Common Behaviors and Faults When Doffing Personal Protective Equipment for Patients With Serious Communicable Diseases

Front-Line Health Care Workers' COVID-19 Infection Contamination Risks: A Human Factors and Risk Analysis Study of Personal Protective Equipment

Infectious risks escalate with complex donning and doffing personal protective equipment (PPE) protocols. Recent studies suggest that PPE donning and doffing behaviors that deviate from protocol during PPE reuse compounded the risks of health care worker (HCW) self-contamination. This study quantified the occurrence of behaviors associated with known risks in PPE use and reuse. We conducted a prospective study of emergency department HCWs and video-recorded PPE donning and doffing 5 times in simulated patient encounters. Trained coders recorded HCW behaviors according to an evidence-based guide. All 28 participants deviated from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) sanctioned donning and doffing protocol order, and most were documented to have (92.85%) self-contaminated at least once during each simulated clinical encounter. Behaviors that compounded self-contamination due to PPE reuse were also observed. Wide variation in PPE donning and doffing behaviors was found among front-line, experienced HCWs. Future work is needed to determine which deviations put HCWs at increased risk for accidental self-contamination and what changes are needed to the CDC protocol for protecting HCW from infections.

The PATH to PPE Mastery - Programme for Assessment and Training in HCID (High Consequence Infectious Diseases) PPE (Personal Protective Equipment), Mastery

Background

High Consequence Infectious Diseases (HCIDs), have the potential to cause pandemics and require particular focus for preparedness due to their high mortality rates. The application of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for HCIDs is complex and carries significant risk of Health Care Worker (HCW) contamination if done incorrectly. Previous reviews have reported a lack of information on the nature of training provided and the ideal timing of repeat training to best retain skills. Simulation Based Mastery Learning (SBML) is a methodology for skill acquisition which encompasses deliberate practice and repeated assessment until the learner achieves a pre-set Mastery standard. SBML has been demonstrated to improve competence, skill retention and patient outcomes in other clinical procedures. SBML has not been previously studied or utilised in HCID PPE training.

Aim

We aimed to increase the likelihood of safe clinical practice by evidencing that Lothian modified SBML for PPE effectively prepares our priority learners.

Methods

A quasi-experimental within group post-test design was used. Learners undertook a modified SBML programme which included two-hour asynchronous and two-hour synchronous components.

Findings

11 learners (10 infectious diseases registrars and 1 infectious diseases consultant) were enrolled in the programme with 8 completing all stages, all of whom achieved the Mastery passing standard. The resources were highly rated by learners with the exemplar videos of skills highlighted as particularly useful. Self-assessed preparedness for each skill increased following pre-learning and synchronous sessions.

Conclusion

Modified SBML can be used as an effective methodology for the training and assessment of HCWs in the donning and doffing of HCID PPE.

Healthcare design to improve safe doffing of personal protective equipment for care of patients with COVID-19

OBJECTIVE

Understand how the built environment can affect safety and efficiency outcomes during doffing of personal protective equipment (PPE) in the context of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patient care.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted (1) field observations and surveys administered to healthcare workers (HCWs) performing PPE doffing, (2) focus groups with HCWs and infection prevention experts, and (3) a with healthcare design experts.

SETTINGS

This study was conducted in 4 inpatient units treating patients with COVID-19, in 3 hospitals of a single healthcare system.

PARTICIPANTS

The study included 24 nurses, 2 physicians, 1 respiratory therapist, and 2 infection preventionists.

RESULTS

The doffing task sequence and the layout of doffing spaces varied considerably across sites, with field observations showing most doffing tasks occurring around the patient room door and PPE support stations. Behaviors perceived as most risky included touching contaminated items and inadequate hand hygiene. Doffing space layout and types of PPE storage and work surfaces were often associated with inadequate cleaning and improper storage of PPE. Focus groups and the design charrette provided insights on how design affording standardization, accessibility, and flexibility can support PPE doffing safety and efficiency in this context.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need to define, organize and standardize PPE doffing spaces in healthcare settings and to understand the environmental implications of COVID-19-specific issues related to supply shortage and staff workload. Low-effort and low-cost design adaptations of the layout and design of PPE doffing spaces may improve HCW safety and efficiency in existing healthcare facilities.

Electronic monitoring of doffing using video surveillance to minimise error rate and increase safety at Howard Springs International Quarantine Facility

Background

Safe donning and doffing of personal protective equipment (PPE) are critical to prevent transmission of infectious diseases. Novel strategies to improve infection prevention and control (IPC) adherence can optimise safety. We describe and quantify video surveillance of doffing at an outdoor hotel quarantine facility led by the Australian Medical Assistance Team in the Northern Territory, Australia.

Methods

Motion-activated video cameras were installed in seven areas where personnel doffed PPE upon exit from an area dedicated to quarantined residents. Video footage was reviewed daily and compliance issues were identified using a standardised checklist and risk graded to initiate feedback. We collated audit data from 1 February to 18 April 2021 to describe trends by month, staff group, doffing component and risk.

Results

In 235 h of video footage, 364 compliance issues were identified, of which none were considered high-risk compromising to PPE integrity. Compliance issues were low risk (55/364, 15%) or moderate risk (309/364, 85%) and the most common issue was missed or inadequate hand hygiene (156/364, 43%). Compliance issues per minute of video footage reviewed decreased following introduction of the activity, from 24 per 1000 in February to 7 per 1000 in March and April.

Conclusion

Video surveillance with feedback supported rapid response to improve IPC adherence in a challenging ambient environment. The activity focused on perfection to identify compliance issues that would go unreported in most healthcare settings and contributed to a suit of activities that prevented any high-risk PPE breaches or compromises to safety.

Resilience and Protection of Health Care and Research Laboratory Workers During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic: Analysis and Case Study From an Austrian High Security Laboratory

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has highlighted the interdependency of healthcare systems and research organizations on manufacturers and suppliers of personnel protective equipment (PPE) and the need for well-trained personnel who can react quickly to changing working conditions. Reports on challenges faced by research laboratory workers (RLWs) are rare in contrast to the lived experience of hospital health care workers. We report on experiences gained by RLWs (e.g., molecular scientists, pathologists, autopsy assistants) who significantly contributed to combating the pandemic under particularly challenging conditions due to increased workload, sickness and interrupted PPE supply chains. RLWs perform a broad spectrum of work with SARS-CoV-2 such as autopsies, establishment of virus cultures and infection models, development and verification of diagnostics, performance of virus inactivation assays to investigate various antiviral agents including vaccines and evaluation of decontamination technologies in high containment biological laboratories (HCBL). Performance of autopsies and laboratory work increased substantially during the pandemic and thus led to highly demanding working conditions with working shifts of more than eight hours working in PPE that stressed individual limits and also the ergonomic and safety limits of PPE. We provide detailed insights into the challenges of the stressful daily laboratory routine since the pandemic began, lessons learned, and suggest solutions for better safety based on a case study of a newly established HCBL (i.e., BSL-3 laboratory) designed for autopsies and research laboratory work. Reduced personal risk, increased resilience, and stress resistance can be achieved by improved PPE components, better training, redundant safety measures, inculcating a culture of safety, and excellent teamwork.

Impact of Infection Control Education on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Procedural Staff

To date, minimal research has been conducted on proper use of personal protective equipment and hand hygiene within endoscopy. The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy has developed guidelines for infection control within the endoscopy suite. A practice change based upon these guidelines was implemented. Education was provided to endoscopy procedural staff within a Midwestern hospital based upon the World Health Organization 5 Moments for Hand Hygiene initiative and included personal protective equipment. Knowledge, skills, and attitudes of the participant group were compared from paired pre- to posteducation surveys pertaining to hand hygiene and personal protective equipment. Observation of personal protective equipment use and hand hygiene implementation during procedures was also documented pre- to posteducation. The project results revealed both willingness to implement proper donning and doffing of personal protective equipment and improved technique as evidenced by improved observed technique with the endoscopy suite and moderately improved hand hygiene questionnaire results. Although conducted as a quality improvement project, clinical significance was found via observation following education. These practices can aid in reduction of organism transmission from patients to staff.

Déjà Vu: Coronaviruses and Transmission in Health Care Settings

Klompas and colleagues report an investigation of a SARS-CoV-2 cluster in an acute care hospital with transmission between patients and staff. The editorialists remind us of the need to reinforce and reeducate to improve practice of and adherence to important strategies that protect the entire health care ecosystem.

Impact of Face-to-Face Teaching in Addition to Electronic Learning on Personal Protective Equipment Doffing Proficiency in Student Paramedics: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought attention to the importance of correctly using personal protective equipment (PPE). Doffing is a critical phase that increases the risk of contamination of health care workers. Although a gamified electronic learning (e-learning) module has been shown to increase the adequate choice of PPE among prehospital personnel, it failed to enhance knowledge regarding donning and doffing sequences. Adding other training modalities such as face-to-face training to these e-learning tools is therefore necessary to increase prehospital staff proficiency and thus help reduce the risk of contamination.

Objective

The aim of this study is to assess the impact of the Peyton 4-step approach in addition to a gamified e-learning module for teaching the PPE doffing sequence to first-year paramedic students.

Methods

Participants will first follow a gamified e-learning module before being randomized into one of two groups. In the control group, participants will be asked to perform a PPE doffing sequence, which will be video-recorded to allow for subsequent assessment. In the experimental group, participants will first undergo face-to-face training performed by third-year students using the Peyton 4-step approach before performing the doffing sequence themselves, which will also be video-recorded. All participants will then be asked to reconstruct the doffing sequence on an online platform. The recorded sequences will be assessed independently by two investigators: a prehospital emergency medicine expert and an infection prevention and control specialist. The assessors will be blinded to group allocation. Four to eight weeks after this first intervention, all participants will be asked to record the doffing sequence once again for a subsequent skill retention assessment and to reconstruct the sequence on the same online platform to assess knowledge retention. Finally, participants belonging to the control group will follow face-to-face training.

Results

The study protocol has been presented to the regional ethics committee (Req-2020-01340), which issued a declaration of no objection as such projects do not fall within the scope of the Swiss federal law on human research. Study sessions were performed in January and February 2021 in Geneva, and will be performed in April and June 2021 in Bern.

Conclusions

This study should help to determine whether face-to-face training using the Peyton 4-step approach improves the application and knowledge retention of a complex procedure when combined with an e-learning module.

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/26927

Roadmap: one anesthesiology department's strategic approach to COVID-19

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The COVID-19 pandemic has driven transformation in every aspect of the healthcare delivery system. The unpredictable onset and magnitude of COVID-19 infections resulted in wide gaps in preparedness for healthcare systems. The development of protocols to address both scarcity of resources and staff protection continues to be essential for risk mitigation.

RECENT FINDINGS

The northeast region of the United States had a rapid early surge of COVID-19 infections leading to the exhaustion of critical care capacity. In addition, northeastern hospitals experienced decrease in elective surgical interventions, including organ transplantation. Limited availability of COVID-19 testing and personal protective equipment further fueled the pandemic. This commentary highlights a comprehensive innovative approach to addressing the operating room and hospital demands, as well as the shortages in resources and staffing during the pandemic.

SUMMARY

The VCU Department of Anesthesiology operated at 40% of its regular operating room volume throughout the COVID-19 pandemic because of the increased demand from emergency cases. The delay in the peak surge allowed Virginia Commonwealth University, Department of Anesthesiology to develop a comprehensive infrastructure resulting in resulting is maximal workforce risk mitigation.

Performance and impact of disposable and reusable respirators for healthcare workers during pandemic respiratory disease: a rapid evidence review

OBJECTIVES

To synthesise evidence concerning the range of filtering respirators suitable for patient care and guide the selection and use of different respirator types.

DESIGN

Comparative analysis of international standards for respirators and rapid review of their performance and impact in healthcare.

DATA SOURCES

Websites of international standards organisations, Medline and Embase, hand-searching of references and citations.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies of healthcare workers (including students) using disposable or reusable respirators with a range of designs. We examined respirator performance, clinician adherence and performance, comfort and impact, and perceptions of use.

RESULTS

We included standards from eight authorities across Europe, North and South America, Asia and Australasia and 39 research studies. There were four main findings. First, international standards for respirators apply across workplace settings and are broadly comparable across jurisdictions. Second, effective and safe respirator use depends on proper fitting and fit testing. Third, all respirator types carry a burden to the user of discomfort and interference with communication which may limit their safe use over long periods; studies suggest that they have little impact on specific clinical skills in the short term but there is limited evidence on the impact of prolonged wearing. Finally, some clinical activities, particularly chest compressions, reduce the performance of filtering facepiece respirators.

CONCLUSION

A wide range of respirator types and models is available for use in patient care during respiratory pandemics. Careful consideration of performance and impact of respirators is needed to maximise protection of healthcare workers and minimise disruption to care.

Diagnosis and Management of First Case of COVID-19 in Canada: Lessons Applied From SARS-CoV-1

We report diagnosis and management of the first laboratory-confirmed case of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) hospitalized in Toronto, Canada. No healthcare-associated transmission occurred. In the face of a potential pandemic of COVID-19, we suggest sustainable and scalable control measures developed based on lessons learned from severe acute respiratory syndrome.

Identifying and Implementing Strategies to Reduce the Risk of Self-Contamination of Health Care Workers Caused by Doffing of Personal Protective Equipment During the COVID-19 Pandemic

During the current coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, it is estimated that tens of thousands of health care workers have been infected. The doffing of personal protective equipment (PPE) has been identified an important place and procedure that might influence the self-contamination of health care workers. More recent evidence suggests that, in addition to existing infection control standards, there is an urgent need for the incorporation of various recent information and advancements pertaining to structure and process to reduce the self-contamination of health care workers during the doffing of PPE.

Mastery Learning Ensures Correct Personal Protective Equipment Use in Simulated Clinical Encounters of COVID-19

INTRODUCTION

The correct use of personal protective equipment (PPE) limits transmission of serious communicable diseases to healthcare workers, which is critically important in the era of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, prior studies illustrated that healthcare workers frequently err during application and removal of PPE. The goal of this study was to determine whether a simulation-based, mastery learning intervention with deliberate practice improves correct use of PPE by physicians during a simulated clinical encounter with a COVID-19 patient.

METHODS

This was a pretest-posttest study performed in the emergency department at a large, academic tertiary care hospital between March 31-April 8, 2020. A total of 117 subjects participated, including 56 faculty members and 61 resident physicians. Prior to the intervention, all participants received institution-mandated education on PPE use via an online video and supplemental materials. Participants completed a pretest skills assessment using a 21-item checklist of steps to correctly don and doff PPE. Participants were expected to meet a minimum passing score (MPS) of 100%, determined by an expert panel using the Mastery Angoff and Patient Safety standard-setting techniques. Participants that met the MPS on pretest were exempt from the educational intervention. Testing occurred before and after an in-person demonstration of proper donning and doffing techniques and 20 minutes of deliberate practice. The primary outcome was a change in assessment scores of correct PPE use following our educational intervention. Secondary outcomes included differences in performance scores between faculty members and resident physicians, and differences in performance during donning vs doffing sequences.

RESULTS

All participants had a mean pretest score of 73.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70.9-75.3%). Faculty member and resident pretest scores were similar (75.1% vs 71.3%, p = 0.082). Mean pretest doffing scores were lower than donning scores across all participants (65.8% vs 82.8%, p<0.001). Participant scores increased 26.9% (95% CI of the difference 24.7-29.1%, p<0.001) following our educational intervention resulting in all participants meeting the MPS of 100%.

CONCLUSION

A mastery learning intervention with deliberate practice ensured the correct use of PPE by physician subjects in a simulated clinical encounter of a COVID-19 patient. Further study of translational outcomes is needed.

Human Factor Considerations in Using Personal Protective Equipment in the COVID-19 Pandemic Context: Binational Survey Study

Background

Full level 1 personal protective equipment (PPE) is used in various domains and contexts. Prior research has shown influences of such equipment on performance, comfort, and contamination levels. The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic forced a pervasive requirement of PPE, with little preparation, rushed deployment, inadequate time for training, and massive use by personnel who are inexperienced or not qualified in its effective use.

Objective

This study aims to examine the key human factors (physical and ergonomic, perceptual and cognitive) that influence the use of level 1 PPE when attending to patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.

Methods

The research approach consisted of a short survey disseminated to health care professionals in two countries, Israel and Portugal, with similar demographics and health care systems. The survey included 10 items with a 5-point Likert scale regarding the key human factors involved in level 1 PPE, as identified in prior research.

Results

A total of 722 respondents from Israel and 301 respondents from Portugal were included in the analysis. All the respondents reported using level 1 PPE with patients with COVID-19 in the range of several hours daily to several hours weekly. The Cronbach α was .73 for Israel and .75 for Portugal. Responses showed high levels of difficulty, with medians of 4 for items related to discomfort (n=539/688, 78% in Israel; n=328/377, 87% in Portugal), hearing (n=236/370, 64% in Portugal; n=321/642, 50% in Israel), seeing (n=697/763, 89% in Israel; n=317/376, 84% in Portugal), and doffing (n=290/374, 77% in Portugal; n=315/713, 44% in Israel). A factor analysis showed a set of strongly related variables consisting of hearing, understanding speech, and understanding the situation. This suggests that degradation in communication was strongly associated with degradation in situational awareness. A subsequent mediation analysis showed a direct effect of PPE discomfort on situational awareness (P<.001); this was also influenced (mediated) by difficulties in communicating, namely in hearing and understanding speech.

Conclusions

In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic is paving the way for updating PPE design. The use of already deployed technology affords ample opportunities to improve, adapt, and overcome caveats. The findings here suggest that the use of level 1 PPE with patients with COVID-19 has perceptual and cognitive effects, in addition to physical and ergonomic influences. Efforts should be taken to mitigate the harmful effects of such influences, both regarding the performance of medical actions and the risk of contamination to health care workers. Such efforts involve the design of PPE; the introduction of technologies to enhance vision, hearing, and communicating during the use of PPE; and training staff in using the equipment and in effective communication and teamwork protocols.

Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff

BACKGROUND

In epidemics of highly infectious diseases, such as Ebola, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), or coronavirus (COVID-19), healthcare workers (HCW) are at much greater risk of infection than the general population, due to their contact with patients' contaminated body fluids. Personal protective equipment (PPE) can reduce the risk by covering exposed body parts. It is unclear which type of PPE protects best, what is the best way to put PPE on (i.e. donning) or to remove PPE (i.e. doffing), and how to train HCWs to use PPE as instructed.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate which type of full-body PPE and which method of donning or doffing PPE have the least risk of contamination or infection for HCW, and which training methods increase compliance with PPE protocols.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL to 20 March 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all controlled studies that evaluated the effect of full-body PPE used by HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases, on the risk of infection, contamination, or noncompliance with protocols. We also included studies that compared the effect of various ways of donning or doffing PPE, and the effects of training on the same outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in included trials. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses were appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

Earlier versions of this review were published in 2016 and 2019. In this update, we included 24 studies with 2278 participants, of which 14 were randomised controlled trials (RCT), one was a quasi-RCT and nine had a non-randomised design. Eight studies compared types of PPE. Six studies evaluated adapted PPE. Eight studies compared donning and doffing processes and three studies evaluated types of training. Eighteen studies used simulated exposure with fluorescent markers or harmless microbes. In simulation studies, median contamination rates were 25% for the intervention and 67% for the control groups. Evidence for all outcomes is of very low certainty unless otherwise stated because it is based on one or two studies, the indirectness of the evidence in simulation studies and because of risk of bias. Types of PPE The use of a powered, air-purifying respirator with coverall may protect against the risk of contamination better than a N95 mask and gown (risk ratio (RR) 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.43) but was more difficult to don (non-compliance: RR 7.5, 95% CI 1.81 to 31.1). In one RCT (59 participants) coveralls were more difficult to doff than isolation gowns (very low-certainty evidence). Gowns may protect better against contamination than aprons (small patches: mean difference (MD) -10.28, 95% CI -14.77 to -5.79). PPE made of more breathable material may lead to a similar number of spots on the trunk (MD 1.60, 95% CI -0.15 to 3.35) compared to more water-repellent material but may have greater user satisfaction (MD -0.46, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.08, scale of 1 to 5). According to three studies that tested more recently introduced full-body PPE ensembles, there may be no difference in contamination. Modified PPE versus standard PPE The following modifications to PPE design may lead to less contamination compared to standard PPE: sealed gown and glove combination (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.78), a better fitting gown around the neck, wrists and hands (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.55), a better cover of the gown-wrist interface (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.78, low-certainty evidence), added tabs to grab to facilitate doffing of masks (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.80) or gloves (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.31). Donning and doffing Using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations for doffing may lead to less contamination compared to no guidance (small patches: MD -5.44, 95% CI -7.43 to -3.45). One-step removal of gloves and gown may lead to less bacterial contamination (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.77) but not to less fluorescent contamination (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28) than separate removal. Double-gloving may lead to less viral or bacterial contamination compared to single gloving (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.66) but not to less fluorescent contamination (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28). Additional spoken instruction may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -0.9, 95% CI -1.4 to -0.4) and to fewer contamination spots (MD -5, 95% CI -8.08 to -1.92). Extra sanitation of gloves before doffing with quaternary ammonium or bleach may decrease contamination, but not alcohol-based hand rub. Training The use of additional computer simulation may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -1.2, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.7). A video lecture on donning PPE may lead to better skills scores (MD 30.70, 95% CI 20.14 to 41.26) than a traditional lecture. Face-to-face instruction may reduce noncompliance with doffing guidance more (odds ratio 0.45, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.98) than providing folders or videos only.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low- to very low-certainty evidence that covering more parts of the body leads to better protection but usually comes at the cost of more difficult donning or doffing and less user comfort. More breathable types of PPE may lead to similar contamination but may have greater user satisfaction. Modifications to PPE design, such as tabs to grab, may decrease the risk of contamination. For donning and doffing procedures, following CDC doffing guidance, a one-step glove and gown removal, double-gloving, spoken instructions during doffing, and using glove disinfection may reduce contamination and increase compliance. Face-to-face training in PPE use may reduce errors more than folder-based training. We still need RCTs of training with long-term follow-up. We need simulation studies with more participants to find out which combinations of PPE and which doffing procedure protects best. Consensus on simulation of exposure and assessment of outcome is urgently needed. We also need more real-life evidence. Therefore, the use of PPE of HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases should be registered and the HCW should be prospectively followed for their risk of infection.

COVID-19 and endoscopy services in intermediately affected countries: a position statement from the saudi gastroenterology association

With the global pandemic due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), there has been a significant strain on healthcare facilities. The infectivity rate, as well as the rate of healthcare workers who have fallen ill to the disease, has raised concerns globally on the proper management of patients as well as the role of safe healthcare provision utilizing personal protective equipment (PPE). Furthermore, the limited supply of PPEs has mandated rationing their use to achieve maximum utility and preservation. Multiple gastroenterology associations have issued guidance and statements that would help healthcare providers in navigating these unprecedented and difficult times, and the Saudi Gastroenterology Association has provided this statement in an effort to bring the most up to date information for the management of endoscopy units in terms of resources, manpower planning, scheduling, as well as infection control policies and leadership.

Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff

BACKGROUND

In epidemics of highly infectious diseases, such as Ebola, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), or coronavirus (COVID-19), healthcare workers (HCW) are at much greater risk of infection than the general population, due to their contact with patients' contaminated body fluids. Personal protective equipment (PPE) can reduce the risk by covering exposed body parts. It is unclear which type of PPE protects best, what is the best way to put PPE on (i.e. donning) or to remove PPE (i.e. doffing), and how to train HCWs to use PPE as instructed.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate which type of full-body PPE and which method of donning or doffing PPE have the least risk of contamination or infection for HCW, and which training methods increase compliance with PPE protocols.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL to 20 March 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all controlled studies that evaluated the effect of full-body PPE used by HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases, on the risk of infection, contamination, or noncompliance with protocols. We also included studies that compared the effect of various ways of donning or doffing PPE, and the effects of training on the same outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in included trials. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses were appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

Earlier versions of this review were published in 2016 and 2019. In this update, we included 24 studies with 2278 participants, of which 14 were randomised controlled trials (RCT), one was a quasi-RCT and nine had a non-randomised design. Eight studies compared types of PPE. Six studies evaluated adapted PPE. Eight studies compared donning and doffing processes and three studies evaluated types of training. Eighteen studies used simulated exposure with fluorescent markers or harmless microbes. In simulation studies, median contamination rates were 25% for the intervention and 67% for the control groups. Evidence for all outcomes is of very low certainty unless otherwise stated because it is based on one or two studies, the indirectness of the evidence in simulation studies and because of risk of bias. Types of PPE The use of a powered, air-purifying respirator with coverall may protect against the risk of contamination better than a N95 mask and gown (risk ratio (RR) 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.43) but was more difficult to don (non-compliance: RR 7.5, 95% CI 1.81 to 31.1). In one RCT (59 participants), people with a long gown had less contamination than those with a coverall, and coveralls were more difficult to doff (low-certainty evidence). Gowns may protect better against contamination than aprons (small patches: mean difference (MD) -10.28, 95% CI -14.77 to -5.79). PPE made of more breathable material may lead to a similar number of spots on the trunk (MD 1.60, 95% CI -0.15 to 3.35) compared to more water-repellent material but may have greater user satisfaction (MD -0.46, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.08, scale of 1 to 5). Modified PPE versus standard PPE The following modifications to PPE design may lead to less contamination compared to standard PPE: sealed gown and glove combination (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.78), a better fitting gown around the neck, wrists and hands (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.55), a better cover of the gown-wrist interface (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.78, low-certainty evidence), added tabs to grab to facilitate doffing of masks (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.80) or gloves (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.31). Donning and doffing Using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations for doffing may lead to less contamination compared to no guidance (small patches: MD -5.44, 95% CI -7.43 to -3.45). One-step removal of gloves and gown may lead to less bacterial contamination (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.77) but not to less fluorescent contamination (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28) than separate removal. Double-gloving may lead to less viral or bacterial contamination compared to single gloving (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.66) but not to less fluorescent contamination (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28). Additional spoken instruction may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -0.9, 95% CI -1.4 to -0.4) and to fewer contamination spots (MD -5, 95% CI -8.08 to -1.92). Extra sanitation of gloves before doffing with quaternary ammonium or bleach may decrease contamination, but not alcohol-based hand rub. Training The use of additional computer simulation may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -1.2, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.7). A video lecture on donning PPE may lead to better skills scores (MD 30.70, 95% CI 20.14 to 41.26) than a traditional lecture. Face-to-face instruction may reduce noncompliance with doffing guidance more (odds ratio 0.45, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.98) than providing folders or videos only.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low- to very low-certainty evidence that covering more parts of the body leads to better protection but usually comes at the cost of more difficult donning or doffing and less user comfort, and may therefore even lead to more contamination. More breathable types of PPE may lead to similar contamination but may have greater user satisfaction. Modifications to PPE design, such as tabs to grab, may decrease the risk of contamination. For donning and doffing procedures, following CDC doffing guidance, a one-step glove and gown removal, double-gloving, spoken instructions during doffing, and using glove disinfection may reduce contamination and increase compliance. Face-to-face training in PPE use may reduce errors more than folder-based training. We still need RCTs of training with long-term follow-up. We need simulation studies with more participants to find out which combinations of PPE and which doffing procedure protects best. Consensus on simulation of exposure and assessment of outcome is urgently needed. We also need more real-life evidence. Therefore, the use of PPE of HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases should be registered and the HCW should be prospectively followed for their risk of infection.

Effect of an Intervention Package and Teamwork Training to Prevent Healthcare Personnel Self-contamination During Personal Protective Equipment Doffing

BACKGROUND

More than 28 000 people were infected with Ebola virus during the 2014-2015 West African outbreak, resulting in more than 11 000 deaths. Better methods are needed to reduce the risk of self-contamination while doffing personal protective equipment (PPE) to prevent pathogen transmission.

METHODS

A set of interventions based on previously identified failure modes was designed to mitigate the risk of self- contamination during PPE doffing. These interventions were tested in a randomized controlled trial of 48 participants with no prior experience doffing enhanced PPE. Contamination was simulated using a fluorescent tracer slurry and fluorescent polystyrene latex spheres (PLSs). Self-contamination of scrubs and skin was measured using ultraviolet light visualization and swabbing followed by microscopy, respectively. Doffing sessions were videotaped and reviewed to score standardized teamwork behaviors.

RESULTS

Participants in the intervention group contaminated significantly fewer body sites than those in the control group (median [interquartile range], 6 [3-8] vs 11 [6-13], P = .002). The median contamination score was lower for the intervention group than the control group when measured by ultraviolet light visualization (23.15 vs 64.45, P = .004) and PLS swabbing (72.4 vs 144.8, P = .001). The mean teamwork score was greater in the intervention group (42.2 vs 27.5, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

An intervention package addressing the PPE doffing task, tools, environment, and teamwork skills significantly reduced the amount of self-contamination by study participants. These elements can be incorporated into PPE guidance and training to reduce the risk of pathogen transmission.

Improving the Use of Personal Protective Equipment: Applying Lessons Learned

Unrecognized transmission of pathogens in healthcare settings can lead to colonization and infection of both patients and healthcare personnel. The use of personal protective equipment (PPE) is an important strategy to protect healthcare personnel from contamination and to prevent the spread of pathogens to subsequent patients. However, optimal PPE use is difficult, and healthcare personnel may alter delivery of care because of the PPE. Here, we summarize recent research from the Prevention Epicenters Program on healthcare personnel contamination and improvement of the routine use of PPE as well as Ebola-specific PPE. Future efforts to optimize the use of PPE should include increasing adherence to protocols for PPE use, improving PPE design, and further research into the risks, benefits, and best practices of PPE use.