Articles: personal-protective-equipment.
-
Anaesth Intensive Care · Jan 2025
A cost analysis of the anaesthetic management of patients with confirmed or suspected coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in a tertiary referral hospital in Queensland, Australia.
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in Australia resulted in significant additional infection control precautions for consumers and the health workforce. Prior to widespread vaccine availability, substantial changes were made to the operating theatre management of patients presenting for surgery with suspected or diagnosed COVID-19. This study aimed to calculate the actual costs of operating theatre care for patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19. ⋯ Twenty-four patients with suspected COVID-19 infection underwent surgery between May 2020 and February 2021. Cost analysis revealed a mean (standard deviation (SD), range) increase in costs of providing perioperative care for COVID-19 suspect patients of A$2252 (A$2570, A$315.85-10,398); that is, a mean of 207.5% more than usual care costs. This was primarily due to the increased number of staff and time required to complete these cases with appropriate infection control.
-
During coronavirus disease of 2019 pandemic a standard usage of personal protective equipment (PPE) in healthcare was mandatory, while actually the usage of PPE is currently decreasing. This raises the question about the further use of PPE in the clinical setting because healthcare workers (HCW) are at greater risk of being infected with SARS-CoV-2 than the general population. The primary objective of this study is to determine the proportion of shock room team members approving the further use of PPE including a FFP2 respirator in simulation training and reality. The secondary objectives are to describe the expertise and difficulties faced while using PPE in the shock room care. ⋯ A majority of our participants favored a standard PPE including a FFP2 respirator in shock room care. In addition, we recommend the use of PPE in shock room simulation training, while further awareness of and training in proper use of PPE seems to be necessary to reduce risk of infectious diseases for HCW.
-
Amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine emerged as an important option that supports and facilitates clinical practice, however, its usefulness in emergency settings that treat patients with cancer is unclear. ⋯ Cancer patients presenting to the emergency department perceive empathy and compassion equally when approached by physicians virtually without PPE or in person while wearing PPE. Virtual services for specific aspects of clinical practice during emergency department visits in an oncology setting can be implemented to ensure safer interactions between patients and physicians without compromising the physician-patient relationship.
-
An increase in the workload and use of personal protective equipment by healthcare workers was observed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to the connections between craniocervical structures, symptoms such as neck pain and temporomandibular symptoms could be influenced by the use of PPE. ⋯ Healthcare workers self-reported more craniocervical pain during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to before the pandemic. In addition, poor sleep quality, depressive symptoms, and physical inactivity were associated with craniocervical symptoms during this period.
-
Cochrane Db Syst Rev · May 2024
Review Meta AnalysisPersonal protective equipment for preventing asbestos exposure in workers.
Asbestos exposure can lead to asbestos-related diseases. The European Union (EU) has adopted regulations for workplaces where asbestos is present. The EU occupational exposure limit (OEL) for asbestos is 0.1 fibres per cubic centimetre of air (f/cm3) as an eight-hour average. Different types of personal protective equipment (PPE) are available to provide protection and minimise exposure; however, their effectiveness is unclear. ⋯ Where the outside asbestos concentration is below 0.1 f/cm3, SARS and PAPRs likely reduce exposure to below the proposed OEL of 0.01 f/cm3. For outside concentrations up to 10 f/cm3, all respirators may reduce exposure below the current OEL, but only SAR also below the proposed OEL. In band 5 (10 to < 100 f/cm3), full-face filtering masks may not reduce asbestos exposure below either OEL, SARs likely reduce exposure below both OELs, and there were no data for PAPRs. In band 6 (100 f/cm3 to < 1000 f/cm3), PAPRs may not reduce exposure below either OEL, and there were no data for full-face filtering masks or SARs. Some coveralls may increase body temperature more than others. Randomised studies are needed to directly compare PAPRs and SARs at higher asbestos concentrations and to assess adverse effects. Future studies should assess the effects of doffing procedures.