Use of personal protective equipment among health care personnel: Results of clinical observations and simulations

HighlightsAmong 130 simulations, contamination occurred in 79.2% during the doffing process.Despite feedback, contaminations still occurred in 82% of 22 follow‐up simulations.Devising better personal protective equipment education and protocols is necessary to ensure health care personnel safety. Background Very little is known about how health care personnel (HCP) actually use personal protective equipment (PPE). Methods The clinical PPE practices of 50 HCP from selected units at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) Presbyterian Hospital were videotaped with HCP consent. For 2 PPE simulation sessions (simple and full‐body sets), 82 HCP were recruited throughout the UPMC system. Simulation practices were videotaped and examined using fluorescent powder with ultraviolet lighting. All participants completed an electronic survey. For a follow‐up evaluation simulation, 12 HCP were recruited among simulation participants. Results Among 130 total sessions from 65 participants, contamination occurred in 79.2% of simulations during the doffing process with various PPE items: simple set (92.3%) and full‐body set (66.2%). Among 11 follow‐up evaluation participants, contaminations still occurred in 82% after receiving individual feedback, but the overall contamination level was reduced. Using the contamination information gained during the simulation analysis, 66% of potential contamination was estimated for the clinical observation. Concerns and barriers in PPE use from HCP survey responses were as follows: time‐consuming, cumbersomeness, and PPE effectiveness. Conclusions Although HCP knew they were being videotaped, contamination occurred in 79.2% of the PPE simulations. Devising better standardized PPE protocols and implementing innovative PPE education are necessary to ensure HCP safety.

[1]  Todd Bell,et al.  Ebola virus disease: The use of fluorescents as markers of contamination for personal protective equipment , 2015, IDCases.

[2]  Jason H. Szostek,et al.  Comparative effectiveness of instructional design features in simulation-based education: Systematic review and meta-analysis , 2013, Medical teacher.

[3]  E. Larson,et al.  Contact precautions for multidrug-resistant organisms: Current recommendations and actual practice. , 2010, American journal of infection control.

[4]  David A Cook,et al.  How much evidence does it take? A cumulative meta‐analysis of outcomes of simulation‐based education , 2014, Medical education.

[5]  E. Casalino,et al.  Personal protective equipment for the Ebola virus disease: A comparison of 2 training programs. , 2015, American journal of infection control.

[6]  M. Edmond,et al.  Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff. , 2016, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[7]  Elizabeth L Beam,et al.  A method for evaluating health care workers’ personal protective equipment technique , 2011, American Journal of Infection Control.

[8]  Mark D Sobsey,et al.  Effect of single- versus double-gloving on virus transfer to health care workers’ skin and clothing during removal of personal protective equipment , 2011, American Journal of Infection Control.

[9]  Yi Li,et al.  Environment and body contamination: A comparison of two different removal methods in three types of personal protective clothing , 2014, American Journal of Infection Control.

[10]  C. Donskey,et al.  Contamination of Health Care Personnel During Removal of Personal Protective Equipment. , 2015, JAMA internal medicine.

[11]  Kristina Peterson,et al.  Hospital respiratory protection practices in 6 U.S. states: a public health evaluation study. , 2015, American journal of infection control.