A Simulation Study to Evaluate Improvements in Anesthesia Work Environment Contamination After Implementation of an Infection Prevention Bundle:

Prediction of Contaminated Areas Using Ultraviolet Fluorescence Markers for Medical Simulation: A Mobile Phone Application Approach

The use of ultraviolet fluorescence markers in medical simulations has become popular in recent years, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Healthcare workers use ultraviolet fluorescence markers to replace pathogens or secretions, and then calculate the regions of contamination. Health providers can use bioimage processing software to calculate the area and quantity of fluorescent dyes. However, traditional image processing software has its limitations and lacks real-time capabilities, making it more suitable for laboratory use than for clinical settings. In this study, mobile phones were used to measure areas contaminated during medical treatment. During the research process, a mobile phone camera was used to photograph the contaminated regions at an orthogonal angle. The fluorescence marker-contaminated area and photographed image area were proportionally related. The areas of contaminated regions can be calculated using this relationship. We used Android Studio software to write a mobile application to convert photos and recreate the true contaminated area. In this application, color photographs are converted into grayscale, and then into black and white binary photographs using binarization. After this process, the fluorescence-contaminated area is calculated easily. The results of our study showed that within a limited distance (50-100 cm) and with controlled ambient light, the error in the calculated contamination area was 6%. This study provides a low-cost, easy, and ready-to-use tool for healthcare workers to estimate the area of fluorescent dye regions during medical simulations. This tool can promote medical education and training on infectious disease preparation.

Simulation with a colour indicator to help reduce contamination during airway management in COVID-19 times: An experience from a tertiary centre in India

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has initiated modified protocols for aerosol-generating procedures. A simulation study using dye was conducted to highlight contamination at intubation and extubation and to encourage adherence to the new COVID-19 protocol among anaesthesia personnel in our institution.

METHODS

A video demonstrating the new COVID-19 protocols was circulated in the Department of Anaesthesiology a week prior to the study. Thirty teams, each comprising an anaesthesia resident and a staff technician, were enroled. Each team was asked to demonstrate the steps of preparation, intubation and extubation on a mannequin in a COVID-19 scenario. Checklists were used to assess points of contamination and adherence to the protocols. Following debriefing, a repeat simulation was conducted. The use of a dye highlighted the points of contamination. The study subjects provided feedback on the usefulness of the session and practical difficulties encountered in adapting to the new protocols.

RESULTS

The average contamination scores decreased by 3.4 (95% confidence interval (CI): 2.4-4.4, P < 0.001) in the post-debrief session. Adherence to the steps of the modified protocol improved by a score of 2.7 (CI: 3.6-1.83) among anaesthesiologists and by 4.3 (CI: 5.3-3.3) among technicians. Further, 93% felt that the use of the colour indicator reinforced awareness of the possible points of contamination.

CONCLUSION

Simulation with a low-fidelity mannequin by using colour indicator for secretions is an effective teaching tool to reduce health hazards during airway management in COVID-19 times.

Hand-to-Environment Contact During Indoor Activities in Senior Welfare Centers Among Korean Older Adults: A Pilot Study

(1) Background: This study aimed to describe the characteristics of hand-to-environment contact (HEC) and identify the influencing factors of HEC behavior during the indoor daily life of Korean older adults in senior welfare centers. (2) Methods: A cross-sectional observational study was used with 30 participants over 65 years of age attending programs in senior welfare centers. Video recordings of the 30 participants were collected for two hours a day for participants selected from 20 November to 4 December 2018. Contact frequency, density, and duration were measured. (3) Results: Video recordings of 3,930 HEC cases were analyzed. Furniture surface (25.0%), tableware and cooking utensils (5.4%), phones (5.3%), and door handles (0.1%) were found to be the items with the most frequent contact, in this order. The average contact frequency and contact density (frequency-duration/min/person) of HEC for two hours were highest for the Category I equipment (personally used, accounting for 70.4%), and the average contact duration of HEC was highest in the Category III equipment (commonly used, 47.7 s/contact/person). Contact density was as high as 266.5 (frequency-duration/min/person). Participants above 75 years of age and the unemployed showed high HEC with Category III. (4) Conclusions: Older adults need to be educated to avoid unnecessary hand contact with items in Category III. In particular, hand hygiene and sanitization through the regular and thorough disinfection of furniture surfaces and shared equipment are very important to prevent the spread of pathogens.

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.

Does Adherence to World Health Organization Hand Hygiene Protocols in the Operating Room Have the Potential to Produce Irritant Contact Dermatitis in Anesthesia Providers?

Anesthesia providers have the burden of constant hand hygiene during task dense periods. The requirement for hand hygiene often demands frequent application of alcohol-based hand rub. To assess whether frequent alcohol-based hand rub use leads to skin changes or irritant contact dermatitis, volunteers cleaned their hands with alcohol-based hand rub every 15 minutes for 8 hours for 5 sequential days. They were examined by a dermatologist before and after and asked about subjective skin changes. Results suggest an increase in irritant contact dermatitis scores and subjective complaints.

A Simple Method for Estimating Hand Hygiene Use Among Anesthesia Personnel: Development, Validation, and Use in a Quality Improvement Project

BACKGROUND

Frequent hand hygiene by anesthesia personnel may be an important factor in reducing contamination of IV lines and medication access ports and may reduce hospital-acquired infections. Measurement of hand hygiene frequency at the individual clinician level by direct observation or electronic devices is cumbersome and expensive. We developed and validated a simple method for estimating hand hygiene frequency by individual anesthesia providers and utilized it in a quality improvement initiative to increase hand hygiene use.

METHODS

Pump-style, alcohol-based hand hygiene container weight at the anesthesia work station was measured before and after each surgical operation and converted to estimated number of accesses (pumps) per hour. Video observation was used to validate the estimated hand hygiene use. A quality improvement initiative utilized periodic measurement of hand hygiene frequency via the validated method, and incorporated individual provider feedback, email reminders, monthly departmental performance reports, and reminders in the electronic anesthesia record. Segmented linear regression was used to evaluate the effect of the intervention on hand hygiene use.

RESULTS

Delivered product per pump was consistent for containers at least half-full and averaged (mean ± SD) 0.92 ± 0.13 g per pump. Video observation in 26 cases showed a strong correlation between observed hand hygiene episodes and estimated hand hygiene use frequency based on weight change of the container (linear regression, R = 0.97, P < .0001). Median hand hygiene frequency was near 0 at baseline but increased progressively throughout the intervention period (segmented linear regression, overall R = 0.76, P < .0001; change of intercept or mean hand hygiene after initiation of intervention [parameter estimate ± SE] [0.970 ± 0.29], P = .0008).

CONCLUSIONS

A low-cost, simple method for measuring individual anesthesia clinician use of hand hygiene intraoperatively based on container weight change is feasible and sufficiently accurate to support a quality improvement initiative to increase its use.