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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pottier, Fabrice, Groizard, Charles, Briche, Grégory, Haraczaj, Nicolas, Garnier, Maxime, Loones, Vinciane, Ozguler, Anna, Baer, Michel, Baer, Géraldine, Loeb, Thomas
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