Prophylactic Dressings for Maintaining Skin Integrity of Healthcare Workers When Using N95 Respirators While Preventing Contamination Due to the Novel Coronavirus: A Quality Improvement Project

Impact of Hydrocolloid Dressing and Moisturizing Cream as Facial Skin Protectants Among Health Care Workers

INTRODUCTION

During the novel coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, health care workers experienced facial problems from prolonged use of N95 masks, including skin irritation, pigmentation changes, and contact dermatitis. We assessed the use of hydrocolloid dressing versus dimethicone cream to prevent skin breakdown among military health care workers while wearing an N95.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Participants were recruited using convenience and snowball sampling in this nonblinded, randomized, cross-over study with 2 active treatments, hydrocolloid dressing and dimethicone cream, across 3 time points. The skin was assessed using photographs and subepidermal moisture scanner (SEM). N95 seal integrity was assessed using qualitative fit test. Institutional review board approval was obtained from the Madigan Army Medical Center Institutional Review Board.

RESULTS

Among the 73 participants, wearing an N95 alone versus with dimethicone cream or hydrocolloid dressing caused more adverse skin reactions. There were no significant differences in qualitative fit test failure rate between groups. Participants experienced minimal to no dizziness, loss of energy/tiredness/fatigue, claustrophobia, shortness of breath, difficulty breathing, and dry or itchy eyes. For all interventions, wearing an N95 did not interfere with participants' concentration, verbal communication, hearing, vision, and, importantly, delivery of care.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a skin protectant with an N95 may prevent adverse skin reactions while preserving health care workers' ability to safely and competently care for patients in routine and pandemic conditions.

Identifying the impact of the Zone Insertion MethodTM (ZIMTM): A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

In 2011, Dawson proposed the Zone Insertion MethodTM (ZIMTM) to identify the optimal peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) insertion site in the upper arm. However, data on the effectiveness and safety of the ZIMTM in guiding PICC placement in Chinese population is limited.

METHODS

In this randomized controlled trial, 120 cancer patients were randomly assigned to the upper portion of the red zone (RZ), the green zone (GZ) and the lower portion of the yellow zone (YZ) groups (at a 1:1:1 ratio). The aim was to compare the degree of patient comfort and the incidence of major PICC complications among the three insertion zones based on the ZIMTM in a Chinese Cancer Center. (Clinical Trials. Gov number, ChiCTR1900024111).

RESULTS

A total of 118 catheters were inserted in 118 patients (2 patients were lost to follow-up). After the 1-month follow-up, patients randomly assigned to the YZ group had a higher degree of comfort with a lower score than those assigned to the other two zone groups: 30.21±3.16 in the YZ group versus 31.65±2.51 in the RZ group and 31.59±2.92 in the GZ group (P=.046). The incidence of thrombosis (10/40, 25%) and occlusion (4/40, 10%) in the RZ, which were significantly higher than those in the other two zone groups (χ2 =7.368, P=.02; χ2 =5.778, P =.03), whereas the risk in the GZ group was similar to that in the YZ group. The incidence of contact dermatitis in the GZ group was significantly higher than that of the other two zone groups (χ2=12.873, P=.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that the lower portion of YZ seems to be another suitable PICC insertion site for a higher degree of comfort and a lower risk of occlusion and thrombosis, which broadens the choice of PICC insertion sites in the upper arm for clinical practice.

Guidelines for Infection Control and Burnout Prevention in Healthcare Workers Responding to COVID-19

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, frontline healthcare workers (HCWs) suffered more distress from the possibility of contracting the virus, quarantine, social stigma, and prejudice against their families. Many studies have investigated the impact of the pandemic on HCWs; however, studies or guidelines presenting strategies to overcome these challenges are lacking. As part of a 2020 research project supported by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, titled "Health impact assessment of healthcare workers undertaking coronavirus disease 2019 treatment and management in Korea: Identifying problems and researching effective solutions" (HC20C0003), we created guidelines to respond to serious problems posed by infection control. and burnout among HCWs during COVID-19 response measures throughout the extended pandemic period. We formulated the guidelines by means of a systematic review and collated them with the latest literature. The guidelines will highlight the gravity and impact of infection control and burnout among HCWs responding to COVID-19 and include potential prevention strategies, and they can be used as a reference in the event of another emerging infectious disease outbreak in the future.

Feasibility of nasal bridge pressure injury prevention using a protective dressing and the Halyard Fluidshield® N95 mask in a COVID-positive environment

The purpose of this study was to prevent nasal bridge pressure injury among fit-tested employees, secondary to long-term wear of the N95 mask during working hours. A prospective, single-blinded, experimental cohort design. Participants were enrolled using the convenience sampling methods and randomisation was utilised for group assignment. Eligibility was determined by a COVID Anxiety Scale score and non-COVID clinical assignment. Participants with a history of previous skin injury or related condition were excluded. The experimental group was assigned Mepilex Lite® and the control group used Band- Aid®. Formal skin evaluations were done by Nurse Specialists who are certified in wound and ostomy care by the Wound, Ostomy, Continence, Nursing Certification Board (WOCNCB®). Fit test logs were provided to participants to measure subjective user feedback regarding mask fit and level of comfort. The results of this feasibility trial are promising in supporting the use of a thin polyurethane foam dressing as a safe and effective dressing to apply beneath the N95 mask. Additional research is needed to validate results due to limited data on efficacy and safety of the various barrier dressings as a potential intervention to prevent skin breakdown to the nasal bridge.

Design considerations for protective mask development: A remote mask usability evaluation

The design of N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) continues to pose usability concerns for healthcare workers, which have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this study was to develop a holistic model to guide mask design improvement. Dental students (n = 38) with experience wearing N95 FFRs participated in a randomized wear trial of three alternative protective masks. A mixed methods survey was used to examine usability of individual mask design components, the relationship of facial/head area to mask features, and overall mask design. Survey results indicated MNmask v1 demonstrated higher usability in seal confidence (M = 3.46), while MNmask v2 performed higher in satisfactory fit (M = 3.50). Design components of nose wire and head/neck bands were the most problematic, while conditions of skin irritation and tight/loose fit created an unfavorable wear experience. To consider healthcare workers' needs in improving the usability of protective masks, a model is presented to consider characteristics of fit, comfort, material, and design.

Changes in the use of cosmetics worldwide due to increased use of masks in the coronavirus disease‐19 pandemic

Background

According to recent experience, people are willing to wear masks to protect themselves from environmental issues such as infections, allergies, and fine dust such as SARS in 2003, swine flu A (H1N1) in 2009, and COVID‐19 in 2019.

Objectives

The objective of this study was to investigate the changing conditions of cosmetics use worldwide due to the increase in mask usage.

Methods

This review paper is a literature review, and a narrative review approach has been used for this study. A total of 300–400 references were selected using representative journal search websites such as PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, and RISS, of which a total of 39 papers were selected in the final stage based on 2006–2021.

Results

Masks must be worn due to environmental issues and/or infectious diseases, for example, COVID‐19. Skin troubles were dramatically increased by the increased use of masks. Additionally, research‐related natural products for skin soothing ingredients and makeup products were suggested.

Conclusion

This review is expected to be used as an important marketing material for new changes in the cosmetics market by clearly grasping the needs of consumers in the beauty and cosmetics industry from the viewpoint of using masks after COVID‐19.

Impact in Contact Dermatitis during and after SARS-CoV2 Pandemic

Purpose of the review

Due to the recent COVID-19 pandemic, several skin conditions have emerged due to the preventive measures adopted by both health care workers and the general population against SARS-CoV-2. Above all, wearing of personal protective equipment, frequent hand-washing and disinfecting of surfaces have resulted in an increased risk of irritant or allergic contact dermatitis. The aim of this review is to investigate contact dermatitis associated with COVID-19 pandemic period.

Recent findings

There is a real evidence of the rising prevalence of irritant and allergic contact dermatitis in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The most commonly recorded symptoms are dryness, itch and redness of the skin. Nasal bridge, cheeks, forehead and hands represent the mainly affected skin sites.

Summary

Contact dermatitis lesions may appear as a result of various recommendations to prevent transmission of COVID-19. Procedures to alleviate pressure and friction, gentle skin care and adequate moisturizing, have been identified as important preventive strategies for contact dermatitis related to personal protective equipment and personal hygiene measures.

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

Aim

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

Materials and Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Hydrocolloid dressing versus conventional wound care after dermatologic surgery

Background

Hydrocolloid dressings (HCD) are helpful in chronic wound care, but research is limited in acute postoperative wounds. HCD can potentially be incorporated into a simplified wound care regimen after excisional surgeries.

Objective

To examine whether a one-time HCD application after dermatologic surgery results in greater patient satisfaction and improved postoperative outcomes compared with conventional daily dressings (CDD).

Methods

We examined patients who underwent Mohs or standard surgical excision with linear closure followed by HCD. The patients additionally had a history of excisional surgery with CDD in the past 5 years. A modified version of the validated Bluebelle Wound Healing Questionnaire was administered.

Results

The survey response rate was 74.4% (64/86). Compared with CDD, HCD rated higher in comfort, convenience, scar appearance, and simplicity of wound care instructions (P < .0001). Nearly all patients (96.8%) preferred HCD over CDD.

Limitations

Variability in time from prior dermatologic surgery may introduce recall bias. Prior surgeries involving CDD were sometimes performed by a different surgeon, which could introduce other confounding factors.

Conclusions

A simplified wound care regimen involving HCD can potentially lead to increased comfort, convenience, simplicity, and a subjective improvement in scar appearance, though additional studies are needed.

Skin injuries due to Personal Protective Equipment and preventive measures in the COVID-19 context: an integrative review

Objective

to identify the diverse scientific evidence on the types of skin lesions caused due to the use of Personal Protective Equipment in health professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic and to verify the recommended prevention measures.

Method

this is an integrative review carried out in the MEDLINE, CINAHL, LILACS, SCOPUS, Science Direct, Web of Science and SciELO databases. The search was conducted in a paired manner, constituting a sample of 17 studies categorized according to the types of skin lesions and preventive measures.

Results

the main types of skin lesions related to mask use were stage 1 pressure ulcers, acne and cutaneous depression. Regarding the use of glasses and face shields, the most frequent were stage 1 and 2 pressure ulcers. Xerosis and irritant contact dermatitis occurred due to using gloves and protective clothing, respectively. The main preventive measures recommended were using hydrocolloid or foam dressing in the pressure regions, moisturizers and emollients.

Conclusion

a considerable number of skin lesions associated with using the equipment were noticed, and the data obtained can guide the professionals in identifying risks and promoting preventive measures to avoid their occurrence.

Lesões de pele por Equipamentos de Proteção Individual e medidas preventivas no contexto da COVID-19: revisão integrativa

Resumo Objetivo identificar as evidências científicas sobre os tipos de lesões de pele ocasionadas pelo uso de Equipamento de Proteção Individual em profissionais de saúde durante a pandemia da COVID-19 e verificar as medidas de prevenção recomendadas. Método trata-se de uma revisão integrativa realizada nas bases de dados MEDLINE, CINAHL, LILACS, SCOPUS, Science Direct, Web of Science e no banco de dados SciELO. A busca foi realizada de forma pareada, constituindo uma amostra de 17 estudos categorizados quanto aos tipos de lesões de pele e às medidas preventivas. Resultados os principais tipos de lesões de pele relacionados ao uso de máscara foram lesão por pressão estágio 1, acne e depressão cutânea. Quanto ao uso de óculos e protetor facial, as mais frequentes foram lesão por pressão estágios 1 e 2. Xerose e dermatites de contato irritante ocorreram devido ao uso de luvas e roupas de proteção, respectivamente. As principais medidas preventivas recomendadas foram o uso de curativo de hidrocoloide ou espuma nas regiões de pressão, hidratantes e emolientes. Conclusão observou-se um número considerável de lesões de pele associadas ao uso dos equipamentos e os dados obtidos podem direcionar os profissionais na identificação de riscos e promoção de medidas preventivas para evitar sua ocorrência.

Lesiones cutáneas por Equipos de Protección Individual y medidas preventivas en el contexto del COVID-19: revisión integradora*

Resumen Objetivo identificar que evidencia científica hay sobre los tipos de lesiones cutáneas provocadas por el uso de Equipos de Protección Individual en los profesionales sanitarios durante la pandemia del COVID-19 y verificar las medidas de prevención recomendadas. Método se trata de una revisión integradora realizada en las bases de datos MEDLINE, CINAHL, LILACS, SCOPUS, Science Direct, Web of Science y la biblioteca electrónica SciELO. La búsqueda se realizó de forma pareada, la muestra estuvo conformada por 17 estudios categorizados según los tipos de lesiones cutáneas y medidas preventivas. Resultados los principales tipos de lesiones cutáneas relacionadas con el uso de mascarillas fueron las lesiones por presión estadio 1, el acné y la depresión cutánea. En cuanto al uso de gafas y pantalla facial, las más frecuentes fueron las lesiones por presión estadios 1 y 2. Se detectó xerosis y dermatitis irritante de contacto por el uso de guantes y ropa de protección, respectivamente. Las principales medidas preventivas recomendadas fueron el uso de apósitos de hidrocoloide o espuma en las regiones de presión, humectantes y emolientes. Conclusión hubo un número considerable de lesiones cutáneas asociadas al uso de equipos y los datos obtenidos pueden orientar a los profesionales para que identifiquen los riesgos y promuevan medidas preventivas para evitar su aparición.

Skin care and hygiene among healthcare professionals during and after the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic has necessitated enhanced protection against viral transmission among healthcare professionals, particularly relating to handwashing and personal protective equipment. Some of these requirements may persist for years to come. They bring associated concerns around skin hygiene and general care, with damage to the face and hands now a well-documented consequence among healthcare professionals. This review assesses optimal skin care during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic and in the "new normal" that will follow, identifies current knowledge gaps, and provides practical advice for the clinical setting. Regular, systematic hand cleaning with soap and water or an alcohol-based hand rub (containing 60%-90% ethanol or isopropyl alcohol) remains essential, although the optimal quantity and duration is unclear. Gloves are a useful additional barrier; further studies are needed on preferred materials. Moisturization is typically helpful and has proven benefits in mitigating damage from frequent handwashing. It may be best practiced using an alcohol-based hand rub with added moisturizer and could be particularly important among individuals with pre-existing hand dermatoses, such as psoriasis and eczema. Face moisturization immediately prior to donning a mask, and the use of dressings under the mask to reduce friction, can be helpful dermatologically, but more work is required to prove that these actions do not affect seal integrity. Nonetheless, such measures could play a role in institutional plans for mitigating the dermatologic impact of transmission control measures as we exit the pandemic.

Occupational Dermatoses Related to Personal Protective Equipment Used During the COVID-19 Pandemic

The recent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to the dramatic increase in use of personal protective equipment (PPE) among health care providers and the general public. Herein the authors discuss the various occupational dermatoses including allergic and irritant contact dermatitis, acne, seborrheic dermatitis, and rosacea related to frequent handwashing, disinfecting of surfaces, and prolonged wear of various PPE including face masks, gloves, and gowns. The authors provide an overview of published PPE-associated occupational dermatoses during the COVID-19 pandemic and also discuss prevention strategies and treatment options to help patients with these complaints.

Adverse Effects of COVID-19 and Face Masks: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Due to the public health risk associated with SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) infection, universal use of face masks has been recommended to protect against viral spread. Adverse facial reactions from the utilization of masks in the general public are poorly characterized in literature.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to provide a systematic review of studies reporting adverse facial reactions associated with use of face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

PubMed and Cochrane databases were searched using the following search terms: "masks" AND "skin reactions, facial dermatosis, rash, acne, atopic dermatitis, rosacea, OR seborrheic dermatitis."

METHODS

A total of 954 cases of dermatological adverse effects were reported. Over 17 different adverse facial reactions were found, including the top 10 in order: itch (370, 38.8%), indentation/ear pain (102, 10.7%), discomfort (90, 9.4%), erythema (72, 7.5%), dryness (62, 6.5%), rash (60, 6.3%), scarring (42, 4.4%), desquamation (22, 2.3%), pain (19, 2.0%), burning (19, 2.0%), and wheals (7, 0.7%). Face masks can increase acne (n=44), rosacea (n=14), and seborrheic dermatitis (n=9).

LIMITATIONS

Publication bias of articles, with limited studies available regarding this topic.

CONCLUSION

Wearing face masks to protect from COVID-19 can increase adverse facial dermatoses and exacerbate underlying dermatology conditions; however, several preventative measures may be taken.

Impact on quantitative fit-test results after application of prophylactic hydrocolloid dressing under N95 respirators

Objective:

Discomfort and device-related pressure injury (DRPI) caused by N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) are common. The use of prophylactic hydrocolloid dressings is one of the strategies that may improve comfort and reduce DRPI. In this study, we investigated the impact of these dressings on N95 respirator fit.

Methods:

We performed a repeat quantitative fit testing through the Respiratory Protection Program on 134 healthcare workers (HCWs), who applied hydrocolloid dressings on the bridge of their nose under the N95 FFRs that they passed the initial fit test with, but reported discomfort with the FFR.

Results:

With the hydrocolloid dressings in place, the fit-test pass rate for the semirigid cup style (3M 1860) was 94% (108 of 115); for the the vertical flat-fold style (BYD), the pass rate was 85% (44 of 52); for the duckbill style (BSN medical ProShield and Halyard Fluidshield), the pass rate was 81% (87 of 108); and for the 3-panel flat-fold style (3M Aura) N95 FFRs, the pass rate was 100% (3 of 3). There was a statistically significant reduction in the overall fit factors for both the vertical flat-fold and duckbill type N95 respirators after the application of hydrocolloid dressings.

Conclusions:

Hydrocolloid dressings are likely to disturb the mask seal for nonrigid-style N95 FFRs, particularly the vertical flat-fold style and the duckbill style N95 FFRs. Given the risk of mask seal disturbance of N95 respirators as shown in this study, we advocate that any HCW requiring the use of prophylactic dressings should undergo repeat quantitative fit testing with the dressing in place prior to using the dressing and mask in combination.

Physiological measurements of facial skin response under personal protective equipment

Medical device-related pressure ulcers (MDRPUs) were traditionally associated with skin-contacting medical devices applied to patients, eventually causing tissue damage. The coronavirus-2019 pandemic has brought a new variant of MDRPUs: facial skin irritation or damage associated with extended use of protective personal equipment (PPE), e.g. facemasks and respirators. In this context, we report here a comprehensive experimental evaluation including facial contact forces, skin temperatures and sub-epidermal moisture (SEM) measurements pre/post-PPE usage, to determine how these physiological parameters change under the effects of surgical facemasks and KN95 respirators and whether such potential changes can explain the commonly reported skin irritation or damage. We found that a surgical mask is potentially less irritating to facial skin than the KN95 respirator, as it applies lower forces and facilitates faster return of facial temperatures to their basal levels. Further, we demonstrated that use of dressing cuts for padding under a KN95 respirator considerably reduced localized forces and did not worsen the thermal and SEM readings at the skin-device contact sites. This study provides a basis for improvement of PPE designs, as it describes physiological measurement methodologies for quantitative comparisons of the effects of different PPE types on facial skin status.

COVID-19 and dermatological personal protective equipment considerations

Cutaneous injury and irritation among health care workers has substantially risen during the COVID-19 pandemic. In a field already laden with skin-induced injury and irritation due to high levels of handwashing and glove wearing, increases have been reported in handwashing-induced xerosis, irritant dermatitis, and contact dermatitis from N95 respirators and other surgical masks. Masks, goggles, face shields, and gloves all potentially create abrasions from long hours of use, leading to itching, pain, and aggravation of underlying skin conditions. Personal protective equipment (PPE)-related skin injury can be serious, and the American Academy of Dermatology has released recommendations on preventing and treating occupationally induced dermatologic conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic. These are reviewed and discussed in conjunction with overarching guidelines for mitigating the spread of the virus.

Community Use of Face Masks against the Spread of COVID-19

The role of face masks to prevent and control COVID-19 is critical, especially since asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic infected individuals can shed high loads of SARS-CoV-2 in the surrounding environment. In addition to being a two-way barrier to protect against virions droplets both in terms of "source control" (for the benefits of the community) and "physical protection" (for wearer), face masks also allow maintaining physiological temperatures and humidity of the nasal cavity and mouth, independently from the external environmental conditions. Beyond compromising the viral transmission speed, exposure to cold environments could have a detrimental effect on the host's susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2. The innate human immune system becomes in fact weaker with cooler nose temperatures and thus more vulnerable to viral replication. Furthermore, there is evidence that warm, humid climates are associated with reduced spread of SARS-CoV-2, while cold dry conditions favor its stability and transmissibility. In the early stage of a viral infection, a physiological body temperature in the upper airways supports the innate immune system, endorsing the muco-ciliary clearance, inhibiting, or deactivating any first settlement of viruses. Face masks are therefore strongly recommended also outdoors, especially under cold weather conditions, not only as a physical barrier against the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, but also to prevent the rapid cooling of the nasal mucosa and the inhibition of the human innate defense of the upper airways.