Personal protective equipment-related occupational dermatoses during COVID-19 among health care workers: A worldwide systematic review

COVID-19-Related Risk Factors for Developing Occupational Contact Dermatitis Along With Its Incidence, Prevention, and Management: A Systematic Review

Occupational contact dermatitis (OCD) is an eczematous local inflammatory skin irritation caused by repeated use of hand sanitizer and other chemical substances. Occupational irritant contact dermatitis (OICD) and occupational allergic contact dermatitis (OACD) are the two variants of CD that cannot be identified clinically. Hand dermatitis (HD) is typically assessed as a clinical consequence because it affects the hands most frequently at work as per epidemiological studies on OCD. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 standards were followed when conducting this umbrella review. We used the search terms "Occupational Contact Dermatitis AND COVID-19" to search for the most pertinent papers in full text on the databases PubMed/MedLine, ScienceDirect, and PubMed Central (PMC). Additionally, the reference section of the papers was used to find more articles. A total of 11,646 results were found, and eight papers remained after applying the inclusion criteria (full-text papers, English language, studies published in the previous 10 years, involving humans, and only systematic reviews). After completing the title and abstract screening, we obtained five papers. Next, the full-text screening and AMSTAR quality check were completed, yielding the same five papers. After searching ScienceDirect, five papers that met the inclusion criteria were included, and six papers were selected from the references, yielding a total of 11 papers. The causes of occupational dermatitis from protective face masks are discussed in this review. We anticipate an increase in the incidence of occupational dermatitis linked to face mask use given that a large segment of healthcare workers (HCWs) wear protective face masks. To understand the prevalence and available therapies for mask-related occupational dermatitis, further well-designed research is required.

Potential for Glove Risk Amplification via Direct Physical, Chemical, and Microbiological Contamination

This review focuses on the potential direct physical, chemical, and microbiological contamination from disposable gloves when utilized in food environments, inclusive of the risks posed to food products as well as worker safety. Unrecognized problems endemic to glove manufacturing were magnified during the COVID-19 pandemic due to high demand, increased focus on PPE performance, availability, supply chain instability, and labor shortages. Multiple evidence-based reports of contamination, toxicity, illness, deaths, and related regulatory action linked to contaminated gloves in food and healthcare have highlighted problems indicative of systemic glove industry shortcomings. The glove manufacturing process was diagramed with sources and pathways of contamination identified, indicating weak points with documented occurrences detailed. Numerous unsafe ingredients can introduce chemical contaminants, potentially posing risks to food and to glove users. Microbial hazards present significant challenges to overall glove safety as contaminants appear to be introduced via polluted water sources or flawed glove manufacturing processes, resulting in increased risks within food and healthcare environments. Frank and opportunistic pathogens along with food spoilage organisms can be introduced to foods and wearers. When the sources and pathways of glove-borne contamination were explored, it was found that physical failures play a pivotal role in the release of sweat build-up, liquefaction of chemical residues, and incubation of microbial contaminants from hands and gloves. Thus, with glove physical integrity issues, including punctures in new, unused gloves that can develop into significant rips and tears, not only can direct physical food contamination occur but also chemical and microbiological contamination can find their way into food. Enhanced regulatory requirements for Acceptable Quality Limits of food-grade gloves, and the establishment of appropriate bioburden standards would enhance safety in food applications. Based on the information provided, together with a false sense of security associated with glove use, the unconditional belief in glove chemical and microbiological purity may be unfounded.

Guarding Our Guardians: Navigating Adverse Reactions in Healthcare Workers Amid Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Usage During COVID-19

The widespread utilization of personal protective equipment (PPE) during the COVID-19 pandemic has been crucial for reducing transmission risk among healthcare workers (HCWs) and the public. However, the extensive use of PPE has brought about potential adverse reactions, particularly among HCWs. This study aims to investigate the prevalence and characteristics of adverse skin reactions associated with PPE use among different categories of HCWs, including faculty, residents, and nursing officers (NOs), in a dedicated tertiary care COVID-19 hospital. The study design was a hospital-based cross-sectional analytical study conducted over one month, involving a total of 240 participants. The participants were required to complete a pre-tested semi-structured questionnaire that covered demographic information, PPE-related data, preventive measures, observed reactions, and self-management strategies. Results indicated that adverse skin reactions were common among HCWs, with reactions reported by all participants. The most commonly used PPE included N95 masks, goggles, gloves, face shields, isolation gowns, and medical protective clothing. Excessive sweating (60% residents, 21.1% NOs, and 16.25% faculties), facial rash, dry palms (>70% of HCWs), and itching were among the most prevalent adverse reactions. Urticarial lesions (28.5% among NOs), pressure marks and pain (100% on the cheek among all HCWs), fungal infections (18.5% among residents at the web space of fingers), and skin breakdown were also reported. Factors such as age, gender, pre-existing skin problems, and oily/acne-prone skin history were found to be significantly associated with adverse skin reactions. In conclusion, the findings highlight the common adverse reactions reported by HCWs during the use of different PPEs. Certain steps taken by HCWs for the prevention of adverse reactions due to PPE emphasize the importance of tailored preventive measures and strategies to mitigate these adverse reactions, such as proper PPE selection, well-fitting equipment, regular breaks, and appropriate skincare practices. These insights contribute to the development of guidelines for optimal PPE usage and support the well-being of HCWs in their essential roles.

New causes of occupational allergic contact dermatitis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Occupational allergic contact dermatitis (OACD) is an important work-related skin disease. Information about the causative agents comes from many sources, including patch test databases, registries, case series and case reports. This review summarizes new information about common causative allergens and diagnosis.

RECENT FINDINGS

Common causes of OACD include rubber components, epoxies and preservatives. New exposure sources for these allergens continue to be described. Often these exposure sources are related to the changing world around us, such as allergens related to smartphones and technology, and personal protective equipment-related exposures during the COVID-19 pandemic. New allergens are also being described, some of which are related to known allergens (e.g. a new epoxy or acrylate component).Accurate diagnosis is critical to effective management of OACD, which may include removing the worker from exposure to the causative allergen. Safety data sheets may not contain complete information and patch testing with specialized series of allergens and workplace materials may be necessary.

SUMMARY

This review provides current evidence about causes of OACD and important aspects of diagnosis. This is important for clinical practice to ensure cases of OACD are not missed.

Australian health care workers experience of PPE related side-effects. A cross-sectional survey

Introduction

Protection of health care workers (HCWs) is a fundamental aspect of an effective pandemic response. During the COVID-19 pandemic, frequency, and duration of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) use increased. The experience of PPE-related side-effects has potential to contribute to decreased compliance resulting in breaches in infection prevention and increasing risk of HCW exposure. This study aims were to measure the frequency of PPE-related side-effects amongst HCW in Australia, and to establish if an increased frequency of adverse reactions was related to the significant increase in use and extended duration of time spent in PPE.

Methods

A descriptive cross-sectional survey was used.

Results

Of the 559 respondents the majority were female (83.7%), aged 31-45 years old (33.6%). A pre-existing skin condition was reported by 266 (47.6%). Frequency of PPE related side-effects were: pressure-related 401 (71.7%), skin 321 (57.4%) and respiratory 20 (3.6%). Surgical mask use was significantly associated with pre-exiting skin conditions (β = 1.494 (SE 0.186), df (1), p < 0.001). Side effects to N95 respirator use was more commonly reported by staff working in COVID-19 high-risk areas (β = 0.572 (SE 0.211), df (1), p = 0.007) independent of work duration (β = -0.056 (SE 0.075), df (1), p = 0.456), and pre-existing skin conditions (β = 1.272, (SE.198), df (1), p < 0.001).

Conclusion

The COVID-19 pandemic has seen a significant increase in the use of PPE. While the preventative benefits of PPE are significant, adverse events related to PPE use are frequently reported by HCW. Findings in this study highlight the need for innovation in PPE design to maximize protection while decreasing adverse effects and maintaining adhere to use.

Physical discomforts, feeling of the high work intensity and the related risk factors of the frontline medical staff during COVID-19 epidemic: an early-outbreak, national survey in China

Background

Facing the unknown virus, COVID-19 medical staff kept wearing thick personal protective equipment during their work in the early stage of the outbreak. The survey was designed to investigate the physical discomforts, the feeling of the work intensity and the related risk factors of the frontline medical staff during COVID-19 epidemic in the early outbreak.

Methods

An national survey was carried out in China from March 17th 2020 to March 20th 2020 by applying a standardized WeChat questionnaire survey. The doctors or nurses working in the wards for the confirmed COVID-19 patients on front-line were eligible to participate in the survey. Descriptive analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis were used.

Results

A total number of 515 COVID-19 medical staff, including 190 physicians and 325 nurses participated in this survey. 375 medical staff (72.8%) experienced physical discomforts at work, mostly consist of dyspnea (45.8%), pain (41.0%), chest distress (24.1%), dizziness (18.8%), and weakness (17.5%), while wearing thick isolation clothes at work. The mean onset time and peak time of these symptoms were 2.4 h and 3.5 h after working, respectively. 337 medical staff (65.4%) suffered from sleep disorders. 51 medical staff (10%) were highly worried about being infected by COVID-19 even during their work breaks. 246 medical staffs (47.8%) felt high work intensity and the independent influential factors were the effective daily sleep time and anxiety levels at break time (p = 0.04).

Conclusion

The frontline medical staff during COVID-19 epidemic felt different physical discomforts when they wear thick isolation clothes at work in the early outbreak and they felt high work intensity. These precious data will help optimize the work management strategy to ensure the physical and mental health of medical staff in the face of similar outbreaks in future.

Glove-Induced Hand Dermatitis: A Study in Healthcare Workers during COVID-19 Pandemic in Indonesia

Skin damage among healthcare workers has been reported by many centers around the world. Occupational hand dermatitis is one of the most commonly known occupational skin diseases and a socially significant health issue. The use of gloves is one of the risk factors for the occurrence and/or aggravation of hand dermatitis. This cross-sectional study involved healthcare workers in 14 referral hospitals for COVID-19 throughout Indonesia. Questionnaires were distributed to the participants, which consisted of the subject's characteristics, glove-related skin problems, history of glove use, and clinical history. This study involved a total of 845 healthcare workers. Approximately 156 healthcare workers (18.46%) had glove-induced hand dermatitis during the pandemic. Itchy skin was the most common symptom (44.23%), and the palm was the most frequently complained area (48.72%). There was a significant association between glove use and glove-induced hand dermatitis among healthcare workers. In particular, equal to or more than 2 hours per day of glove use was significantly associated with hand dermatitis. Glove-induced hand dermatitis also had a significant association with the subject's history of atopic dermatitis and previous history of hand dermatitis. The use of gloves by healthcare workers should be considered carefully, especially in individuals at increased risk, including those who use gloves for 2 hours or more per day and those who have a history of atopic or hand dermatitis, in order to prevent the incidence of glove-induced hand dermatitis among healthcare workers, as well as to provide a safe working environment.

Contact dermatitis caused by prevention measures during the COVID-19 pandemic: a narrative review

Introduction

During the outbreak of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), health care workers wore personal protective equipment including masks, gloves and goggles for a long time. In order to reduce the transmission routes of the virus, public places were sprayed with disinfectant. Moreover, the body, hands and clothing were frequently disinfected and washed for hygiene purposes. Studies have shown that these practices could easily irritate the skin and damage the skin barrier. Long-term irritation or exposure to allergens may lead to the occurrence of contact dermatitis (CD).

Methods

Subject headings were searched via the National Library of Medicine (PubMed) and web of science databases: COVID-19; contact dermatitis; adverse skin reaction; PPE; dermatitis; mask; glory; hand hygiene, disinfection; face shield; goggle; protect cloth. A total of 246 and 646 articles were retrieved from the two databases, respectively. 402 articles remained after removing duplicates. Reviews, non-English articles, articles that could not be accessed to read or did not conform to our topic were excluded. Finally, a total of 32 cross-sectional studies, 9 case reports and 2 randomized controlled trials were included.

Discussion

This article reviews reports of CD caused by various prevention and hygiene measures during the COVID-19 pandemic. The amount of skin damage caused by COVID-19 prevention measures could be decreased by improved education about skin management.

Physio-metabolic and clinical consequences of wearing face masks-Systematic review with meta-analysis and comprehensive evaluation

Background

As face masks became mandatory in most countries during the COVID-19 pandemic, adverse effects require substantiated investigation.

Methods

A systematic review of 2,168 studies on adverse medical mask effects yielded 54 publications for synthesis and 37 studies for meta-analysis (on n = 8,641, m = 2,482, f = 6,159, age = 34.8 ± 12.5). The median trial duration was only 18 min (IQR = 50) for our comprehensive evaluation of mask induced physio-metabolic and clinical outcomes.

Results

We found significant effects in both medical surgical and N95 masks, with a greater impact of the second. These effects included decreased SpO2 (overall Standard Mean Difference, SMD = -0.24, 95% CI = -0.38 to -0.11, p < 0.001) and minute ventilation (SMD = -0.72, 95% CI = -0.99 to -0.46, p < 0.001), simultaneous increased in blood-CO2 (SMD = +0.64, 95% CI = 0.31-0.96, p < 0.001), heart rate (N95: SMD = +0.22, 95% CI = 0.03-0.41, p = 0.02), systolic blood pressure (surgical: SMD = +0.21, 95% CI = 0.03-0.39, p = 0.02), skin temperature (overall SMD = +0.80 95% CI = 0.23-1.38, p = 0.006) and humidity (SMD +2.24, 95% CI = 1.32-3.17, p < 0.001). Effects on exertion (overall SMD = +0.9, surgical = +0.63, N95 = +1.19), discomfort (SMD = +1.16), dyspnoea (SMD = +1.46), heat (SMD = +0.70), and humidity (SMD = +0.9) were significant in n = 373 with a robust relationship to mask wearing (p < 0.006 to p < 0.001). Pooled symptom prevalence (n = 8,128) was significant for: headache (62%, p < 0.001), acne (38%, p < 0.001), skin irritation (36%, p < 0.001), dyspnoea (33%, p < 0.001), heat (26%, p < 0.001), itching (26%, p < 0.001), voice disorder (23%, p < 0.03), and dizziness (5%, p = 0.01).

Discussion

Masks interfered with O2-uptake and CO2-release and compromised respiratory compensation. Though evaluated wearing durations are shorter than daily/prolonged use, outcomes independently validate mask-induced exhaustion-syndrome (MIES) and down-stream physio-metabolic disfunctions. MIES can have long-term clinical consequences, especially for vulnerable groups. So far, several mask related symptoms may have been misinterpreted as long COVID-19 symptoms. In any case, the possible MIES contrasts with the WHO definition of health.

Conclusion

Face mask side-effects must be assessed (risk-benefit) against the available evidence of their effectiveness against viral transmissions. In the absence of strong empirical evidence of effectiveness, mask wearing should not be mandated let alone enforced by law.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021256694, identifier: PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021256694.

COVID-19 in the Asia Pacific: Impact on climate change, allergic diseases and One Health

Climate change and environmental factors such as air pollution and loss of biodiversity are known to have a major impact not only on allergic diseases but also on many noncommunicable diseases. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) resulted in many environmental changes during the different phases of the pandemic. The use of face masks, enhanced hand hygiene with hand rubs and sanitizers, use of personal protective equipment (gowns and gloves), and safe-distancing measures, reduced the overall incidence of respiratory infections and other communicable diseases. Lockdowns and border closures resulted in a significant reduction in vehicular traffic and hence environmental air pollution. Paradoxically, the use of personal protective equipment and disposables contributed to an increase in environmental waste disposal and new problems such as occupational dermatoses, especially among healthcare workers. Environmental changes and climate change over time may impact the exposome, genome, and microbiome, with the potential for short- and long-term effects on the incidence and prevalence of the allergic disease. The constant use and access to mobile digital devices and technology disrupt work-life harmony and mental well-being. The complex interactions between the environment, genetics, immune, and neuroendocrine systems may have short- and long-term impact on the risk and development of allergic and immunologic diseases in the future.

Occupational Skin Dermatitis among Healthcare Workers Associated with the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Review of the Literature

The skin is the outermost layer of the human body and is continually exposed to numerous external stimuli, which can cause unwanted skin irritation. Occupational skin diseases are the most prevalent form of work-related illness and are found in a variety of sectors, particularly healthcare. During the recent COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare professionals experienced a variety of unexpected, unusual occupational skin diseases associated with COVID-19-engaged employment. Because the clinical characteristics of these types of skin inflammation are unique, this review focuses on the characteristics of a large category of occupational workers, namely COVID-19-engaged healthcare professionals. Furthermore, we examined the potential pathogeneses of occupational skin disorders associated with COVID-19-engaged labor, as well as different preventative methods.

Occupational Dermatoses

Occupational skin diseases (OSDs) are one of the major problems in working life. Among occupational diseases, 30-45% are skin diseases. Contact dermatitis accounts for the greatest part (95%) of OSDs. It adversely affects the quality of life of workers. Classification of OSD is too difficult as there are geographical variations in the occupational groups affected. However, commonly affected occupational groups are agricultural workers, healthcare workers, construction workers, metal workers, cleaners, housekeepers, food handlers, hairdressers, beauticians, and mechanics. Because of the unorganized workplace, lack of a proper notification system for occupational dermatoses, and under-reporting of cases, there is a paucity of information regarding the magnitude of the problem of OSD in India. Although in India many studies have been conducted on individual small occupational groups, data on the complete epidemiology of OSD is limited. In this article, we have tried to compile the common OSDs in various occupations.

The prevalence of facial pressure injuries among nurses during COVID-19 pandemic and its relationship to COVID-19 infection

AIM

The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of facial pressure injuries related to personal protective equipment use in nurses and the relationship with getting COVID-19 infection.

DESIGN

The study used descriptive and correlational online survey design.

METHODS

Nurses in Turkey were recruited via an electronic link sent to their social media platforms (e.g., Facebook, Instagram, Twitter), WhatsApp, and e-mail during the study: March-April 2021. Of them, 603 participants completed the survey form from all over Turkey.

RESULTS/FINDINGS

Facial pressure injuries develop in nurses due to use of personal protective equipment. The rates of facial pressure injuries were higher in the nurses who were younger (p=0.002) and those who had less experience years (p=0.005) than the other nurses. The statistically significant variables were determined as age, status of using face shield, status of wearing overalls and status of wearing shoe covers (p<0.05). We determined that facial pressure injuries were not significantly associated with getting COVID-19 infection (p>0,05).

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that facial pressure injuries associated with personal protective equipment use among nurses, who work on the frontlines in the COVID-19 pandemic period, is highly prevalent. Experiencing facial pressure injuries did not have a significant effect on the participants' statuses of getting infected with COVID-19. Providing training in health institutions may present an effective strategy in lowering problems.

Personal protective equipment (PPE) related adverse skin reactions among healthcare workers at the main COVID-19 isolation center in Barbados

Background

The use of personal protective equipment (PPE) reduces the risk of transmission of infectious agents significantly among healthcare workers (HCWs). The study aimed to investigate the prevalence and characteristics of PPE-related adverse skin reactions among HCWs working at the main COVID-19 isolation center in Barbados.

Methods

A cross-sectional web-based online survey was conducted during April to June 2021 which recorded demographic information, details of PPE use and adverse skin reactions including severity and duration of onset of symptoms.

Results

Most of the respondents used PPE for consecutive days (77.9%), 1-6 h/day (59.2%), and more than a year (62.5%). Fewer than half of the participants (45.6%) experienced adverse skin reactions from the use of PPE. The reactions were mostly observed in the cheeks (40.4%) and nose bridges (35.6%). Females had more reactions than their male counterparts (p = 0.003). The use of N95 masks and a combination of surgical and N95 masks produced adverse effects predominantly in the ears (60%) and cheeks (56.4%). Binary logistic regression showed that female HCWs (OR = 5.720 95% CI: 1.631, 20.063), doctors (OR = 5.215 95% CI: 0.877, 31.002), and longer duration of PPE use (>1 year) (OR = 2.902 95% CI: 0.958, 8.787) caused a significantly higher prevalence of adverse skin reactions.

Conclusion

The PPE-related skin reactions were common among HCWs which mainly occurred due to prolonged use. Preventive measures inclusive of appropriate training of HCWs on the use of PPE are recommended to minimize these adverse events.

Prevalence of Adverse Skin Reactions in Nursing Staff Due to Personal Protective Equipment during the COVID-19 Pandemic

In order to prevent the nosocomial transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, it has become necessary for health workers to increase their use of personal protective equipment (PPE). The aim of the study was to investigate the prevalence and influencing factors for adverse skin reactions (ASR) due to occupational PPE use among nursing staff in Germany during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study uses a mixed methods design. A focus group was created with experts from the field of healthcare, and an online survey was then carried out among nursing staff. Influencing factors were identified using multivariate logistic regression via odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 2274 nursing staff took part in the survey, with 1967 included in the analysis. The prevalence of ASR was 61%, with 94% affecting at least one area of the face. Statistically significant factors of influence were Filtering Face Peace (FFP) mask wearing duration of ≥4 h, a history of contact allergies, and being female and young. A pre-existing skin disease had a protective effect. The prevalence of PPE-related ASR underlines the necessity for targeted preventive measures for nursing staff during pandemic situation.

Prevalence of Physical and Psychological Impacts of Wearing Personal Protective Equipment on Health Care Workers During COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) among the frontline health care workers (HCWs). Even though PPE helps in preventing infection, it poses significant physical and psychological impacts at varying levels. Correspondingly, multiple independent studies have brought out the PPE-associated problems. However, there exists a lacuna on comprehensive information of global prevalence related to the same.

AIM

To estimate the prevalence and risk factors of PPE among HCWs during COVID-19 across the globe.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHOD

The review was undertaken as per the protocol registered in PROSPERO CRD42021272216 following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis(PRISMA) guidelines. Two independent reviewers have undertaken the search strategy, study selection, and methodological quality assessment. Discrepancies were addressed by the third reviewer. Heterogeneity was addressed through I2 statistics and forest plots generated by open meta-software.

RESULTS

A total of 16 articles conducted across 6 different countries among 10,182 HCWs were included in the review. The pooled prevalence of skin lesions, headache, sweating, breathing difficulty, vision difficulty, thirst/dry mouth, fatigue, and communication difficulty, anxiety, fear were 57 (47-66%), 51 (37-64%), 75 (56-90%), 44 (23-68%), 61 (21-94%), 54 (30-77%), 67 (58-76%), 74 (47-94%), 28 (24-33%), 14 (10-17%), respectively. Moreover, the various risk factors included are the use of PPE for >6 h and young females. In addition, the medical management of new-onset problems created an additional burden on the frontline health care personnel (HCP).

CONCLUSION

The frontline HCWs encountered physical and psychological problems at varying levels as a result of wearing PPE which needs to be addressed to prevent the inadequate use of PPE leading to infections.

The Change in The Frequency and Severity of Facial Dermatoses and Complaints in Healthcare Workers During the COVID-19

Background

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic has led to a dramatic increase in the use of personal protective equipment (PPE). However, the increased use of PPEs may lead to facial skin complaints.

Aims

This survey study aims to evaluate the effect of the COVID‐19 pandemic on facial dermatoses and complaints.

Methods

A total of 1017 volunteers (age 18–60 years), consisting of healthcare workers, participated in the study. In the present study, healthcare professionals were screened for facial dermatoses and complaints between 1 and 15 April 2021 with an online survey.

Results

The vast majority of the survey were women (82.4%) and between 26 and 35 years old (49.2%). The most new‐onset facial complaints were acne (25.3%) and lip dryness (29.2%). Along with the pandemic, 50.9% of patients with seborrheic dermatitis had an increase in lesions. Another remarkable result was a 60.5% increase in acne complaints. Moreover, the rate of exacerbations of rosacea, melasma, and lip dryness was increased after the COVID‐19 pandemic (39.1%, 22.0%, and 42.7%, respectively). Exacerbations of seborrheic dermatitis, acne, and lip dryness have occurred more frequently in females when compared to males (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

The current pandemic has had serious impacts on facial dermatoses which had to be managed carefully. Compared to the pre‐pandemic period, there was a significant increase in the frequency and severity of complaints in facial dermatoses related to PPE. If the complaints that may develop due to PPE are known in advance, their development can be prevented by taking precautions against them.

P2/N95 respirators & surgical masks to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection: Effectiveness & adverse effects

BACKGROUND

Millions of people have acquired and died from SARS-CoV-2 infection during the COVID-19 pandemic. Healthcare workers (HCWs) are required to wear personal protective equipment (PPE), including surgical masks and P2/N95 respirators, to prevent infection while treating patients. However, the comparative effectiveness of respirators and masks in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection and the likelihood of experiencing adverse events (AEs) with wear are unclear.

METHODS

Searches were carried out in PubMed, Europe PMC and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to 14 June 2021. A systematic review of comparative epidemiological studies examining SARS-CoV-2 infection or AE incidence in HCWs wearing P2/N95 (or equivalent) respirators and surgical masks was performed. Article screening, risk of bias assessment and data extraction were duplicated. Meta-analysis of extracted data was carried out in RevMan.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies were included, with most having high risk of bias. There was no statistically significant difference in respirator or surgical mask effectiveness in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR 0.85, [95%CI 0.72, 1.01]). Healthcare workers experienced significantly more headaches (OR 2.62, [95%CI 1.18, 5.81]), respiratory distress (OR 4.21, [95%CI 1.46, 12.13]), facial irritation (OR 1.80, [95%CI 1.03, 3.14]) and pressure-related injuries (OR 4.39, [95%CI 2.37, 8.15]) when wearing respirators compared to surgical masks.

CONCLUSION

The existing epidemiological evidence does not enable definitive assessment of the effectiveness of respirators compared to surgical masks in preventing infection. Healthcare workers wearing respirators may be more likely to experience AEs. Effective mitigation strategies are important to ensure the uptake and correct use of respirators by HCWs.

Protective equipment-related pressure ulcers in healthcare workers during COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review

AIM

This systematic review was carried out to examine pressure ulcers in healthcare staff due to the use of protective equipment during COVID-19 pandemic and the precautions taken to prevent these injuries.

METHOD

Relevant studies were retrospectively searched. Seven English keywords identified from MESH were used while searching. The search was carried out in five international databases by trying various combinations of these words during February 15-25, 2021. This systematic review was updated by rescanning databases on December 20, 2021 and a total of 611 studies were attained.

RESULTS

17 studies which met the study inclusion criteria, which were conducted mostly through online survey method in different study designs and which included a total of 24,889 healthcare professionals were examined. The incidence of PPE-related pressure ulcers was found to be between 30% and 92.8%. Grade I pressure ulcers were the most common (44.1%-82%). The incidence of skin problems except PPE-related pressure ulcers such as itching, redness and dry skin was found to be between 42.8-88.1%. Risk factors that frequently played a role in the development of PPE-related pressure ulcers and other skin problems were longer use of PPE and sweating. PPE-related pressure ulcers and other skin problems were more frequent over the nose (nasal bone/nasal bridge), ears, forehead and cheeks. PPE-related itching, redness and dry skin mostly occurred. Several dressing applications were found to be effective in the prevention of PPE-related pressure ulcers and other skin problems that might develop especially on the facial region.

CONCLUSION

PPE-related pressure ulcers and other skin problems were found to be higher among healthcare professionals. Data regarding the sealing of dressing applications against viral transmission in the prevention of PPE-related pressure ulcers and other skin problems are limited. It is estimated that future studies will be performed to prevent device-related pressure ulcers in healthcare workers. It is suggested that there is a need to conduct studies with larger samples where expert researchers make observations for pressure ulcers in order to determine the prevalence and incidence of PPE-related pressure ulcers.

The relationship between frontline nurses’ skin lesions and their anxiety and depression during the COVID‐19 pandemic: exploring the mediating role of fear and resilience

Aim

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Implications for nursing management

Assessment of Hygiene Indicators When Using Gloves by Transport Workers in Russia during the COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 outbreak represents a global public health emergency. National governments have gradually introduced restrictive measures. Using respiratory protective equipment (face masks) and gloves was essential practice without specific infection control measures or guidelines. This study aimed to assess hygiene indicators when using gloves by transport workers in Russia during the COVID-19 pandemic and to develop integral indicators and recommendations for wearing gloves for workers for whom this is a mandatory requirement. For this purpose, 1103 transport workers were surveyed using a questionnaire. We investigated the hygiene aspects of gloves and evaluated the bacterial contamination of the contact side of the gloves based on the wash results. We assessed the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents, the duration of the work shift, the frequency of use of types of gloves, skin manifestations, the degree of comfort, and bacterial growth. We carried out the ranking according to comfort, the absence of adverse dermatological reactions when wearing gloves, and bacterial contamination of the inner surface of the gloves. It has been identified that it is necessary to use a comprehensive assessment of gloves to create a register of protective equipment, taking into account the frequency with which it was worn, the severity of the skin condition, comfort, and bacterial contamination.

A Clinico Epidemiological Study of Adverse Cutaneous Manifestations on Using Personal Protective Equipment Among Health Care Workers During Covid Pandemic in a Tertiary Care Centre

Background

COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease 2019) pandemic was caused by a novel coronavirus. The frontline health care workers (HCW), wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) for a longer duration can result in a spectrum of adverse skin reactions. Recognizing occupationally induced adverse skin manifestations from PPE is necessary to avoid skin damage and risk of infections and to maintain compliance.

Aim

This study aimed to determine the prevalence, clinical characteristics of adverse cutaneous manifestations due to PPE, and also the contributing epidemiological factors among HCW in a tertiary care institute.

Materials and Methods

This cross-sectional study was conducted for a period of one month. Four hundred fifteen health care workers who used PPE continuously for >4 hours voluntarily participated in this study. By using a self-administered online questionnaire, the information and clinical photographs were collected.

Results

The prevalence of adverse skin manifestations was 62.1% (258). The prevalence was more common in females. Mask-related facial skin problems were most commonly reported. Of 74 participants with pre-existing acne lesions, 35 (8.4%) reported acne flare-ups after using PPE. Increased sweating (22.6%) and itching (11%) were the most commonly noted symptoms.

Conclusion

This study provides an insight into the prevalence of adverse skin reactions due to prolonged PPE usages, such as N95 masks and latex gloves in particular. Hence dermatological screening of HCW at regular intervals is inevitable to facilitate early management and prevent inadvertent protocol breaches. Further, it proposes the importance of raising proper safety measures to effectively reduce the COVID positivity rate among HCW by minimizing and preventing occupationally induced dermatosis.