Quality Assurance Sampling Plans in US Stockpiles for Personal Protective Equipment: A Computer Simulation to Examine Degradation Rates

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.

Health Problems and Skin Damages Caused by Personal Protective Equipment: Experience of Frontline Nurses Caring for Critical COVID-19 Patients in Intensive Care Units

BACKGROUND

In the event of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) spread worldwide, frontline healthcare workers play a key role in the containment of this devastating pandemic, and to prevent the cross-transmission and gain confidence in battle with the pandemic, they are wearing personal protective equipment (PPE).

AIM AND OBJECTIVE

To explore the adverse health problems and skin reactions caused by the use of PPEs among the frontline nurses in the ICUs of COVID hospital.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted using an online-based questionnaire assessing the physical problems, and adverse skin reactions of PPEs were sent among the 150 frontline nurses in ICUs of COVID hospital. The collected data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

We got 137 valid responses from frontline nurses, and the most common adverse health effects expressed by them were headache (73.4%), extreme sweating (59.6%), and difficulty in breathing (36.7%); 91.7% complained about the fogging of the goggle. Majority of frontline nurses expressed nasal bridge scarring (76.64%) and indentation and pain on the back of the ears (66.42%) as the adverse skin reactions after wearing N95 masks. The common skin problems identified due to double gloving of latex gloves were excessive skin soakage with sweat (70.07%) and skin chapping (19%). The protective clothing caused minimal adverse reactions, and excessive sweating (71.53%) was the most reported.

CONCLUSION

The healthcare workers wearing PPE for a prolonged period show significant adverse effects, so appropriate strategies should be taken to prevent the adverse effects by designing effective PPEs and education of preventive measures among healthcare workers.

HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE

Jose S, Cyriac MC, Dhandapani M. Health Problems and Skin Damages Caused by Personal Protective Equipment: Experience of Frontline Nurses Caring for Critical COVID-19 Patients in Intensive Care Units. Health Problems and Skin Damages Caused by Personal Protective Equipment: Experience of Frontline Nurses Caring for Critical COVID-19 Patients in Intensive Care Units. Indian J Crit Care Med 2021;25(2):134-139.

A General Framework to Test and Evaluate Filtering Facepiece Respirators Considered for Crisis Capacity Use as a Strategy to Optimize Supply

During a public health emergency, respirator shortages can have a profound impact on the national response, such as for the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Due to a severe shortage of respirators (particularly filtering facepiece respirators [FFRs]), there may be contexts in which understanding the performance of FFRs that are approved for use as part of a crisis capacity strategy is desired. This includes FFRs that are not covered under the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Respirator Approval Program because they have been stored past their designated shelf life, have been decontaminated, or are approved by international certification bodies other than NIOSH. The purpose of this document is to provide a general framework to assess the performance of FFRs that are only being used as a crisis capacity strategy. The intended audience are those who are responsible for managing large amounts of FFRs. This framework includes a four-step process consisting of: 1) defining the population of FFRs to be sampled; 2) providing sampling strategy options; 3) inspecting and testing the sampled units; and 4) evaluating the results. In addition to the four-step process, we provide an example of how NIOSH recently evaluated the quality of FFRs sampled from ten U.S. stockpiles.