4.6 Article

Limiting factors for wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) in a health care environment evaluated in a randomised study

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 14, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0210775

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Christian Doppler Research Fund (Austrian Federal Ministry of Science, Research and Economy, the National Foundation for Research, Technology and Development)
  2. ERINHA (European Research Infrastructure on Highly Pathogenic Agents, FP7-INFRA-2010-2-2.8)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Pandemics and re-emerging diseases put pressure on the health care system to prepare for patient care and sample logistics requiring enhanced personnel protective equipment (PPE) for health care workers. We generated quantifiable data on ergonomics of PPE applicable in a health care setting by defining error rates and physically limiting factors due to PPE-induced restrictions. Nineteen study volunteers tested randomly allocated head-or full body-ventilated PPE suits equipped with powered-air-purifying-respirators and performed four different tasks (two laboratory tutorials, a timed test of selective attention and a test investigating reaction time, mobility, speed and physical exercise) during 6 working hours at 22 degrees C on one day and 4 working hours at 28 degrees C on another day. Error rates and physical parameters (fluid loss, body temperature, heart rate) were determined and ergonomic-related parameters were assessed hourly using assessment sheets. Depending on the PPE system the most restrictive factors, which however had no negative impact on performance (speed and error rate), were: reduced dexterity due to multiple glove layers, impaired visibility by flexible face shields and back pain related to the respirator of the fully ventilated suit. Heat stress and liquid loss were perceived as restrictive at a working temperature of 28 degrees C but not 22 degrees C.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available