4.5 Article

Personal protective equipment and intensive care unit healthcare worker safety in the COVID-19 era (PPE-SAFE): An international survey

Journal

JOURNAL OF CRITICAL CARE
Volume 59, Issue -, Pages 70-75

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2020.06.005

Keywords

COVID-19; Personal protective equipment; Safety; Health care workers; Intensive care

Funding

  1. Clinical Research Career Development Fellowship from the Wellcome Trust [WT 2055214/Z/16/Z]
  2. Swiss National Science Foundation [P400PM_183865]
  3. Bangerter-Rhyner Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To survey healthcare workers (HCW) on availability and use of personal protective equipment (PPE) caring for COVID-19 patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Materials and method: A web-based survey distributed worldwide in April 2020. Results: We received 2711 responses from 1797 (67%) physicians, 744 (27%) nurses, and 170 (6%) Allied HCW. For routine care, most (1557, 58%) reportedly used FFP2/N95 masks, waterproof long sleeve gowns (1623: 67%), and face shields/visors (1574; 62%). Powered Air-Purifying Respirators we re used routinely and for incubation only by 184 (7%) and 254 (13%) respondents, respectively. Surgical masks were used for routine care by 289 (15%) and 47 (2%) for intubations. At least one piece of standard PPE was unavailable for 1402 (52%), and 817 (30%) reported reusing single-use PPE. PPE was worn for a median of 4 h (IQR 2, 5). Adverse effects of PPE were associated with longer shift durations and included heat (1266, 51%), thirst (1174,47%), pressure areas (1088,44%), headaches (696. 28%), Inability to use the bathroom (661, 27%) and extreme exhaustion (492, 20%). Conclusions: HCWs reported widespread shortages, frequent reuse of, and adverse effects related to PPE. Urgent action by healthcare administrators, policymakers, governments and industry is warranted. Crown Copyright (C) 2020 Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available