The Impact of Personal Protective Equipment on Healthcare Workers on COVID-19 Duty in a Tertiary Care Hospital in South India

Context The proper usage of personal protective equipment (PPE) must be prioritised for health care workers (HCWs), where shortages and prolonged use of personal protective equipment can threaten safety in essential health services. Aims To evaluate the effect of personal protective equipment on the health and well-being of HCWs, physicians, nurses, and technicians on duty for COVID-19 rotational postings. Settings and design This cross-sectional study was done by simple random sampling. Methods and materials This study was conducted at a tertiary care centre in South India to assess the utilisation of personal protective equipment (PPE) during the second wave of COVID-19. A physical questionnaire was distributed to a total of 266 healthcare workers, aged 20 to 50, who had worked for a minimum of three consecutive days between May and August 2021. The objective of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of PPE use among healthcare workers during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Statistical analysis The data analysis in this study was conducted using IBM Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 19 (IBM Corp., Armonk, New York). The mean and standard deviation, or median, were used to present continuous variables, while frequency and percentage were used to present categorical variables. Furthermore, the minimum sample size required for this study was calculated to be 246 participants. Results The survey included 266 healthcare workers. The mean+/-SD of age was 28.18+/-5.64 and consisted of females (54.51%) and males (45.48%). The postings were in emergency (13.15%), intensive care unit (30.82%), and ward (56.01%), respectively. The HCWs who used PPE for four to seven days reported more symptoms than those who used it for one to three days. Discomforts experienced while wearing PPE were chest suffocation (49.62%), difficulty in performing intubation (36.09%), difficulty in seeing clearly (68.79%), dizziness (49.62%), excessive sweating (75.56%), micturition desire (52.63%), nausea (42.48%), retro-auricular pain (56.76%), stomach burns (27.44%), and thirst or dry throat (78.57%). The symptoms suffered after doffing were tiredness (69.17%), dry mouth (67.29%), dizziness (43.60%), headache (55.63%), chest suffocation (36.46%), dry skin (57.14%), reduced ability to concentrate (48.12%), dark-coloured urine (55.63%), reduced alertness (42.48%), and stomach burns (28.94%). The first thoughts after doffing were to drink water (68.42%), eat something (36.09%), clean yourself (61.27%), urinate (33.08%), and have some rest (29.32%), respectively. 81 (30.45%). The HCWs suffered skin injuries while wearing gloves. The time for restoring after a shift was 12 hours (37.59%), 24 hours (34.21%), 36 hours (11.65%), and 48 hours (16.59%). Pressure sores were reported on the forehead by 53 (19.92%) participants, the nose by 54 (20.30%), the cheek by 31 (11.65%), and behind the ear by 77 (65.71%) participants. The optimal size of PPE was experienced only by 76 (28.57%) participants, while 73 (27.44%) of them felt tight and 117 (43.98%) felt loose. Conclusions To minimise discomfort while managing infectious diseases, HCWs can adopt several practices like taking regular breaks, ensuring humane working hours, utilising high-quality PPE, and wearing properly fitting gear. By implementing these measures, HCWs can enhance their ability to handle infectious diseases effectively while prioritising their comfort and well-being.