Factors Associated With Worsened Mental Health of Health Care Workers in Canada During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Cross-Sectional Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: Health care workers (HCWs) in Canada have endured difficult conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Many worked long hours while attending to patients in a contagious environment. This introduced an additional burden that may have contributed to worsened mental health conditions. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we examine the factors associated with worsened mental health conditions of HCWs as compared to before the start of the pandemic. METHODS: We use data from a survey of HCWs by Statistics Canada. A regression model is used to estimate the odds ratios (ORs) of worsened mental health after the start of the pandemic. The estimated odds ratio (OR) is associated with different independent variables that include demographics (age, sex, immigration status, and geographic area), occupational factors (work status, occupational group, and exposure category), and different access levels to personal protective equipment (PPE). RESULTS: Of 18,139 eligible participants surveyed, 13,990 (77.1%) provided valid responses. We found that HCWs younger than 35 years old were more likely (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.03-1.27; P=.01) to exhibit worsened mental health as compared to the reference group (35-44 years old). As for sex, male HCWs were less likely (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67-0.86; P<.001) to exhibit worsened mental health as compared to female HCWs. Immigrant HCWs were also less likely (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.51-0.64; P<.001) to exhibit worsened mental health as compared to nonimmigrant HCWs. Further, HCWs working in Alberta had the highest likelihood of exhibiting worsened mental health as compared to HCWs working elsewhere (Atlantic provinces, Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario, British Columbia, and Northern Territories). Frontline workers were more likely (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.16-1.38; P<.001) to exhibit worsened mental health than nonfrontline HCWs. Part-time HCWs were less likely (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.76-0.93; P<.001) to exhibit worsened mental health than full-time HCWs. HCWs who reported encountering COVID-19 cases were more likely (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.41-1.70; P<.001) to exhibit worsened mental health as compared to HCWs who reported no contact with the disease. As for PPE, HCWs who never had access to respirators, eye protection, and face shields are more likely to exhibit worsened mental health by 1.31 (95% CI 1.07-1.62; P<.001), 1.51 (95% CI 1.17-1.96; P<.001), and 1.41 (95% CI 1.05-1.92; P=.02) than those who always had access to the same PPE, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Different HCW groups experienced the pandemic differently based on their demographic and occupational backgrounds as well as access to PPE. Such findings are important to stakeholders involved in the planning of personalized support programs and aid mental health mitigation in future crises. Certain groups require more attention.

The interactions between mixed waste from discarded surgical masks and face shields during the degradation in supercritical water.

The widespread use of surgical masks made of polyolefin and face shields made of polyester during pandemics contributes significantly to plastic pollution. An eco-friendly approach to process plastic waste is using supercritical water, but the reaction of mixed polyolefin and polyester in this solvent is not well understood, which hinders practical applications. This study aimed to investigate the reaction of waste surgical masks (SM) and face shields (FS) mixed in supercritical water. Results showed that the optimal treatment conditions were 400 °C and 60 min, achieving a liquid oil yield of 823.03 mg·g-1 with 25 wt% FS. The interaction between polypropylene (PP), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), and iron (Fe) in SM and FS mainly determined the production of liquid oil products such as olefins and benzoic acid. The methyl-branched structure of PP enhanced PET hydrolysis, resulting in higher production of terephthalic acid (TPA). The degradation of PP was facilitated by the acidic environment created by TPA and benzoic acid in the reaction. Moreover, the hydrolysis of PET produced carboxylic acid, which coordinated with Fe3+ to form Fe-H that catalyzed the polymerization of small olefins, contributing to higher selectivity for C9 olefins. Therefore, this study provides valuable insights into the degradation mechanism of mixed PPE waste in supercritical water and guidance for industrial treatment.

Personal Protection Equipment Kit Tracker.

The primary efficient review on the status of individual defensive gear for medical services workers in India has uncovered that practically all parts of PPE were discovered to be either deficiently accessible or inaccessible in many clinics. PPEs are a significant clinical asset for cutting edge laborers during the pandemic that incorporate body coveralls, N-95 covers, goggles, face shields among others. The public authority has been guaranteeing that after the underlying long stretches of the pandemic, PPE were just imported and there is no deficiency since the most recent couple of months as several homegrown makers are delivering almost 4.5 lakh PPE units every day now. Nonetheless, the most recent review by a gathering of free wellbeing analysts has affirmed that cutting edge workers are as yet not getting these units. The study depended on reactions from specialists, inhabitants and understudies, attendants and network wellbeing workers. Almost 33% of respondents revealed that covers were not accessible at all. (According to an article by The New Indian Express). There are claims that demonstrate no deficiencies of PPE units the nation over, yet as per ongoing overviews, the undeniable realities are not replicated. These realities get significantly more heart-breaking when we move from green zones (one out of five) to red zones (one out of three). At present, India does not have an appropriate framework for the board of the PPE packs, guaranteeing legitimate unit purchasing and selling or permitting taking an interest element to chip away at the regular stage to fix bargains with respect to PPE parts, as indicated by their prerequisites.

Challenges of personal protective equipment use among ophthalmologists during the COVID-19 pandemic: A multicenter international study.

PURPOSE: To explore the possible challenges and difficulties of using Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) in ophthalmic practice during the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: This is a multicenter, international survey among practicing ophthalmologists across different countries. The survey was conducted from September 9th to October 24th, 2020. It included a total of 23 questions that navigated through the currently adopted recommendations in different clinical situations. The survey also assessed the convenience of using various PPE in ophthalmic practice and addressed the clarity of the examination field while using various PPE during clinical or surgical procedures. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-two ophthalmologists completed the survey (101 from Egypt, 50 from the USA, and 21 from four other countries). The analysis of the responses showed that most ophthalmologists use face masks without significant problems during their examinations, while face shields followed by protective goggles were the most inconvenient PPE in the current ophthalmic practice. Moreover, most of the participants (133, 77.3%) noticed an increase in their examination time when using PPE. Furthermore, a considerable percentage of the respondents (70, 40.7%) stopped using one or more of the PPE due to inconvenience or discomfort. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the unique nature of the ophthalmic examination, certain PPE are not ophthalmologist-friendly. Innovative PPE should be tailored for prompt, more convenient, and clearer ophthalmological practice.

Efficacy of personal protective equipment against coronavirus transmission via dental handpieces.

BACKGROUND: This laboratory study was done to evaluate the efficacy of personal protective equipment (PPE) and high-volume evacuation (HVE) against the spread of human coronavirus type 229E (HCoV-229E) during a standard dental procedure. METHODS: Patient and operator manikins were used to recreate a dental setting inside a custom-built class III cabinet-like chamber. The mouth of the patient manikin was inoculated with an HCoV-229E suspension, the viral load of which was similar to that of asymptomatic people infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. The dental procedure was performed with an air turbine handpiece and HVE for 10 seconds. The efficacy of surgical masks, N95 (filtering facepiece class 2) and filtering facepiece class 3 respirators, and face shields was tested via quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction. RESULTS: The wide surface on which the inoculum was spread caused low contamination. Over the external surfaces of masks and respirators, when a face shield was not worn, viral loads ranged from 1.2 through 1.4 log10 mean gene copies per cm2. When the shield was worn, viral loads dropped below the detection limit (< 0.317 log10 gene copies/cm2) for all PPE. On the operator's forehead, viral loads were 0.6 through 0.8 log10 gene copies/cm2. Inside the operator manikin's mouth, viral loads were under the detection limit when using any PPE, with or without the shield. HVE did not significantly change viral loads. CONCLUSIONS: All PPE combinations significantly reduced viral loads in the operator manikin's mouth to below the detection limit, but HVE did not decrease viral contamination. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Although caution is suggested when removing and disposing of PPE to avoid self-contamination, the combination of PPE and face shields drastically decreases the risk of transmitting human coronavirus during aerosol-generating dental procedures.

COVID-19: risk of ocular transmission in health care professionals.

INTRODUCTION: The current pandemic of severe acute respiratory symptom coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has had a major impact on individuals' lives. Social isolation and the use of personal protective equipment - the latter being especially important for health care workers - emerged as two of the main methods of preventing the spread of the disease. The eye can represent a source of transmission through contaminated tears, as well as a source of infection for respiratory droplets or aerosol particles, which may come into contact with the ocular surface and migrate to the lungs and other parts of the body. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the risk of ocular transmission through a literature review and identify ways of preventing it. METHODS: A search of the scientific literature was conducted in the PubMed and Cochrane databases, using a combination of the following keywords: "COVID-19," "eye," "personal protective equipment," "SARS-CoV-2," "protective goggles," "face shields," and "workers' health." RESULTS: The mechanisms of ocular transmission have not been fully elucidated, but studies have demonstrated the presence of viral RNA in the conjunctival sac and aerosolized secretions of contaminated patients; these droplets may come into contact with the eyes of uninfected bystanders, entering the respiratory system through the nose and gaining access to the lungs. CONCLUSIONS: Studies show that the virus can be effectively transmitted through the eyes, underscoring the importance of protective goggles for health care workers or potential transmitters of the virus, in addition to the need for additional education measures to encourage hand hygiene and discourage touching of the eyes.

Experimental Efficacy of the Face Shield and the Mask against Emitted and Potentially Received Particles.

There is currently not sufficient evidence to support the effectiveness of face shields for source control. In order to evaluate the comparative barrier performance effect of face masks and face shields, we used an aerosol generator and a particle counter to evaluate the performance of the various devices in comparable situations. We tested different configurations in an experimental setup with manikin heads wearing masks (surgical type I), face shields (22.5 cm high with overhang under the chin of 7 cm and circumference of 35 cm) on an emitter or a receiver manikin head, or both. The manikins were face to face, 25 cm apart, with an intense particle emission (52.5 L/min) for 30 s. The particle counter calculated the total cumulative particles aspirated on a volume of 1.416 L In our experimental conditions, when the receiver alone wore a protection, the face shield was more effective (reduction factor = 54.8%), while reduction was lower with a mask (reduction factor = 21.8%) (p = 0.002). The wearing of a protective device by the emitter alone reduced the level of received particles by 96.8% for both the mask and face shield (p = NS). When both the emitter and receiver manikin heads wore a face shield, the protection allowed for better results in our experimental conditions: 98% reduction for the face shields versus 97.3% for the masks (p = 0.01). Face shields offered an even better barrier effect than the mask against small inhaled particles (<0.3 µm-0.3 to 0.5 µm-0.5 to 1 µm) in all configurations. Therefore, it would be interesting to include face shields as used in our experimental study as part of strategies to reduce transmission within the community setting.

Application of 3D printing and distributed manufacturing during the first-wave of COVID-19 pandemic. Our experience at a third-level university hospital.

BACKGROUND: 3D printing and distributed manufacturing represent a paradigm shift in the health system that is becoming critical during the COVID-19 pandemic. University hospitals are also taking on the role of manufacturers of custom-made solutions thanks to 3D printing technology. CASE PRESENTATION: We present a monocentric observational case study regarding the distributed manufacturing of three groups of products during the period of the COVID-19 pandemic from 14 March to 10 May 2020: personal protective equipment, ventilatory support, and diagnostic and consumable products. Networking during this period has enabled the delivery of a total of 17,276 units of products manufactured using 3D printing technology. The most manufactured product was the face shields and ear savers, while the one that achieved the greatest clinical impact was the mechanical ventilation adapters and swabs. The products were manufactured by individuals in 57.3% of the cases, and our hospital acted as the main delivery node in a hub with 10 other hospitals. The main advantage of this production model is the fast response to stock needs, being able to adapt almost in real time. CONCLUSIONS: The role of 3D printing in the hospital environment allows the reconciliation of in-house and distributed manufacturing with traditional production, providing custom-made adaptation of the specifications, as well as maximum efficiency in the working and availability of resources, which is of special importance at critical times for health systems such as the current COVID-19 pandemic.

A Cross University-Led COVID-19 Rapid-Response Effort: Design, Build, and Distribute Drexel AJFlex Face Shields.

The purpose of this article is to demonstrate how a new cross-community leadership team came together, collaborated, coordinated across academic units with external community partners, and executed a joint mission to address the unmet clinical need for medical face shields during these unprecedented times. Key aspects of this success include the ability to forge and leverage new opportunities, overcome challenges, adapt to changing constraints, and serve the significant need across the Philadelphia region and healthcare systems. We teamed to design-build durable face shields (AJFlex Shields). This was accomplished by high-volume manufacturing via injection molding and by 3-D printing the key headband component that supports the protective shield. Partnering with industry collaborators and civic-minded community allies proved to be essential to bolster production and deliver approximately 33,000 face shields to more than 100 organizations in the region. Our interdisciplinary team of engineers, clinicians, product designers, manufacturers, distributors, and dedicated volunteers is committed to continuing the design-build effort and providing Drexel AJFlex Shields to our communities.

Association between universal face shield in a quaternary care center and reduction of SARS-COV2 infections among healthcare personnel and hospitalized patients.

We implemented universal face shield use for all healthcare personnel upon entry to facility in order to counter an increase in SARS-COV2 cases among healthcare personnel and hospitalized patients. There was a marked reduction of infections in both healthcare personnel and hospitalized patients between pre and post intervention. Our results support universal face shield use as part of a multifaceted approach in areas of high SARS-COV2 community transmission.

Efficacy of face masks, neck gaiters and face shields for reducing the expulsion of simulated cough-generated aerosols.

Face masks are recommended to reduce community transmission of SARS-CoV-2. One of the primary benefits of face masks and other coverings is as source control devices to reduce the expulsion of respiratory aerosols during coughing, breathing, and speaking. Face shields and neck gaiters have been proposed as an alternative to face masks, but information about face shields and neck gaiters as source control devices is limited. We used a cough aerosol simulator with a pliable skin headform to propel small aerosol particles (0 to 7 µm) into different face coverings. An N95 respirator blocked 99% (standard deviation (SD) 0.3%) of the cough aerosol, a medical grade procedure mask blocked 59% (SD 6.9%), a 3-ply cotton cloth face mask blocked 51% (SD 7.7%), and a polyester neck gaiter blocked 47% (SD 7.5%) as a single layer and 60% (SD 7.2%) when folded into a double layer. In contrast, the face shield blocked 2% (SD 15.3%) of the cough aerosol. Our results suggest that face masks and neck gaiters are preferable to face shields as source control devices for cough aerosols.

Safety Guidelines for Sterility of Face Shields During COVID 19 Pandemic.

Face shields are personal protective equipment devices that are to be used by many health care workers during COVID 19 pandemic for protection of the facial area and associated mucous membranes (eyes, nose, mouth) from droplet spread of infection. Face shields are generally not used alone, but in conjunction with other protective equipment like cap, mask, goggle, and are therefore classified as adjunctive personal protective equipment. In the wake of scarcity of face shields during the COVID 19 Pandemic, consideration of innovating newer methods of manufacturing must be considered to overcome the present day scarcity without jeopardising the safety of front line Heath care workers. All initial fast innovations comes with advantages and disadvantages, hence we thought of putting down simple guidelines for new emerged face shield use.

Remote Learning for Children with Auditory Access Needs: What We Have Learned during COVID-19.

COVID-19 has challenged most everyone in every facet of life. In the beginning of the pandemic shutdown, schools had to make decisions quickly often with limited planning. For students who were deaf or hard of hearing, communication access during instruction was the urgent focus of teachers of the deaf/hard of hearing and educational audiologists. The move from the classroom to home resulted in both predictable and unpredictable challenges as well as some unexpected benefits. Based on numerous conversations with these professionals as well as parents, the challenges encountered with online learning and solutions that were implemented to support students are reported.

The Inadequacy of Regulatory Frameworks in Time of Crisis and in Low-Resource Settings: Personal Protective Equipment and COVID-19.

COVID-19 pandemic is plaguing the world and representing the most significant stress test for many national healthcare systems and services, since their foundation. The supply-chain disruption and the unprecedented request for intensive care unit (ICU) beds have created in Europe conditions typical of low-resources settings. This generated a remarkable race to find solutions for the prevention, treatment and management of this disease which is involving a large amount of people. Every day, new Do-It-Yourself (DIY) solutions regarding personal protective equipment and medical devices populate social media feeds. Many companies (e.g., automotive or textile) are converting their traditional production to manufacture the most needed equipment (e.g., respirators, face shields, ventilators etc.). In this chaotic scenario, policy makers, international and national standards bodies, along with the World Health Organization (WHO) and scientific societies are making a joint effort to increase global awareness and knowledge about the importance of respecting the relevant requirements to guarantee appropriate quality and safety for patients and healthcare workers. Nonetheless, ordinary procedures for testing and certification are currently questioned and empowered with fast-track pathways in order to speed-up the deployment of new solutions for COVID-19. This paper shares critical reflections on the current regulatory framework for the certification of personal protective equipment. We hope that these reflections may help readers in navigating the framework of regulations, norms and international standards relevant for key personal protective equipment, sharing a subset of tests that should be deemed essential even in a period of crisis.

Exploration of alternative supply chains and distributed manufacturing in response to COVID-19; a case study of medical face shields.

Quarantine conditions arising as a result of the coronavirus (COVID-19) have had a significant impact on global production-rates and supply chains. This has coincided with increased demands for medical and personal protective equipment such as face shields. Shortages have been particularly prevalent in western countries which typically rely upon global supply chains to obtain these types of device from low-cost economies. National calls for the repurposing of domestic mass-production facilities have the potential to meet medical requirements in coming weeks, however the immediate demand associated with the virus has led to the mobilisation of a diverse distributed workforce. Selection of appropriate manufacturing processes and underused supply chains is paramount to the success of these operations. A simplified medical face shield design is presented which repurposes an assortment of existing alternative supply chains. The device is easy to produce with minimal equipment and training. It is hoped that the methodology and approach presented is of use to the wider community at this critical time.

An investigation of different types of eyewear and face shields in protecting patients and operators from the harmful effects of ultraviolet radiation.

BACKGROUND: Phototherapy and photochemotherapy are commonly used treatment modalities for a range of chronic skin conditions. Whilst undergoing ultraviolet radiation exposure, patients can wear personal protective equipment. Face shields in combination with other forms of skin cover may be worn to provide both skin and eye protection. There are a number of different types of eyewear and face shields available for purchase. Some of these have clear identifications that show the levels of protection provided whilst others may not have any. METHODS: A series of similar experiments has been undertaken independently at two phototherapy treatment centres-Chapel Allerton Hospital, Leeds and Ninewells Hospital, Dundee-to investigate the effectiveness of different face shields and eye protection that are available for purchase in the United Kingdom (UK). Two similar examples of one face shield were tested at both centres, and another was transferred between the units. RESULTS: Not all examples of the face shields and protective eyewear provided the wearer full protection between 300 nanometres and 400 nanometres (nm). Cost and conformance to different standards was not always a good indicator. Some inexpensive examples tested also met British Association of Dermatology protective sunglasses guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: It is incumbent on all centres to check the properties of protective face shields and eyewear provided to patients and operators to guard against the effects from ultraviolet radiation. There is no correlation between price of the protective equipment and level of protection offered, and there may be opportunity for cost savings.

Face shields for infection control: A review.

Face shields are personal protective equipment devices that are used by many workers (e.g., medical, dental, veterinary) for protection of the facial area and associated mucous membranes (eyes, nose, mouth) from splashes, sprays, and spatter of body fluids. Face shields are generally not used alone, but in conjunction with other protective equipment and are therefore classified as adjunctive personal protective equipment. Although there are millions of potential users of face shields, guidelines for their use vary between governmental agencies and professional societies and little research is available regarding their efficacy.