Articles: personal-protective-equipment.
-
The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV-2) virus is challenging healthcare providers across the world. Current best practices for personal protective equipment (PPE) during this time are rapidly evolving and fluid due to the novel and acute nature of the pandemic and the dearth of high-level evidence. ⋯ The variables to be considered include protection of patients and healthcare providers, accuracy and availability of testing, and responsible use of PPE resources. This article also explores the concerns of surgeons regarding possible transmission to their own family members as a result of caring for COVID-19 patients.
-
Why do we need another PPE review?
This review contextualises the PPE issues with their (relatively low quality) evidence base, focusing particularly on anaesthesia given that this is a high-risk occupational group. Coming from both a UK expert and journal, the recommendations should be carefully considered in terms of the UK's severe COVID outbreak and PPE supply issues.
Important takeaways?
- The significance of airborne transmission, in particular the infectivity of airborne viral particles beyond 1 meter, is uncertain.
- PPE should be seen as an important and essential part of a larger safety system.
- Intubation is a high-risk procedure for aerosol generation. A ventilated negative pressure room and airborne-precaution PPE is recommended. Ventilation (frequency of air-exchange) is likely more important than negative pressure.1 Chinese evidence suggests COVID transmission at intubation is low with appropriate PPE, although there is wide variability in extremes of PPE used along with post-exposure disinfection (eg. showering).
- High-flow nasal oxygen and supraglottic airway (eg. LMA) placement may also be aerosol generating.
- Most risk of transmission from sneezing and coughing is probably droplet and contact, rather than airborne, although the science behind these questions are complex and uncertain. Evidence attempting to answer these questions is often from non-clinical settings.
- Fluid-resistant surgical masks when worn by staff may reduce transmission by at least 80%. Superiority of respirator masks (eg. P2,P3,N95) is not yet reliably supported by evidence.
- Cook highlights two main PPE problems: 1. PPE supply; 2. Inappropriate use of PPE (using higher level than required).
- PPE should be simple to remove (doff) after use, to reduce contamination risk. Cook notes that Canada's SARS experience highlighted increased risk of self contamination with more complex PPE.
On specific levels of PPE
- Contact precautions (gloves & gown) are recommended when in vicinity of COVID positive patient but not within 2 meters.
- Droplet precautions (+ mask & eye protecting) are recommended within 2 meters of patients.
- Airborne precautions (+ FFP3 respirator mask) are only recommended for aerosol generating procedures (AGP). However classification of procedures as AGP or not is only loosely evidence based.
"Public Health England recommends airborne precautions are used in ‘hot spots’ where aerosol generating procedure are regularly performed, if any suspected COVID-19 patients are present – these include intensive care unit, operating theatre, emergency department resuscitation bays and labour wards where mothers are in stage 2 or 3 of labour"
(Interesting that two recent meta-analyses found no evidence of benefit of N95 masks vs surgical masks for healthcare workers: Bartoszko 2020 & Long 2020.)
Hang on...
The elephant in the room is that the lack of PPE supply appears to be the main driver of the rapidly-changing PPE recommendations.
PPE choices need to be made in consideration of the spectrum of risk, hazard and cost, acknowledging different risk profiles depending on location, procedure and individual clinicians.
summary
-
It's worth highlighting that negative pressure confers no protection on those in the room, it's purpose is to prevent escape of contagion to areas outside the room. ↩
-
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg · Jul 2020
ReviewHigh-Risk Aerosol-Generating Procedures in COVID-19: Respiratory Protective Equipment Considerations.
The correct selection and utilization of respiratory personal protective equipment is of the utmost importance in the current COVID-19 pandemic. This is especially true for health care workers exposed to high-risk aerosol-generating procedures, including otolaryngologists, ophthalmologists, neurosurgeons, maxillofacial surgeons, and laparoscopic surgeons. ⋯ However, high-risk aerosol-generating procedures may create aerosolization of high viral loads that represent increased risk to health care workers. In these situations, enhanced respiratory protection with filters certified as 99, 100, or HEPA (high-efficiency particulate air) may be appropriate.
-
The SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 pandemic necessitates a rapid reorganization of the hospital procedures. The establishment of centers dedicated to COVID-19 treatment and care also necessitates preparation of the surgical departments for the forthcoming emergency interventions for infected patients and patients with an unclear infection status. This article summarizes the evidence on standards for personal protective equipment for personnel in the central emergency admission department and in the operations area as well as restructuring measures for the procedures in the operations area in a COVID-plus area. ⋯ The correct personal protective equipment considering the occupational safety helps to sustainably protect personnel from infections. Reorganizational measures in the operating room are urgently indicated for potential aerosol-forming procedures in infected patients or patients with an unclear infection status. The current dynamic situation necessitates a high level of flexibility as well as reassessment and adaptation of the measures at short intervals.