Articles: personal-protective-equipment.
-
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.
-
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.
-
We sought to evaluate the impact of a COVID-19 Code Blue policy on in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) processes of care, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) quality metrics, and survival to hospital discharge. ⋯ The COVID-19 Code Blue policy was associated with delayed processes of care but similarly good CPR quality. The COVID-19 period appeared associated with decreased survival.
-
Multicenter Study Observational Study
Real-world comparison between mechanical and manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The COVID-19 pandemic has posed significant challenges to healthcare systems worldwide, including an increase in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCA). Healthcare providers are now required to use personal protective equipment (PPE) during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Additionally, mechanical CPR devices have been introduced to reduce the number of personnel required for resuscitation. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of CPR performed with a mechanical device and the outcomes of manual CPR performed by personnel wearing PPE. ⋯ This study found no significant differences in survival rates and neurological outcomes between mechanical CPR and PPE-equipped manual CPR in the ED setting. However, a longer total CPR duration was observed in the mechanical CPR group. Further research is required to explore the impact of PPE on healthcare providers' performance and fatigue during CPR in the context of the pandemic and beyond.