scoping Review

Introduction

Face coverings and distancing as preventative measures against the spread of the Coronavirus disease 2019 may impact communication in several ways that may disproportionately affect people with hearing loss. A scoping review was conducted to examine existing literature on the impact of preventative measures on communication and to characterize the clinical implications.

Method

A systematic search of three electronic databases (Scopus, PubMed, CINAHL) was conducted yielding 2,158 articles. After removing duplicates and screening to determine inclusion eligibility, key data were extracted from the 50 included articles. Findings are reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) Extension for Scoping Reviews, including the PRISMA-ScR checklist.

Results

Studies fell into three categories: Studies addressing the impacts of personal protective equipment (PPE) and/or distancing on communication in healthcare contexts (n = 20); studies examining the impact of preventative measures on communication in everyday life (n = 13), and studies measuring the impact of face coverings on speech using acoustic and/or behavioral measures (n = 29). The review revealed that masks disrupt verbal and non-verbal communication, as well as emotional and social wellbeing and they impact people with hearing loss more than those without. These findings are presumably because opaque masks attenuate sound at frequencies above 1 kHz, and conceal the mouth and lips making lipreading impossible, and limit visibility of facial expressions. While surgical masks cause relatively little sound attenuation, transparent masks and face shields are highly attenuating. However, they are preferred by people with hearing loss because they give access to visual cues.

Conclusion

Face coverings and social distancing has detrimental effects that extend well beyond verbal and non-verbal communication, by affecting wellbeing and quality of life. As these measures will likely be part of everyday life for the foreseeable future, we propose that it is necessary to support effective communication, especially in healthcare settings and for people with hearing loss.

Impact of wearing personal protective equipment on the performance and decision making of surgeons during the COVID-19 pandemic: An observational cross-sectional study

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the mandatory use of personal protective equipment (PPE) has resulted in a significant reduction in the infection rate among health care workers (HCWs). However, there are some ongoing concerns about the negative impact of using PPE for prolonged periods.This study examined the impact of wearing PPE on surgeons' performance and decision making during the COVID-19 pandemic.In this cross-sectional study, an anonymous online questionnaire was created and disseminated to surgeons all over the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia. The questionnaire included the demographic data, the local hospital policies, the non-technical skills (e.g., communication, vision, and comfort) and the technical skills, and the process of decision making.From June 2020 to August 2020, 162 surgeons participated in this questionnaire. Of them, 80.2% were aged from 26 to 45 years, 70.4% have received a special training for PPE, and 59.3% of participants have operated on COVID-19 confirmed cases. A negative impact of wearing PPE was reported on their overall comfort, vision, and communication skills (92.6%, 95.1%, and 82.8%, respectively). The technical skills and decision making were not significantly affected (60.5% and 72.8%, respectively). More preference for conservative approach, damage control procedures, and/or open approach was reported.Despite its benefits, PPE is associated with a significant negative impact on the non-technical skills (including vision, communication, and comfort) as well as a non-significant negative impact on technical skills and decision making of surgeons. Extra efforts should be directed to improve PPE, especially during lengthy pandemics.