Cargando…
Personal protective equipment and doffing procedures in out-of-hospital practice: assessment with a contamination simulation
BACKGROUND: The use of personal protective equipment (PPE) by emergency medical services (EMS) providers requires specific attention, as it takes place in out-of-hospital unsecured settings. The aim of this study was to evaluate which PPE gown was less contaminating during doffing procedures in an E...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8275914/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34256703 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12245-021-00362-9 |
_version_ | 1783721807220572160 |
---|---|
author | Pottier, Fabrice Groizard, Charles Briche, Grégory Haraczaj, Nicolas Garnier, Maxime Loones, Vinciane Ozguler, Anna Baer, Michel Baer, Géraldine Loeb, Thomas |
author_facet | Pottier, Fabrice Groizard, Charles Briche, Grégory Haraczaj, Nicolas Garnier, Maxime Loones, Vinciane Ozguler, Anna Baer, Michel Baer, Géraldine Loeb, Thomas |
author_sort | Pottier, Fabrice |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The use of personal protective equipment (PPE) by emergency medical services (EMS) providers requires specific attention, as it takes place in out-of-hospital unsecured settings. The aim of this study was to evaluate which PPE gown was less contaminating during doffing procedures in an EMS setting. Six well-trained healthcare worker (HCW) subjects tested 4 different gowns: (1) surgical gowns (SG), (2) full body coveralls (FBC), (3) self-made alternative PPEs (SMP), and (4) non-surgical isolation gowns (NSIG). An invisible tracer was sprayed on the gown after donning each subject. After doffing, each HCW was photographed under UV lights to show areas of fluorescent “contamination” on their clothes. The number, size, and intensity level of contaminated areas were noted, as well as observational deviation from the procedure and doffing time. In addition, the subjects were asked to take a questionnaire about their perception of the level of comfort, ease of doffing, and overall safety for each gown. RESULTS: Despite a well-trained team of HCW subjects, contamination while doffing was observed with every type of PPE gown, and with each HCW subject. All body areas were contaminated at least once, except the face. Contamination was more frequent while doffing FBCs. On the other hand, the removal of SG was found to be the least contaminating. The mean doffing time was significantly shorter with SG 1:29 and longer with FBC 2:26 (p=0.005). CONCLUSION: Results of this study converge towards the selection of surgical gowns over other types of PPE gowns, which met both contamination criteria as well as staff appreciation in this context. Specific attention should be paid to the legs and abdomino-pelvic areas. Additional protection such as protective trousers or aprons could be added. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8275914 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-82759142021-07-13 Personal protective equipment and doffing procedures in out-of-hospital practice: assessment with a contamination simulation Pottier, Fabrice Groizard, Charles Briche, Grégory Haraczaj, Nicolas Garnier, Maxime Loones, Vinciane Ozguler, Anna Baer, Michel Baer, Géraldine Loeb, Thomas Int J Emerg Med Notes from the Field BACKGROUND: The use of personal protective equipment (PPE) by emergency medical services (EMS) providers requires specific attention, as it takes place in out-of-hospital unsecured settings. The aim of this study was to evaluate which PPE gown was less contaminating during doffing procedures in an EMS setting. Six well-trained healthcare worker (HCW) subjects tested 4 different gowns: (1) surgical gowns (SG), (2) full body coveralls (FBC), (3) self-made alternative PPEs (SMP), and (4) non-surgical isolation gowns (NSIG). An invisible tracer was sprayed on the gown after donning each subject. After doffing, each HCW was photographed under UV lights to show areas of fluorescent “contamination” on their clothes. The number, size, and intensity level of contaminated areas were noted, as well as observational deviation from the procedure and doffing time. In addition, the subjects were asked to take a questionnaire about their perception of the level of comfort, ease of doffing, and overall safety for each gown. RESULTS: Despite a well-trained team of HCW subjects, contamination while doffing was observed with every type of PPE gown, and with each HCW subject. All body areas were contaminated at least once, except the face. Contamination was more frequent while doffing FBCs. On the other hand, the removal of SG was found to be the least contaminating. The mean doffing time was significantly shorter with SG 1:29 and longer with FBC 2:26 (p=0.005). CONCLUSION: Results of this study converge towards the selection of surgical gowns over other types of PPE gowns, which met both contamination criteria as well as staff appreciation in this context. Specific attention should be paid to the legs and abdomino-pelvic areas. Additional protection such as protective trousers or aprons could be added. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2021-07-13 /pmc/articles/PMC8275914/ /pubmed/34256703 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12245-021-00362-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Notes from the Field Pottier, Fabrice Groizard, Charles Briche, Grégory Haraczaj, Nicolas Garnier, Maxime Loones, Vinciane Ozguler, Anna Baer, Michel Baer, Géraldine Loeb, Thomas Personal protective equipment and doffing procedures in out-of-hospital practice: assessment with a contamination simulation |
title | Personal protective equipment and doffing procedures in out-of-hospital practice: assessment with a contamination simulation |
title_full | Personal protective equipment and doffing procedures in out-of-hospital practice: assessment with a contamination simulation |
title_fullStr | Personal protective equipment and doffing procedures in out-of-hospital practice: assessment with a contamination simulation |
title_full_unstemmed | Personal protective equipment and doffing procedures in out-of-hospital practice: assessment with a contamination simulation |
title_short | Personal protective equipment and doffing procedures in out-of-hospital practice: assessment with a contamination simulation |
title_sort | personal protective equipment and doffing procedures in out-of-hospital practice: assessment with a contamination simulation |
topic | Notes from the Field |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8275914/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34256703 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12245-021-00362-9 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT pottierfabrice personalprotectiveequipmentanddoffingproceduresinoutofhospitalpracticeassessmentwithacontaminationsimulation AT groizardcharles personalprotectiveequipmentanddoffingproceduresinoutofhospitalpracticeassessmentwithacontaminationsimulation AT brichegregory personalprotectiveequipmentanddoffingproceduresinoutofhospitalpracticeassessmentwithacontaminationsimulation AT haraczajnicolas personalprotectiveequipmentanddoffingproceduresinoutofhospitalpracticeassessmentwithacontaminationsimulation AT garniermaxime personalprotectiveequipmentanddoffingproceduresinoutofhospitalpracticeassessmentwithacontaminationsimulation AT loonesvinciane personalprotectiveequipmentanddoffingproceduresinoutofhospitalpracticeassessmentwithacontaminationsimulation AT ozguleranna personalprotectiveequipmentanddoffingproceduresinoutofhospitalpracticeassessmentwithacontaminationsimulation AT baermichel personalprotectiveequipmentanddoffingproceduresinoutofhospitalpracticeassessmentwithacontaminationsimulation AT baergeraldine personalprotectiveequipmentanddoffingproceduresinoutofhospitalpracticeassessmentwithacontaminationsimulation AT loebthomas personalprotectiveequipmentanddoffingproceduresinoutofhospitalpracticeassessmentwithacontaminationsimulation |