Skin Reactions to Personal Protective Equipment among First-Line COVID-19 Healthcare Workers: A Survey in Northern Morocco

Impacts for health and care workers of Covid-19 and other public health emergencies of international concern: living systematic review, meta-analysis and policy recommendations

BACKGROUND

Health and care workers (HCW) faced the double burden of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: as members of a society affected by a public health emergency and as HWC who experienced fear of becoming infected and of infecting others, stigma, violence, increased workloads, changes in scope of practice, among others. To understand the short and long-term impacts in terms of the COVID-19 pandemic and other public health emergencies of international concern (PHEICs) on HCW and relevant interventions to address them, we designed and conducted a living systematic review (LSR).

METHODS

We reviewed literature retrieved from MEDLINE-PubMed, Embase, SCOPUS, LILACS, the World Health Organization COVID-19 database, the ClinicalTrials.org and the ILO database, published from January 2000 until December 2021. We included quantitative observational studies, experimental studies, quasi-experimental, mixed methods or qualitative studies; addressing mental, physical health and well-being and quality of life. The review targeted HCW; and interventions and exposures, implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic or other PHEICs. To assess the risk of bias of included studies, we used the Johanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Tools. Data were qualitatively synthetized using meta-aggregation and meta-analysis was performed to estimate pooled prevalence of some of the outcomes.

RESULTS

The 1013 studies included in the review were mainly quantitative research, cross-sectional, with medium risk of bias/quality, addressing at least one of the following: mental health issue, violence, physical health and well-being, and quality of life. Additionally, interventions to address short- and long-term impact of PHEICs on HCW included in the review, although scarce, were mainly behavioral and individual oriented, aimed at improving mental health through the development of individual interventions. A lack of interventions addressing organizational or systemic bottlenecks was noted.

DISCUSSION

PHEICs impacted the mental and physical health of HCW with the greatest toll on mental health. The impact PHEICs are intricate and complex. The review revealed the consequences for health and care service delivery, with increased unplanned absenteeism, service disruption and occupation turnover that subvert the capacity to answer to the PHEICs, specifically challenging the resilience of health systems.

Skin problems associated with using of personal protective equipment in COVID-19 intensive care units

BACKGROUND

Health care workers, who worked intensively during the COVID-19 pandemic, faced some problems, including skin problems, due to the personal protective equipment (PPE) they used to control the spread of infection.

AIMS

This study aimed to identify the skin problems because of using PPE by nurses during the delivery of health care in three COVID-19 intensive care units (ICUs) within one hospital service.

STUDY DESIGN

The study was designed as a cross-sectional survey. The study was conducted with nurses working in three intensive care units in the metropolitan districts of Ankara, Turkey. The data were collected online with a questionnaire developed by the researchers between December 2021 and June 2022.

RESULTS

In this study, 82/120 (68.33%) nurses responded to the questionnaire at least once during the distribution period. The mean of the duration of PPE utilization per each time including goggles, N95 mask, bonnet, face-shield, gloves, boots/shoe covers and coverall was 3.76 ± 1.36 h. The proportion of nurses who experienced any skin problem related to any PPE at least two or more was 74/82 (90.24%). The proportion of pressure sores, acne, skin reaction including allergic dermatitis or contact urticaria, and regional pain varied between 4.9% and 79.3%. The proportion of nurses who applied any protective application to prevent skin problems was 53.66%. Among the protective applications, pressure-reducing surfaces were used the most. The use of protective applications for goggles (p = .010), bonnet (p = .000) and face shield (p = .000) effectively reduced PPE-related skin problems.

CONCLUSION

During the pandemic, nurses faced a wide variety of skin problems because of PPEs. It may be beneficial to design a study programme that reduces the duration of PPEs use in clinics. In addition, there is a need for effective protective applications to prevent skin problems and new development of PPE that do not cause skin problems.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

In the pandemic, skin problems have developed because of the use of PPE in nurses who provide health care, intensively. These problems, which were not seen as a priority in the pandemic, may adversely affect the health of nurses, their performance in the treatment and care process and their work quality.

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.

Adverse Effects Faced by Healthcare Workers While Using Personal Protective Equipment During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad

Background Healthcare workers (HCWs) were compelled to use personal protective equipment (PPE) during the COVID-19 pandemic to prevent cross-transmission. One of the most significant challenges in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic is the consistent and effective use of PPE to avoid staff exposure and infection. This study aimed to detect and evaluate the adverse effects of PPE and determine the associated risk factors. Methodology This cross-sectional study included 186 randomly selected HCWs at Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad, from May 2022 to July 2022. An anonymous self-administered questionnaire was used for data collection, and data analysis was done using descriptive statistics. Results PPE-related adverse effects were noted among 147 HCWs, with a prevalence of 79.03%. Data analysis showed that factors significantly associated with PPE adverse effects in HCWs were age group 20-40 years (chi-squared (χ²) = 4.119, p = 0.04) and female gender (χ² = 7.153, p = 0.007). Overall, 30.8% of participants had tested positive while on duty during the pandemic. Similarly, adverse effects were associated with PPE use of more than four hours per day and more than three days per week (χ² = 5.477, p = 0.02 and χ² = 6.488, p = 0.01, respectively). The majority of HCWs expressed indentation and pain on the back of the ear (52.7%) and pressure-related injury (39.8%) as adverse effects after wearing masks; skin soaking in sweat (54.83%) due to gloves; profuse sweating due to gown (64.28%); fogging (65.26%) due to googles and face-shield; and discomfort (61.29%). Conclusions The prevalence of adverse effects related to wearing PPE was alarmingly high among HCWs. The major risk factors were age, female sex, and duration of use. Although the majority of healthcare personnel have received vaccinations, the use of PPE has not altered, and severe skin reactions continue to be a global issue with no known solution. To further understand the problem, national data for the impacted healthcare professionals could be helpful. Furthermore, workplace prevention programs are necessary.

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).

Influencing factors of medical device-related pressure ulcers in medical personnel during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the influencing factors of medical device related pressure injury (MDRPU) in medical staff by meta-analysis.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted by PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, VIP, CBM, and WanFang Data (from inception to July 27, 2022). Two researchers independently performed literature screening, quality evaluation and data extraction, and meta-analysis was conducted with RevMan 5.4 and Stata12.0 software.

RESULTS

Total of 11215 medical staff were included in 9 articles. Meta analysis showed that gender, occupation, sweating, wearing time, single working time, department of COVID-19, preventive measures, and level 3 PPE were the risk factors for MDRPU in medical staff (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The outbreak of COVID-19 led to the occurrence of MDRPU among medical staff, and the influencing factors should be focused on. The medical administrator can further improve and standardize the preventive measures of MDRPU according to the influencing factors. Medical staff should accurately identify high-risk factors in the clinical work process, implement intervention measures, and reduce the incidence of MDRPU.

Adverse effects of personnel protective equipment among first line COVID-19 healthcare professionals: A survey in Southern Tunisia

BACKGROUND

Health care professionals (HCP) were obliged to wear personal protective equipment (PPE) during pandemic in order to minimize the risk of transmission of the emerging virus. The objective of the study was to estimate the prevalence of adverse effects related to the wear of PPE among HCP and to determinate their predictive factors.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study including a representative sample of 300 randomized HCP at Hedi Chaker University Hospital Sfax, Tunisia, during the period August-September 2021. Data collection was carried out by an anonymous self-administered questionnaire.

RESULTS

PPE related adverse effects were noted among 87 HCP with a prevalence of 57.2%. Multivariate analysis showed that factors independently associated with PPE adverse effects were female gender (Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) = 1.8; p = 0.048), chronic diseases (AOR = 0.29; p = 0.001) and previous infection with COVID-19 (AOR = 0.46; p = 0.004). Frequent use of bleach or other disinfection product without protection and use of hot water at work were independently associated with a high risk of adverse effects ((AOR = 2.22; p = 0.003) and (AOR = 2.83; p = 0.005), respectively). Similarly, a duration of use of PPE>4 h per day (AOR = 1.98; p = 0.039), as well as use of visors and/or glasses (AOR = 1.84; p = 0.045) were independently associated with PPE related adverse effects.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of adverse effects related to the wear of PPE was alarmingly high among HCP. Multiple risk factors were highlighted, notably professional aspects. Adequate and repetitive training for caregivers on the correct use of PPE remain essential to manage this problem.

Facial dermatoses induced by face masks: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

The use of masks for infection control was common in the COVID-19 pandemic. As numerous cross-sectional studies have suggested a link between the use of such masks and various facial dermatoses, a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies was conducted to evaluate this association, as well as potential risk factors for the development of such facial dermatoses. Observational studies were searched for in MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register. Thirty-seven observational studies with a total of 29 557 study participants were identified. This study was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 checklist and quality was assessed via the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale., Overall prevalence of facial dermatoses was 55%. Individually, acne, facial dermatitis, itch and pressure injuries were consistently reported as facial dermatoses, with a pooled prevalence of 31%, 24%, 30% and 31%, respectively. Duration of mask-wear was the most significant risk factor for the development of facial dermatoses (95% CI: 1.31-1.54, p < 0.001). Overall, facial dermatoses associated with mask wear are common, and consist of distinct entities. They are related to duration of use. Appropriate and tailored treatment is important to improve the outcomes for these affected patients.

Prevalence and associated factors of COVID-19 among Moroccan physicians: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has emerged and spread rapidly worldwide and established a global public health crisis in early 2020. The first Moroccan case was reported on March 2, 2020. Since then, healthcare workers (HCWs) played a major role in saving human lives threatened by COVID-19. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of COVID-19 infection among Moroccan physicians and to report associated risk factors prior vaccination campaign.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was carried out in the Fez-Meknes region of Morocco, 545 physicians' data was collected using a self-reported online questionnaire. The data collection was done between December 1, 2020, and February 1, 2021.

RESULTS

The prevalence of COVID-19 among physicians was 27.3%. The mean age of the confirmed COVID-19 group was 38.4±12.9 years old. There was no association between COVID-19 infection and preventive measures compliance by physicians and healthcare authorities in the workplace. However, multivariate analysis strengthened the following factors such as increased risk of COVID-19 infection within men ☯aOR:1.896; 95% IC 1.272-2.828; p = 0.002]; the presence of at least one comorbidity ☯aOR:2.268; 95%IC 1.414-3.637; p = 0.001]; and working at a university or military hospitals ☯aOR:2.578; 95%IC 1.667-3.989; p = 0.001].

CONCLUSION

This study allows comparing COVID-19 prevalence among healthcare workers before and after vaccination programs. This should support better preparation strategy for any future pandemics with appropriate and increased awareness for men, carrying comorbidity, and working environment with high COVID-19 disease management.

The Evaluation of Physiological Index Changes and Safety Work of Female Medical Staff With Different Medical Protection Standards in the Ward of COVID-19

Background

Effective personal protective equipment (PPE) contribute to the prevention of COVID-19 infection. However, it is necessary to evaluate the potential risk of different medical protections in the isolation ward of COVID-19.

Objectives

We aimed to explore the dynamics in physiological indexes of medical staff under primary and secondary PPE in the isolation ward of COVID-19 and provide the scientific basis for determining the safe work strategy.

Materials and Methods

In this study, 30 female nurses were selected to simulate medical work under the primary or secondary PPE, respectively. The oral temperature, axillary temperature, heart rate, respiratory rate, blood oxygen saturation, and blood pressure were measured and recorded every 20 min. The subjective adverse symptoms were recorded every 30 min. The blood glucose and weight of the individuals were measured and recorded before and after the trial.

Results

The results indicated that the median trial persistence time in the participants with moderate-intensity work wearing the secondary PPE (70.0 min) was much lower than that with moderate-intensity work wearing the primary PPE (180 min) and with light-intensity work wearing the primary PPE (110 min; p < 0.05). Importantly, the heart rate, oral/axillary temperature, and respiratory rate of physiological indexes of the participants under moderate-intensity work wearing the secondary PPE increased significantly faster than the primary PPE (p < 0.001), while blood oxygen saturation decreased significantly faster than the primary PPE (p < 0.001). In addition, the proportions of subjective adverse symptoms (such as dry mouth, dizziness, palpitations, and anhelation) were much higher than primary PPE (p < 0.001). The average sweat volume and blood glucose consumption of participants under moderate-intensity work wearing primary PPE were higher than secondary PPE (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

The combination of an exacerbated workload and secondary PPE worn by COVID-19 healthcare workers increases the change in physiological indicators, and in some cases the adverse symptoms, which can affect and even suspend their medical work. For any medical institution, there is room for improvement in terms of bioethics of a "Job Well Done" to reduce the risks of medical activities under secondary PPE.

Utilization of a Mobile Multifunctional Workstation for Coronavirus Nasopharyngeal/Oropharyngeal Specimen Collection

Objectives

This study aimed to explore the utilization of a mobile multifunctional workstation for COVID-19 sample collection.

Methods

Twenty-four nurses and 150 individuals who took nucleic acid tests using mobile multifunctional workstations in Beijing Youan Hospital, Capital Medical University, from September to November 2020, were enrolled in the study as the observation group. As the control group, we included 36 nurses and 150 individuals who did not use the workstations from June to September 2020. We compared the two groups on (1) comfort of working environment, self-perceived security, the convenience of information system, operational process flexibility, pharyngeal acquisition visibility, and effectiveness of communication among nurses; and (2) self-perceived safety, waiting time, and overall satisfaction among individuals who took nucleic acid tests.

Results

The satisfaction score of nurses in the observation group of nurses were significantly higher than those of the control group (OR = 17.297 95% CI:4.294, 69.673), as well as the convenience of the information system (OR = 6.250 95% CI: 1.775, 22.008), and communication effectiveness (OR = 5.588 95% CI: 1.590, 19.646). Among individuals who took nucleic acid tests, the overall satisfaction (P < 0.05) and self-perceived security (P < 0.05) had statistical differences between the observation group and the control group.

Conclusions

The mobile multifunctional workstation for specimen collection could improve the comfort of the working environment, the convenience of information systems, and the effectiveness of communication among nurses.It can improve satisfaction and self-perceived security among people who took nucleic acid tests.

Skin-related problems associated with the use of personal protective equipment among health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: A online survey study

Aim

The aim of this study was to determine the skin-related problems caused by personal protective equipment (PPE) use in health care workers (HCWs) and to identify the factors contributing to their occurrence.

Materials and Methods

This descriptive and cross-sectional online survey study was carried out with 297 HCWs working in a university hospital in Turkey between March 20, 2021, and May 20, 2021. The study data was collected using an online questionnaire consisting of 3 parts. Descriptive statistics, Pearson's Chi-square, and Fisher's Exact Chi-square tests were used to analyze the data.

Results

Among the HCWs, 95.6% reported that skin-related problems associated with at least one PPE use. Skin-related problems that develop due to PPE use were mostly associated with the use of Surgical/N95 masks (97.1%) and gloves (96.8%). The most commonly reported problems were ''dryness'' (%74.0) and ''itching'' (%72.1) when wearing gloves, ''perspiration and moisture'' (73.6%), ''formation of equipment traces'' (53.9%), and ''skin lesions'' (52.8%) when wearing a surgical/N95 mask, ''perspiration and moisture'' (89.7%) when wearing protective overalls/gowns. Wearing PPE for more than 4h (p=0.001), taking additional precautions to increase the sense of protection (p=0.026), and not applying preventive measures while using PPE (p=0.003) significantly increase the risk of skin-related problems.

Conclusion

The results suggest that skin-related problems due to the use of PPE are common among HCWs.

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.