Personal protective equipment and adverse dermatological reactions among healthcare workers: Survey observations from the COVID-19 pandemic

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.

Physical discomforts, feeling of the high work intensity and the related risk factors of the frontline medical staff during COVID-19 epidemic: an early-outbreak, national survey in China

Background

Facing the unknown virus, COVID-19 medical staff kept wearing thick personal protective equipment during their work in the early stage of the outbreak. The survey was designed to investigate the physical discomforts, the feeling of the work intensity and the related risk factors of the frontline medical staff during COVID-19 epidemic in the early outbreak.

Methods

An national survey was carried out in China from March 17th 2020 to March 20th 2020 by applying a standardized WeChat questionnaire survey. The doctors or nurses working in the wards for the confirmed COVID-19 patients on front-line were eligible to participate in the survey. Descriptive analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis were used.

Results

A total number of 515 COVID-19 medical staff, including 190 physicians and 325 nurses participated in this survey. 375 medical staff (72.8%) experienced physical discomforts at work, mostly consist of dyspnea (45.8%), pain (41.0%), chest distress (24.1%), dizziness (18.8%), and weakness (17.5%), while wearing thick isolation clothes at work. The mean onset time and peak time of these symptoms were 2.4 h and 3.5 h after working, respectively. 337 medical staff (65.4%) suffered from sleep disorders. 51 medical staff (10%) were highly worried about being infected by COVID-19 even during their work breaks. 246 medical staffs (47.8%) felt high work intensity and the independent influential factors were the effective daily sleep time and anxiety levels at break time (p = 0.04).

Conclusion

The frontline medical staff during COVID-19 epidemic felt different physical discomforts when they wear thick isolation clothes at work in the early outbreak and they felt high work intensity. These precious data will help optimize the work management strategy to ensure the physical and mental health of medical staff in the face of similar outbreaks in future.

Prevalence of burnout and mental health problems among medical staff during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on the burnout and mental health of medical staff. This meta-analysis aims to provide additional (and updated) evidence related to burnout and mental health problems among medical staff using a broader data pool.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang data and three preprint databases (SSRN, bioRxiv and medRxiv) were searched from 1 January 2020 to 17 May 2021.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included observational studies investigating the prevalence of burnout and mental health problems among medical staff during the COVID-19 pandemic, including cross-sectional study, cohort study and case-control study.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two independent reviewers used a self-designed form to extract the primary data. The Joanna Briggs Institute quality appraisal tool was used to assess the quality of selected studies. Heterogeneity among studies was assessed by I² statistic. A random-effects model was used to pool the prevalence. Subgroup analysis was performed to explore between-group differences.

RESULTS

250 studies were included, with a sample of 292 230 participants from 46 countries. The pooled prevalence of burnout, anxiety, depression, insomnia, stress, post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms and somatic symptoms was 43.6% (95% CI 36.3% to 51.2%), 37.1% (95% CI 34.7% to 39.7%), 37.6% (95% CI 35.0% to 40.4%), 43.7% (95% CI 39.1% to 48.5%), 41.3% (95% CI 35.1% to 47.9%), 30.6% (95% CI 23.6% to 38.5%) and 25.0% (95% CI 16.7% to 35.6%), respectively. Subgroup analysis showed a higher prevalence of anxiety, depression and insomnia in frontline workers than in non-frontline workers, and a higher prevalence of anxiety in females than males. Mild cases accounted for the most significant proportion of the outcomes except for stress.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights that identifying the risks of burnout and mental health problems and adopting preventive interventions are priorities for policymakers and medical staff to avoid long-term occupational, health and social impacts.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021254425.

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.

Effects of wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) and its role in affecting the work efficiency of dentists during the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

The risk of exposure to COVID-19 infection through droplets/aerosol in dental clinics has renewed focus on the utility and possible adverse effects of using personal protective equipment (PPE) on dentists.

OBJECTIVE

To obtain information from a cross-section of dentists regarding their PPE usage and to evaluate the possible risk factors that can influence their work efficiency.

METHODS

A 31-item cross-sectional survey with a structured multiple-choice questionnaire was designed. Social media and emails were used to circulate the questionnaire among dental professionals worldwide. A total of 317 respondents returned the completed forms.

RESULTS

A total of 184 (55%) participants reported getting soaking wet while wearing PPE at the end of the working hours (approximately eight hours of working). Many respondents (n = 286, 90%) reported that the use of PPE resulted in reduced visibility of the operating field. The majority of respondents (84%) felt that their overall work efficiency had reduced after using PPE. Binary logistic regression had shown that two significant factors that were associated with reduced work efficiency included, pre-existing systemic illness and getting soaking wet from wearing a PPE.

CONCLUSION

Definite protocols should be introduced that mandate the doffing of PPE for every patient, in a separate well-ventilated area where the skin can recuperate from the heat and pressure points caused by the PPE. Dentists should take greater care in choosing the appropriate PPE to prevent exacerbation of pre-existing illnesses, which may reduce their work efficiency.

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.