RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The safe removal of personal protective equipment (PPE) can limit transmission of serious communicable diseases, but this process poses challenges to healthcare workers (HCWs). METHODS: We observed 41 HCWs across 4 Ebola treatment centers in Georgia doffing PPE for simulated patients with serious communicable diseases. Using human factors methodologies, we obtained the details, sequences, and durations of doffing steps; identified the ways each step can fail (failure modes [FMs]); quantified the riskiness of FMs; and characterized the workload of doffing steps. RESULTS: Eight doffing steps were common to all hospitals-removal of boot covers, gloves (outer and inner pairs), the outermost garment, the powered air purifying respirator (PAPR) hood, and the PAPR helmet assembly; repeated hand hygiene (eg, with hand sanitizer); and a final handwashing with soap and water. Across hospitals, we identified 256 FMs during the common doffing steps, 61 of which comprised 19 common FMs. Most of these common FMs were above average in their riskiness at each hospital. At all hospitals, hand hygiene, removal of the outermost garment, and removal of boot covers were above average in their overall riskiness. Measurements of workload revealed that doffing steps were often mentally demanding, and this facet of workload correlated most strongly with the effortfulness of a doffing step. CONCLUSIONS: We systematically identified common points of concern in protocols for doffing high-level PPE. Addressing FMs related to hand hygiene and the removal of the outermost garment, boot covers, and PAPR hood could improve HCW safety when doffing high-level PPE.We identified ways that doffing protocols for high-level personal protective equipment may fail to protect healthcare workers. Hand hygiene, removing the outermost garment, boot covers, and respirator hood harbored the greatest risk and failed in similar ways across different hospitals.
Asunto(s)
Personal de Salud , Fiebre Hemorrágica Ebola/prevención & control , Control de Infecciones/instrumentación , Transmisión de Enfermedad Infecciosa de Paciente a Profesional/prevención & control , Equipo de Protección Personal , Georgia , Guantes Protectores , Higiene de las Manos/métodos , Higiene de las Manos/normas , Fiebre Hemorrágica Ebola/transmisión , Humanos , Salud Laboral , Dispositivos de Protección Respiratoria , Medición de Riesgo , Entrenamiento SimuladoRESUMEN
We observed 354 hand hygiene instances across 41 healthcare workers doffing personal protective equipment at 4 hospital-based biocontainment units. We measured the duration and thoroughness of each hand hygiene instance. Both parameters varied substantially, with systematic differences between hospitals and differences between healthcare workers accounting for much of the variance.
Asunto(s)
Infección Hospitalaria/prevención & control , Higiene de las Manos/estadística & datos numéricos , Personal de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Transmisión de Enfermedad Infecciosa de Paciente a Profesional/prevención & control , Equipo de Protección Personal , Contención de Riesgos Biológicos , Ergonomía , Georgia , Adhesión a Directriz , Fiebre Hemorrágica Ebola/prevención & control , Fiebre Hemorrágica Ebola/transmisión , Hospitales , Humanos , Control de Infecciones/métodos , Estudios RetrospectivosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Few data exist to guide the physical design of biocontainment units, particularly the doffing area. This can impact the contamination risk of healthcare workers (HCWs) during doffing of personal protective equipment (PPE). METHODS: In phase I of our study, we analyzed simulations of a standard patient care task with 56 trained HCWs focusing on doffing of high-level PPE. In phase II, using a rapid cycle improvement approach, we tested different balance aids and redesigned doffing area layouts with 38 students. In phase III, we tested 1 redesigned layout with an additional 10 trained HCWs. We assessed the effectiveness of design changes on improving the HCW performance (measured by occurrence and number of risky behaviors) and reducing the physical and cognitive load by comparing the results from phase I and phase III. RESULTS: The physical load was highest when participants were removing their shoe covers without any balance aid; the use of a chair required the lowest physical effort, followed by horizontal and vertical grab bars. In the revised design (phase III), the overall performance of participants improved. There was a significant decrease in the number of HCW risky behaviors (P = .004); 5 risky behaviors were eliminated and 2 others increased. There was a significant decrease in physical load when removing disposable shoe covers (P = .04), and participants reported a similar workload in the redesigned doffing layout (P = .43). CONCLUSIONS: Through optimizing the design and layout of the doffing space, we reduced risky behaviors of HCWs during doffing of high-level PPE.