Moderate Thermal Strain in Healthcare Workers Wearing Personal Protective Equipment During Treatment and Care Activities in the Context of the 2014 Ebola Virus Disease Outbreak

Literature review of physiological strain of personal protective equipment on personnel in the high-consequence infectious disease isolation environment

BACKGROUND

Heat strain and dehydration can affect an individual's physical and mental performance. The purpose of this review was to examine the literature for the impact of heat strain on health care workers (HCWs) who care for patients with high-consequence infectious diseases (HCIDs) while wearing personal protective equipment (PPE), discuss the risks of impaired safety caused by heat strain and dehydration in HCID environments, identify attempts to combat PPE-related heat strain, recognize limitations, and provide suggestions for further research.

METHODS

A literature search was performed in PubMed or MEDLINE and Google Scholar. Authors screened abstracts for inclusion criteria and reviewed articles if the abstracts were considered to include information relevant to the aim.

RESULTS

The search terms yielded 30 articles that were sorted based on environment setting, physiological impact, and interventions.

DISCUSSION

The safety of the HCWs and patients can be enhanced through the development and usage of cooler, more comfortable PPE materials and ensembles to help slow the rate of dehydration and support the regulation of core body temperature.

CONCLUSIONS

Heat strain caused by wearing PPE is an occupational health concern for HCWs in the high-risk environment, that is, HCID care. Future studies are needed to develop innovative PPE ensembles that can reduce heat strain and improve well-being.

Investigating the short-term effects of using full-body hospital personal protective equipment and changes in physical workload intensity on human physiological and cognitive performance

The present study investigated the short-term effects of using Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and physical workload intensity on human physiological and cognitive performance among 21 males and 19 females. PPE1 consisted of a medical coverall and surgical mask, while PPE2 consisted of impermeable full-body coverall, shoe covers, latex gloves, N95 mask, and face shield. Objective assessments were heart rate, energy expenditure, core body temperature, clothing microclimate temperature and humidity, and cognitive performance were the continuous performance test and N-Back test. Subjective assessments included thermal sensation, perceived fatigue/skin wetness/clothing moisture. Using PPE2 and increased workload intensity significantly increased the values of all physiological parameters and the subjective ratings of fatigue, thermal sensation, skin wetness, and clothing moisture. Moreover, the participants' cognitive performance was not affected by the type of PPE.Practitioner summary: Healthcare workers are at the highest risk in the fight against pandemics. Therefore, these people are required to use personal protective equipment. Using this equipment may have difficulties. The results show physiological strain and higher subjective ratings associated with using full-body hospital PPE and increased physical workload.

Thermophysiological and Perceptual Responses of Amateur Healthcare Workers: Impacts of Ambient Condition, Inner-Garment Insulation and Personal Cooling Strategy

While personal protective equipment (PPE) protects healthcare workers from viruses, it also increases the risk of heat stress. In this study, the effects of environmental heat stress, the insulation of the PPE inner-garment layer, and the personal cooling strategy on the physiological and perceptual responses of PPE-clad young college students were evaluated. Three levels of wet bulb globe temperatures (WBGT = 15 °C, 28 °C, and 32 °C) and two types of inner garments (0.37 clo and 0.75 clo) were chosen for this study. In an uncompensable heat stress environment (WBGT = 32 °C), the effects of two commercially available personal cooling systems, including a ventilation cooling system (VCS) and an ice pack cooling system (ICS) on the heat strain mitigation of PPE-clad participants were also assessed. At WBGT = 15 °C with 0.75 clo inner garments, mean skin temperatures were stabilized at 31.2 °C, H_skin was 60-65%, and HR was about 75.5 bpm, indicating that the working scenario was on the cooler side. At WBGT = 28 °C, T_skin plateaued at approximately 34.7 °C, and the participants reported "hot" thermal sensations. The insulation reduction in inner garments from 0.75 clo to 0.37 clo did not significantly improve the physiological thermal comfort of the participants. At WBGT = 32 °C, T_skin was maintained at 35.2-35.7 °C, H_skin was nearly 90% RH, T_core exceeded 37.1 °C, and the mean HR was 91.9 bpm. These conditions indicated that such a working scenario was uncompensable, and personal cooling to mitigate heat stress was required. Relative to that in NCS (no cooling), the mean skin temperatures in ICS and VCS were reduced by 0.61 °C and 0.22 °C, respectively, and the heart rates were decreased by 10.7 and 8.5 bpm, respectively. Perceptual responses in ICS and VCS improved significantly throughout the entire field trials, with VCS outperforming ICS in the individual cooling effect.

Reversible Hydration Composite Films for Evaporative Perspiration Control and Heat Stress Management

Donning of personal protective equipment (PPE) in the healthcare sector has been intensified by the on-going COVID-19 pandemic around the globe. While extensive PPE provides protection, it typically limits moisture permeability and severely hinders the sweat evaporation process, resulting in greater heat stress on the personnel. Herein, a zinc-poly(vinyl alcohol) (Zn-PVA) composite film is fabricated by embedding a super-hygroscopic zinc-ethanolamine complex (Zn-complex) in the PVA matrix. By attaching the Zn-PVA composite film, the relative humidity (RH) inside the protective suit decreases from 91.0% to 48.2%. The reduced RH level, in turn, enhances evaporative cooling, hence bringing down the heat index from 64.6 to 40.0 °C at an air temperature of 35 °C, remarkably lowering the likelihood of heat stroke. The American Society for Testing and Materials tests conducted on a sweating manikin have also proven that the Zn-PVA composite films can significantly reduce the evaporative resistance of the protective suit by 90%. The low material cost, facile fabrication process, and reusability allow the Zn-PVA composition films to be readily available for healthcare workers worldwide. This application can be further extended to other occupations that are facing severe thermal discomfort and heat stress.

Establishing Healthcare Worker Performance and Safety in Providing Critical Care for Patients in a Simulated Ebola Treatment Unit: Non-Randomized Pilot Study

Improving the provision of supportive care for patients with Ebola is an important quality improvement initiative. We designed a simulated Ebola Treatment Unit (ETU) to assess performance and safety of healthcare workers (HCWs) performing tasks wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) in hot (35 °C, 60% relative humidity) or thermo-neutral (20 °C, 20% relative humidity) conditions. In this pilot phase to determine the feasibility of study procedures, HCWs in PPE were non-randomly allocated to hot or thermo-neutral conditions to perform peripheral intravenous (PIV) and midline catheter (MLC) insertion and endotracheal intubation (ETI) on mannequins. Eighteen HCWs (13 physicians, 4 nurses, 1 nurse practitioner; 2 with prior ETU experience; 10 in hot conditions) spent 69 (10) (mean (SD)) minutes in the simulated ETU. Mean (SD) task completion times were 16 (6) min for PIV insertion; 33 (5) min for MLC insertion; and 16 (8) min for ETI. Satisfactory task completion was numerically higher for physicians vs. nurses. Participants’ blood pressure was similar, but heart rate was higher (p = 0.0005) post-simulation vs. baseline. Participants had a median (range) of 2.0 (0.0–10.0) minor PPE breaches, 2.0 (0.0–6.0) near-miss incidents, and 2.0 (0.0–6.0) health symptoms and concerns. There were eight health-assessment triggers in five participants, of whom four were in hot conditions. We terminated the simulation of two participants in hot conditions due to thermal discomfort. In summary, study tasks were suitable for physician participants, but they require redesign to match nurses’ expertise for the subsequent randomized phase of the study. One-quarter of participants had a health-assessment trigger. This research model may be useful in future training and research regarding clinical care for patients with highly infectious pathogens in austere settings.

Impact of Personal Cooling on Performance, Comfort and Heat Strain of Healthcare Workers in PPE, a Study From West Africa

Background: Personal protective equipment (PPE) is an essential component of safely treating suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 patients. PPE acts as a barrier to heat loss, therefore increasing the risk of thermal strain which may impact on cognitive function. Healthcare workers (HCWs) need to be able to prioritize and execute complex tasks effectively to ensure patient safety. This study evaluated pre-cooling and per-cooling methods on thermal strain, thermal comfort and cognitive function during simulated emergency management of an acutely unwell patient. Methods: This randomized controlled crossover trial was run at the Clinical Services Department of the Medical Research Unit The Gambia. Each participant attended two sessions (Cool and Control) in standard PPE. Cool involved pre-cooling with an ice slurry ingestion and per-cooling by wearing an ice-vest external to PPE. Results: Twelve participants completed both sessions. There was a significant increase in tympanic temperature in Control sessions at both 1 and 2 h in PPE (p = 0.01). No significant increase was seen during Cool. Effect estimate of Cool was -0.2°C (95% CI -0.43; 0.01, p = 0.06) post 1 h and -0.28°C (95% CI -0.57; 0.02, p = 0.06) post 2 h on tympanic temperature. Cool improved thermal comfort (p < 0.001), thermal sensation (p < 0.001), and thirst (p = 0.04). No difference on cognitive function was demonstrated using multilevel modeling. Discussion: Thermal strain in HCWs wearing PPE can be safely reduced using pre- and per-cooling methods external to PPE.

Remote-Controlled and Pulse Pressure-Guided Fluid Treatment for Adult Patients with Viral Hemorrhagic Fevers

Circulatory shock, caused by severe intravascular volume depletion resulting from gastrointestinal losses and profound capillary leak, is a common clinical feature of viral hemorrhagic fevers, including Ebola virus disease, Marburg hemorrhagic fever, and Lassa fever. These conditions are associated with high case fatality rates, and they carry a significant risk of infection for treating personnel. Optimized fluid therapy is the cornerstone of management of these diseases, but there are few data on the extent of fluid losses and the severity of the capillary leak in patients with VHFs, and no specific guidelines for fluid resuscitation and hemodynamic monitoring exist. We propose an innovative approach for monitoring VHF patients, in particular suited for low-resource settings, facilitating optimizing fluid therapy through remote-controlled and pulse pressure–guided fluid resuscitation. This strategy would increase the capacity for adequate supportive care, while decreasing the risk for virus transmission to health personnel.

Cooling vests alleviate perceptual heat strain perceived by COVID-19 nurses

Cooling vests alleviate heat strain. We quantified the perceptual and physiological heat strain and assessed the effects of wearing a 21°C phase change material cooling vest on these measures during work shifts of COVID-19 nurses wearing personal protective equipment (PPE). Seventeen nurses were monitored on two working days, consisting of a control (PPE only) and a cooling vest day (PPE + cooling vest). Sub-PPE air temperature, gastrointestinal temperature (T_gi), and heart rate (HR) were measured continuously. Thermal comfort (2 [1–4] versus 1 [1–2], p_condtition < 0.001) and thermal sensation (5 [4–7] versus 4 [2–7], p_condition < 0.001) improved in the cooling vest versus control condition. Only 18% of nurses reported thermal discomfort and 36% a (slightly) warm thermal sensation in the cooling vest condition versus 81% and 94% in the control condition (OR (95%CI) 0.05 (0.01–0.29) and 0.04 (<0.01–0.35), respectively). Accordingly, perceptual strain index was lower in the cooling vest versus control condition (5.7 ± 1.5 versus 4.3 ± 1.7, p_condition < 0.001, respectively). No differences were observed for the physiological heat strain index T_gi and rating of perceived exertion across conditions. Average HR was slightly lower in the cooling vest versus the control condition (85 ± 12 versus 87 ± 11, p_condition = 0.025). Although the physiological heat strain among nurses using PPE was limited, substantial perceptual heat strain was experienced. A 21°C phase change material cooling vest can successfully alleviate the perceptual heat strain encountered by nurses wearing PPE.

Breathability and Safety Testing of Personal Protective Equipment: "Human-comfort" Factor Remains Undefined

Healthcare systems all over the world have been enormously affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Healthcare workers (HCWs) taking care of these patients need personal protective equipments (PPEs) standardized for full protection from droplets and aerosols carrying viral load to variable distances. There has been a surge of manufacturers supplying these protective gears in India and regulatory agencies have issued technical specifications pertaining to PPEs focusing solely on synthetic blood penetration tests (SBPTs) and keeping the upper limit of non-woven fabric to 95 g/m² (GSM). These PPE specifications are silent on air permeability (AP) and water/moisture vapor transmission rate (WVTR/MVTR) of the fabric. As a result, most of the PPE kits, despite having appropriate SBPT certifications from regulatory agencies, have extremely poor permeability and breathability. The acceptability of PPEs by HCWs can be vastly improved when the end-users are proactively invited to participate in “comfort testing” of PPEs before getting issuance of certification for marketing. “Field testing” or “end-user trials” in which HCWs don the PPE and assess it for comfort while performing different types of clinical work, e.g., in intensive care units (ICUs), operation theaters, cath labs, etc., also takes into account a hitherto often ignored “human-comfort-factor” that not only enhances the understanding of HCWs about the need for the PPEs but can also motivate them to use it without worrying about discomfort. We hereby propose that comfort fit testing (COmfort and Material Fit is an Obviously Required Test) should be a part of the mandatory testing and certification process for PPE, so that the industry invests wisely in manufacturing PPE kits that are not only certified for fabric but are also tested for comfort factors.

How to cite this article: Kapoor A, Baronia AK, Azim A, Agarwal G, Prasad N, Mishra R, et al. Breathability and Safety Testing of Personal Protective Equipment: “Human-comfort” Factor Remains Undefined. Indian J Crit Care Med 2021;25(1):12–15.

Risk of kidney stone among workers exposed to high occupational heat stress - A case study from southern Indian steel industry

BACKGROUND

Predicted temperature rise is likely to increase the risks of development and progression of renal/urologic anomalies for workers engaged in physically exerting and high-heat occupations.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study with 340 steelworkers engaged in moderate to heavy labour with ≥3 year's heat exposures and assessed Wet Bulb Globe Temperature (WBGT) and heat-strain indicators. We captured self-reported heat-strain and kidney symptoms using validated questionnaires and subjected 91 workers to renal ultrasound upon referral of an occupational health specialist to detect and confirm any structural renal anomalies/stones.

RESULTS

The results show that heat exposures (Avg.WBGT = 33.2 °C ± 3.8 °C) exceeded the Threshold Limit Value (TLV) for 220 workers. 95% of the workers reported symptoms of heat strain and dehydration and significant associations between heat exposures, rise in Core Body Temperature (CBT) (p = 0.0001) and Urine Specific Gravity (USG) (p = 0.018) were observed. Of the 91 workers subjected to renal ultrasound, 33% were positive for kidney/ureteral stones (n = 25) & other structural renal anomalies (n = 5). Renal/urologic anomalies were higher in the heat-exposed workers (AOR = 2.374; 95% C.I = 0.927 to 6.077; p = 0.072) 29% of workers were from exposed group and 4% were from unexposed group. Years of exposure to heat (≥5 vs <5) were significantly associated with the risk of renal anomalies/calculi.

CONCLUSION

The preliminary finding concludes that high-heat stress combined with a heavy workload and chronic dehydration are high-risk factors for adverse renal health and calls for the urgent need for cooling interventions, enhanced welfare facilities, and protective labour policies to avert adverse health consequences for few million workers in the climate change scenario.

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.

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.

Personal protective equipment use by health-care workers in intensive care units during the COVID-19 pandemic in Japan: comparative analysis with the PPE-SAFE survey

Aim

We investigated personal protective equipment (PPE) use and supply shortage, training, and adverse events among health-care workers (HCWs) in the intensive care unit (ICU) during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic in Japan and compared the results with an international survey that used the same methodology.

Methods

This Web-based survey was carried out from 14 April to 6 May, 2020, in Japan and included HCWs directly involved in ICU management of COVID-19 patients. A survey invitation was emailed using the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine's mailing list.

Results

We analyzed 460 valid responses from among 976 responses. The N95/FFP2 mask (77%) was the most frequently used, although half of our respondents reported reuse of single-use N95/FFP2 masks. The median duration (1 h) of uninterrupted PPE use per shift was less than that in the international study. The most common PPE-related adverse event was experiencing intense heat (75%). Logistic regression analysis revealed that being a nurse was independently associated with experiencing intense heat.

Conclusion

Shortage of PPE and frequent mask reuse were prevalent during the COVID-19 pandemic in Japan. Intense heat is the most significant symptom, especially for nurses, even with short-duration PPE use. Strategies to protect HCWs from dehydration and intense heatstroke are needed.

Evidence-Based Clinical Management of Ebola Virus Disease and Epidemic Viral Hemorrhagic Fevers

The 2014 to 2016 Ebola virus disease outbreak underscored the threat posed by hemorrhagic fevers. Filoviral outbreaks have been identified since 1967, but data collection has remained sparse, limiting current knowledge of these illnesses. Documentation of objective physical signs and laboratory parameters and appropriate clinical management are connected and interdependent. Implementing both is necessary to improve outcomes. Clinical features include severe volume depletion due to diarrhea and vomiting, shock, rhabdomyolysis, and metabolic disturbances. Overt hemorrhage is uncommon. Point-of-care devices and inexpensive electronic equipment enable better monitoring and record keeping in resource-limited settings.

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 Virus Disease (EVD) or Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), healthcare workers (HCW) are at much greater risk of infection than the general population, due to their contact with patients' contaminated body fluids. Contact precautions by means of personal protective equipment (PPE) can reduce the risk. It is unclear which type of PPE protects best, what is the best way to remove PPE, and how to make sure HCW 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 self-contamination or infection for HCW, and which training methods increase compliance with PPE protocols.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE (PubMed up to 15 July 2018), Cochrane Central Register of Trials (CENTRAL up to 18 June 2019), Scopus (Scopus 18 June 2019), CINAHL (EBSCOhost 31 July 2018), and OSH-Update (up to 31 December 2018). We also screened reference lists of included trials and relevant reviews, and contacted NGOs and manufacturers of PPE.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all controlled studies that compared the effects of PPE used by HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases with serious consequences, such as Ebola or SARS, on the risk of infection, contamination, or noncompliance with protocols. This included studies that used simulated contamination with fluorescent markers or a non-pathogenic virus.We also included studies that compared the effect of various ways of donning or doffing PPE, and the effects of training in PPE use on the same outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in included trials. We planned to perform meta-analyses but did not find sufficiently similar studies to combine their results.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 studies with 1950 participants evaluating 21 interventions. Ten studies are Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs), one is a quasi RCT and six have a non-randomised controlled design. Two studies are awaiting assessment.Ten studies compared types of PPE but only six of these reported sufficient data. Six studies compared different types of donning and doffing and three studies evaluated different types of training. Fifteen studies used simulated exposure with fluorescent markers or harmless viruses. In simulation studies, contamination rates varied from 10% to 100% of participants for all types of PPE. In one study HCW were exposed to Ebola and in another to SARS.Evidence for all outcomes is based on single studies and is very low quality.Different types of PPEPPE made of more breathable material may not lead to more contamination spots on the trunk (Mean Difference (MD) 1.60 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) -0.15 to 3.35) than 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).Gowns may protect better against contamination than aprons (MD large patches -1.36 95% CI -1.78 to -0.94).The use of a powered air-purifying respirator may protect better than a simple ensemble of PPE without such respirator (Relative Risk (RR) 0.27; 95% CI 0.17 to 0.43).Five different PPE ensembles (such as gown vs. coverall, boots with or without covers, hood vs. cap, length and number of gloves) were evaluated in one study, but there were no event data available for compared groups.Alterations to PPE design may lead to less contamination such as added tabs to grab masks (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.80) or gloves (RR 0.22 95% CI 0.15 to 0.31), a sealed gown and glove combination (RR 0.27; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.78), or a better fitting gown around the neck, wrists and hands (RR 0.08; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.55) compared to standard PPE.Different methods of donning and doffing proceduresDouble gloving may lead to less contamination compared to single gloving (RR 0.36; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.78).Following CDC recommendations for doffing may lead to less contamination compared to no guidance (MD small patches -5.44; 95% CI -7.43 to -3.45).Alcohol-based hand rub used during the doffing process may not lead to less contamination than the use of a hypochlorite based solution (MD 4.00; 95% CI 0.47 to 34.24).Additional spoken instruction may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -0.9, 95% CI -1.4 to -0.4).Different types of trainingThe 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 20.14,41.26) than a traditional lecture.Face to face instruction may reduce noncompliance with doffing guidance more (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.98) than providing folders or videos only.There were no studies on effects of training in the long term or on resource use.The quality of the evidence is very low for all comparisons because of high risk of bias in all studies, indirectness of evidence, and small numbers of participants.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found very low quality evidence that more breathable types of PPE may not lead to more contamination, but may have greater user satisfaction. Alterations to PPE, such as tabs to grab may decrease contamination. Double gloving, following CDC doffing guidance, and spoken instructions during doffing may reduce contamination and increase compliance. Face-to-face training in PPE use may reduce errors more than video or folder based training. Because data come from single small studies with high risk of bias, we are uncertain about the estimates of effects.We still need randomised controlled trials to find out which training works best in the long term. We need better simulation studies conducted with several dozen participants to find out which PPE protects best, and what is the safest way to remove PPE. Consensus on the best way to conduct simulation of exposure and assessment of outcome is urgently needed. HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases should have their use of PPE registered and should be prospectively followed for their risk of infection in the field.

Occupational Hazards among Healthcare Workers in Africa: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

While all healthcare workers are exposed to occupational hazards, workers in sub-Saharan Africa have higher rates of occupational exposure to infectious diseases than workers in developed countries. Identifying prevalence and context of exposure to blood and bloodborne pathogens may help guide policies for prevention.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review examined occupational exposure rates to blood and bloodborne pathogen among healthcare workers in sub-Saharan Africa.

METHODS

In November 2017, a comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify studies reporting exposure of health workers in African coutnries to blood and bodily fluids. Title, abstract and full text screening were used to narrow our search. Studies more than 10 years old, or published in non-English languages were excluded.

FINDINGS

Fifteen studies reported a variety of exposures. The lifetime prevalence of needlestick injury ranged from 22-95%, and one-year prevalence ranged from 39-91%. Studies included a range of descriptive statistics of knowledge, attitudes, practice and access factors related to exposures. Two studies reported 21-32% of respondents linked poor knowledge or training with prevention of needlestick injuries. Rates of recapping needles ranged from 12-57% in four studies. Attitudes were generally positive toward occupational safety procedures while access was poor.

CONCLUSIONS

The high burden of blood and bloodborne pathogen exposures demonstrated here indicates a high risk for contracting bloodborne illnesses. Although the data are sparse, implementation of preventative policies based on current knowledge remains critical to minimize risk and reduce exposure. There remains a pressing need for high quality data on occupational hazards to identify the burden of exposures and inform preventive policies in Sub-Saharan Africa. Additional studies are needed to determine whether differential exposures exist between professions and the associations with knowledge, attitudes, practices, and access factors to create targeted strategies to diminish occupational hazards.

CDC Safety Training Course for Ebola Virus Disease Healthcare Workers

Response to sudden epidemic infectious disease emergencies can demand intensive and specialized training, as demonstrated in 2014 when Ebola virus disease (EVD) rapidly spread throughout West Africa. The medical community quickly became overwhelmed because of limited staff, supplies, and Ebola treatment units (ETUs). Because a mechanism to rapidly increase trained healthcare workers was needed, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention developed and implemented an introductory EVD safety training course to prepare US healthcare workers to work in West Africa ETUs. The goal was to teach principles and practices of safely providing patient care and was delivered through lectures, small-group breakout sessions, and practical exercises. During September 2014-March 2015, a total of 570 participants were trained during 16 course sessions. This course quickly increased the number of clinicians who could provide care in West Africa ETUs, showing the feasibility of rapidly developing and implementing training in response to a public health emergency.

Physiological Evaluation of Personal Protective Ensembles Recommended for Use in West Africa

OBJECTIVE

Personal protective equipment (PPE) provides health care workers with a barrier to prevent human contact with viruses like Ebola and potential transmission of the disease. However, PPE can also introduce an additional physiological burden from potentially increased heat stress. This study evaluated the human physiological and subjective responses to continuous light exercise within environmental conditions similar to those in West Africa while wearing 3 different, commonly used PPE ensembles (E1, E2, and E3).

METHODS

Six healthy individuals were tested in an environmental chamber (32°C, 92% relative humidity) while walking (3 METs, 2.5 mph, 0% incline) on a treadmill for 60 minutes. All subjects wore medical scrubs and PPE items. E1 also had a face shield and fluid-resistant surgical gown; E2 additionally included goggles, coverall, and separate hood; and E3 also contained a highly impermeable coverall, separate hood, and surgical mask cover over the N95 respirator.

RESULTS

Heart rate and core temperature at the end of the exercise were significantly higher for E2 and E3 than for E1. Subjective perceptions of heat and exertion were significantly higher for E2 and E3 than for E1.

CONCLUSIONS

Heat stress and PPE training, as well as the implementation of a work-to-rest ratio that avoids dehydration and possible heat stress issues, are recommended. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2017;11:580-586).

Occupational Exposures to Ebola Virus in Ebola Treatment Center, Conakry, Guinea

We report 77 cases of occupational exposures for 57 healthcare workers at the Ebola Treatment Center in Conakry, Guinea, during the Ebola virus disease outbreak in 2014-2015. Despite the high incidence of 3.5 occupational exposures/healthcare worker/year, only 18% of workers were at high risk for transmission, and no infections occurred.

Exercise in personal protective equipment in a hot, humid environment does not affect risk propensity

We tested the hypothesis that heat stress created by light exertion in encapsulating personal protective equipment (PPE) in a hot, humid environment increases risk propensity. Ten healthy subjects (29 ± 7 y) completed 2 trials presented in a counter-balanced manner. Subjects donned encapsulating PPE, and in one trial they wore a tube-lined shirt underneath that was perfused with 5°C water. Subjects completed 2 15 min bouts of walking exercise on a treadmill at ˜50% maximal heart rate in a 32°C, 81% RH environment. Subjects completed the Balloon Analog Risk Task (BART), an objective measure of risk-taking, before, between the 2 exercise bouts, and following the final exercise bout. Personal cooling lowered (P < 0.01) mean skin temperature by 8.0 ± 1.6°C. Intestinal temperature rose (P < 0.01) in both trials, but was lower (P < 0.01) at the end of exercise in the cooling trial (38.0 ± 0.3°C vs. 37.6 ± 0.3°C). BART derived indices of risk propensity were not affected by trial or time (trial × time interaction: P ≥ 0.33). These data indicate that 60 min of exposure to mild heat stress created by light exertion in encapsulating PPE does not affect risk-taking behavior.