Articles: personal-protective-equipment.
-
Prehosp Disaster Med · Aug 2020
A Positive-Pressure Environment Disposable Shield (PEDS) for COVID-19 Health Care Worker Protection.
The COVID-19 pandemic has strained health care system resources and reduced the availability of life-sustaining and medical-grade personal protective equipment (PPE) though the combination of increased demand and disrupted manufacturing supply chains. As a result of these shortages, many health care providers have temporarily used largely untested, improvised PPE (iPPE). Lack of quality control for makeshift PPE and frequent repurposing of used items to conserve supplies increase both the risk of provider infection and nosocomial spread to uninfected patients. ⋯ The unit was successfully deployed in Taiwan during the 2003 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) outbreak, and again during the COVID-19 pandemic. The iPPE worn directly by the health care workers (HCWs) can be donned prior to patient contact in the presence of an air source. This strategy may be more protective than a covering placed over the patient in an aerosol-generating environment, which requires the HCW to be in close contact with the patient prior to securing the protective device.
-
Front-line health care personnel, including anaesthetists, otolaryngologists, and other health professionals dealing with acute cases of coronavirus, face a high risk of infection and thus mortality. The scientific evidence establishes that to protect them, hospital protocols should require that wearing of the highest levels of personal protective equipment (PPE) be available for doctors and nurses performing aerosol-generating procedures, such as intubation, sputum induction, open suctioning of airways, bronchoscopy, etc. of COVID-19 patients. Although several international bodies have issued recommendations for a very high-level PPE to be used when these procedures are undertaken, the current PPE guidelines in Australia have tended to be more relaxed, and hospital authorities relying on them might not comply with legal obligations to their employee health care workers. Failure to provide high-level PPE in many hospitals is of concern for a large number of health care workers; this article examines the scientific literature on the topic and provides a legal perspective on hospital authorities' possible liability in negligence.
-
Why the interest?
The combination of a deadly contagion (COVID-19) and recognition that endotracheal intubation is a high risk procedure for the airway technician has lead to the development of novel medical equipment. One such innovation is the clear-perspex 'intubating box' designed to contain viral-aerosols released during intubation. There has been limited prior evaluation of the safety or efficacy of such devices, despite their promotion.
What did they do?
Begley et al. conducted 36 simulated intubations with twelve PPE-adorned1 anaesthetists, with and without intubating boxes. They primarily aimed to quantify the effect on time to intubation.
Investigators tested both a first-generation and newer generation device. Each of twelve senior anaesthesiologists performed three block-randomised intubations: no box, original, and latest-design box. The airway manikin tongue was inflated to simulate a grade 2A airway.
And they found...
Intubation time was significantly increased by both the older and newer box designs (x̄=48s and x̄=28s longer respectively, though with wide confidence intervals). More relevantly there were frequent prolonged-duration intubations with the box (58% >1 minute, 17% >2 min), but none without the box.
Most worrying, there were eight breaches of PPE caused by box use, seven occurring with the newer, more advanced design.
"PPE breaches often seemed to go unrecognised by participants, potentially increasing their risk further."
Reality check
Despite the superficial appeal of an intubation box, this simulation study warns that such devices fail both to support safe and timely intubation and to protect the clinician – the very arguments used to advocate for its use.
These failings occur before even considering the actual effectiveness in reducing viral exposure, the box's impact on emergent airway rescue, or the practicality of cleaning a reusable device now coated with viral particles.
The intubating aerosol box appears dead on arrival.
Bonus biases
Begley notes the appeal of such novel devices may be partly driven by 'gizmo idolatry' (Leff 2008) and 'MacGyver bias' (Duggan 2019), blinding clinicians to consider unknown consequences of box use and discounting resultant hazards.
summary
-
Local COVID PPE guidelines were used: face-shield, goggles/glasses, mask, gown & gloves. ↩
-