Paramedic knowledge of infection control principles and standards in an Australian emergency medical system (EMS)

Infection prevention and control among paramedics: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Paramedics are exposed to many infectious diseases in their professional activities, leading to a high risk of transmitting infectious diseases to patients in out-of-hospital settings, possibly leading to health care associated infections in hospitals and the community. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the importance of infection prevention and control in health care and the role of paramedics in infection control is considered even more critical. Despite this, in many countries such as Australia, research into infection prevention and control research has mainly been focused on in-hospital health care professionals with limited out-of-hospital studies.

METHODS

This scoping review was based upon Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Literature on knowledge and awareness of infection prevention and control in paramedics in Australia and other countries was evaluated.

RESULTS

Based upon selection criteria applied, six papers were identified for inclusion in this review. In many studies, infection prevention and control was identified as being important, however compliance with hand hygiene practices was low and most studies highlighted the need for more education and training on infectious disease for paramedics.

CONCLUSION

Current evidence suggests that paramedics have poor compliance with recommended IPC practices. The profession needs to improve IPC education, training, and culture.

Challenges of SARS-CoV-2 and conflicting PPE guidelines

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, personal protective equipment (PPE) has become a contentious issue in healthcare settings, no more so than in the prehospital environment. The current severe acute respiratory syndrome 2 virus (SARS-CoV-2) has pathogenic and transmission similarities to previous coronaviruses, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV) and Middle Eastern respiratory syndrome (MERS-CoV). There are differences in global and domestic PPE guidelines concerning SARS-CoV-2.

Working During Pandemic Disasters: Views and Predictors of EMS Providers

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to assess the perception and attitude of emergency medical services (EMS) providers toward working during disease outbreaks, and the factors that may influence their decisions to ultimately work or not.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional study assessing the attitude of EMS providers to work during disease outbreaks. Descriptive statistics and regression analyses were performed to assess attitudes toward reporting for duty and factors that influence providers' decisions.

RESULTS

Of the 500 surveys distributed, 466 (93.2%) were complete and included for analysis. The majority of participants (70.2%) are male with a mean age of 27 (SD 4.3) years. The study found that the majority (71.1%) of participants are willing to come to work during disease outbreaks. The study found 7 predictors of reporting for duty. Confidence that employer will provide adequate protective gear was the most significant predictor (odds ratio [OR], 3.95; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.31-5.42). Concern for family safety was the most important barrier against coming to work (OR, 0.40; 95% CI = 0.21-0.73).

CONCLUSIONS

Providing adequate supplies of protective gear along with knowledge and training for disease outbreak are the main factors that enhance providers to fulfill their work expectations.

Self-reported behaviors and perceptions of Australian paramedics in relation to hand hygiene and gloving practices in paramedic-led health care

BACKGROUND

Noncompliance with recommended hand hygiene and gloving practices by workers in the emergency medical services may contribute to the transmission of health care-associated infections and lead to poor patient outcomes. The aim of this study was to explore the self-reported behaviors and perceptions of Australian paramedics in relation to their hand hygiene and gloving practices in paramedic-led health care.

METHODS

A national online survey (n = 417; 17% response rate) and 2 semistructured focus groups (6 per group) were conducted with members of Paramedics Australasia.

RESULTS

Although most of the study participants perceived hand hygiene and gloving to be important, the findings suggest poor compliance with both practices, particularly during emergency cases. All participants reported wearing gloves throughout a clinical case, changing them either at the completion of patient care or when visibly soiled or broken. Hand hygiene was missed at defined moments during patient care, possibly from the misuse of gloves.

CONCLUSIONS

Paramedic hand hygiene and gloving practices require substantial improvement to lower potential transmission of pathogens and improve patient safety and clinical care. Further research is recommended to explore how to alleviate the barriers to performing in-field hand hygiene and the misuse of gloves during paramedic-led health care.

Hand hygiene in emergency medical services

BACKGROUND

Hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) affect millions of patients annually (World Health Organization. Guidelines on Hand Hygiene in Healthcare. Geneva: WHO Press; 2009). Hand hygiene compliance of clinical staff has been identified by numerous studies as a major contributing factor to HAIs around the world. Infection control and hand hygiene in the prehospital environment can also contribute to patient harm and spread of infections. Emergency medical services (EMS) practitioners are not monitored as closely as hospital personnel in terms of hand hygiene training and compliance. Their ever-changing work environment is less favorable to traditional hospital-based aseptic techniques and education.

METHODS

This study aimed to determine the current state of hand hygiene practices among EMS providers and to provide recommendations for improving practices in the emergency health services environment. This study was a prospective, observational prevalence study and survey, conducted over a 2-month period. We selected participants from visits to three selected hospital emergency departments in the mid-Atlantic region. There were two data components to the study: a participant survey and hand swabs for pathogenic cultures.

RESULTS

This study recruited a total sample of 62 participants. Overall, the study revealed that a significant number of EMS providers (77%) have a heavy bacterial load on their hands after patient care. All levels of providers had a similar distribution of bacterial load. Survey results revealed that few providers perform hand hygiene before (34%) or in between patients (24%), as recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that EMS providers are potential vectors of microorganisms if proper hand hygiene is not performed properly. Since EMS providers treat a variety of patients and operate in a variety of environments, providers may be exposed to potentially pathogenic organisms, serving as vectors for the exposure of their patients to these same organisms. Proper application of accepted standards for hand hygiene can help reduce the presence of microbes on provider hands and subsequent transmission to patients and the environment.