Radiographer experiences of personal protective equipment during COVID-19 in Gauteng, South Africa.

INTRODUCTION: Amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare workers (HCWs) were found to be at a greater risk of becoming infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV-2). This disease is highly contagious and is for the most part preventative if correct Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) is used while attending to patients. Subsequently, a lack of PPE in South Africa was putting the lives of health care workers at risk impacting on the functioning of the healthcare system. METHODS: This exploratory, descriptive, qualitative study used purposeful sampling to obtain data saturation. The study comprised twelve individual interviews with radiographers from both private and government hospitals in Gauteng, South Africa who worked in x-ray departments during the COVID-19 pandemic. Online video interviews were conducted. The transcripts of the interviews were further coded into themes and categorised using thematic analysis and verified by an independent coder. RESULTS: The radiographers' experiences of PPE during COVID-19 in Gauteng, South Africa generated 3 themes: radiographers' experiences with PPE supplied during COVID-19, workplace practices and procedures for PPE during COVID-19 and emotional challenges faced during PPE shortage. DISCUSSION: While there was an understandable fear of contracting the COVID-19 virus during the height of the pandemic. The researcher also believes that radiographers would benefit greatly by receiving training on how to use PPE correctly for infection control in highly stressful situations. Education is required for use of PPE when supply is scarce and the number of infected patients outweighs the quantities of PPE available. This study further found that there needs to be more support given to healthcare workers (HCW's) to assess their mental health and emotional stress experienced when facing a pandemic. CONCLUSION: While COVID-19 has started to settle, the lessons learnt should inform recommendations on PPE use, regarding procurement and preservation. In addition, mental health assessments can be considered for radiographers during future pandemic.

Epidemiology of occupational exposure to blood-borne viruses, postexposure prophylaxis and seroconversion over 10 years among healthcare workers.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at increased risk of infection with blood-borne pathogens due to occupational blood exposures (OBEs). Early reporting, detection and postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) help to prevent infections. AIM: To investigate the incidence of OBEs, related epidemiological characteristics, PEP completion rate, time and reason for PEP discontinuation, and seroconversion rate reported over 10 years. METHODS: This retrospective study analysed 1086 cases of OBE and PEP management from January 2012 to December 2021 among staff in a South Korean tertiary hospital. FINDINGS: The mean incidence of OBE was 7.82 per 100 beds and 3.0 per 100 HCWs. Of 1086 cases of OBE, 633 (58.3%) HCWs required PEP and 453 (41.7%) did not. After OBE, 70.1% (444/633) of HCWs subject to PEP completed tracking, and 29.9% (189/633) stopped PEP tracking (P<0.001). The PEP completion rate showed a significant difference by gender (P=0.024), occupation (P<0.001) and exposure frequency (P<0.001). None of the 444 HCWs who completed PEP seroconverted to hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus, human immunodeficiency virus or Treponema pallidum (syphilis). CONCLUSION: The study findings demonstrate the need to improve follow-up care among HCWs following OBE. There is a need for education in healthcare facilities; moreover, establishing a national surveillance system is necessary to ensure that HCWs undergo PEP proactively and complete their follow-up visits.

Simulation of Aerosol and Droplet Spread during Upper Airway and Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Aerosols and droplets are the main vectors in transmission of highly contagious SARS-CoV-2. Invasive diagnostic procedures like upper airway and gastrointestinal endoscopy have been declared as aerosol-generating procedures. Protection of healthcare workers is crucial in times of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We simulated aerosol and droplet spread during upper airway and gastrointestinal endoscopy with and without physico-mechanical barriers using a simulation model. RESULTS: A clear plastic drape as used for central venous access markedly reduced visualized aerosol and droplet spread during endoscopy. CONCLUSION: A simple and cheap drape has the potential to reduce aerosol and droplet spread during endoscopy. In terms of healthcare worker protection, this may be important particularly in low- or moderate-income countries.

A new device for bronchoscopy for better protection.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 has not been precisely known in bronchoscopy procedures. We have designed a cabinet device called Ankara University Bronchoscopy Cabinet (Aubrocab®) to protect healthcare. We aimed to evaluate preventing effect of Aubrocab® on aerosol spreading by measuring the particles in the bronchoscopy suite. METHODS: The patients were categorized into two groups as those who underwent bronchoscopy with and without Aubrocab®. We measured PM 0.5 levels before and after bronchoscopy in the bronchoscopy suite. RESULTS: A total of 82 patients, 62 of whom underwent bronchoscopy with Aubrocab®, were enrolled in the study. The PM 0.5 level measured before bronchoscopy was similar in both groups, whereas the PM 0.5 level measured after bronchoscopy was lower in the Aubrocab® group (42,603 ± 8,632 vs. 50,377 ± 10,487, p = 0.001). The percent of particle change (50.76 ± 19.91 vs 67.15 ± 24.24, p = 0.003) and the difference of the particle numbers between pre and postprocedure (13,638 ± 4,292 and 19,501 ± 5,891, p < 0.001) were lower in the Aubrocab® group. DISCUSSION: Our institution developed a barrier device named Aubrocab® which was shown to prevent excessive aerosol release in addition to routine precautions during bronchoscopy procedures.

Development of protective equipment for endoscopic treatment and surgery in otorhinolaryngology.

OBJECTIVE: The coronavirus disease pandemic has raised concerns regarding the transmission of infections to healthcare workers. We developed a new protective device to reduce the risk of aerosol diffusion and droplet infection among healthcare workers. Here, we report the results of a theoretical evaluation of the efficacy of this device. METHODS: We used suction-capable masks with and without rubber slits, sleeves for the insertion section of endoscopes and treatment tools, and a cover for the control section of the endoscope. To simulate droplet spread from patients, we created a droplet simulation model and an aerosol simulation model. The results with and without the devices attached and with and without the suction were compared. RESULTS: The droplet simulation model showed a 95% reduction in droplets with masks with rubber slits; furthermore, a reduction of 100% was observed when the insertion sleeve was used. Evaluation of aerosol simulation when suction was applied revealed an aerosol reduction of 98% and >99% with the use of the mask without rubber slits and with the combined use of the mask and insertion sleeve, respectively. The elimination of droplet emission upon instrument removal confirmed that the instrument sleeve prevented the diffusion of droplets. The elimination of droplets upon repeated pressing of the suction button confirmed that the cover prevented the diffusion of droplets. CONCLUSION: We developed a device for infection control, in collaboration with a gastrointestinal endoscopist and Olympus Medical Systems Corporation, that was effective in reducing droplet and aerosol diffusion in this initial theoretical assessment.

Risk-based decision-making related to preprocedural coronavirus disease 2019 testing in the setting of GI endoscopy: management of risks, evidence, and behavioral health economics.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Controversies exist regarding the benefits and most appropriate approach for preprocedural coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) testing (eg, rapid antigen test, polymerase chain reaction, or real-time polymerase chain reaction) for outpatients undergoing diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, such as GI endoscopy, to prevent COVID-19 infections among staff. Guidelines for protecting healthcare workers (HCWs) from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection from outpatient procedures varies across medical professional organizations. This study provides an evidence-based decision support tool for key decision-makers (eg, clinicians) to respond to COVID-19 transmission risks and reduce the effect of personal biases. METHODS: A scoping review was used to identify relevant factors influencing COVID-19 transmission risk relevant for GI endoscopy. From 12 relevant publications, 8 factors were applicable: test sensitivity, prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in the population, age-adjusted SARS-CoV-2 prevalence in the patient cohort, proportion of asymptomatic patients, risk of transmission from asymptomatic carriers, risk reduction by personal protective equipment (PPE), vaccination rates of HCWs, and risk reduction of SAE by vaccination. The probability of a serious adverse event (SAE), such as workplace-acquired infection resulting in HCW death, under various scenarios with preprocedural testing was determined to inform decision-makers of expected costs of reductions in SAEs. RESULTS: In a setting of high community transmission, without testing and PPE, 117.5 SAEs per million procedures were estimated to occur, and this was reduced to between .079 and 2.35 SAEs per million procedures with the use of PPE and preprocedural testing. When these variables are used and a range of scenarios are tested, the probability of an SAE was low even without testing but was reduced by preprocedural testing. CONCLUSIONS: Under all scenarios tested, preprocedural testing reduced the SAE risk for HCWs regardless of the SARS-CoV-2 variant. Benefits of preprocedural testing are marginal when community transmission is low (eg, below 10 infections a day per 100,000 population). The proposed decision support tool can assist in developing rational preprocedural testing policies.

Surgery crisis simulation during the COVID-19 pandemic.

SummaryCOVID-19 puts health care providers at risk for infection with SARS-CoV-2. Personal protective equipment (PPE) can reduce viral transmission if used properly. We used simulation of an intraoperative crisis involving an infectious outbreak to assess PPE adherence and confidence in PPE use. Simulation of an intraoperative crisis with a patient with COVID-19 revealed gaps in PPE adherence; however, simulation training successfully increased confidence in PPE use and received positive feedback.

Strategy for Safe Bronchoscopy During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Aerosol-generating procedures are avoided for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to lower the risk of transmission to health care providers. However, when bronchoscopy is indicated, it remains unclear whether the procedure performed while the patient is under general anesthesia leads to contamination of the surroundings and whether standard endoscopy reprocessing methods are effective in eradicating severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. This report describes a case of bronchoscopic retrieval of a foreign body in the airway of a patient under general anesthesia who tested positive for COVID-19. The report focuses on anesthesia techniques to minimize aerosolization.

The effectiveness of the Safety in Interventional Radiology (SIR) Shield in reducing droplet transmission and its effect on image quality and radiation dose.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of a barrier shield in reducing droplet transmission and its effect on image quality and radiation dose in an interventional suite. METHODS: A human cough droplet visualisation model in a supine position was developed to assess efficacy of barrier shield in reducing environmental contamination. Its effect on image quality (resolution and contrast) was evaluated via image quality test phantom. Changes in the radiation dose to patient post-shield utilisation was measured. RESULTS: Use of the shield prevented escape of visible fluorescent cough droplets from the containment area. No subjective change in line-pair resolution was observed. No significant difference in contrast-to-noise ratio was measured. Radiation dosage to patient was increased; this is predominantly attributed to the increased air gap and not the physical properties of the shield. CONCLUSION: Use of the barrier shield provided an effective added layer of personal protection in the interventional radiology theatre for aerosol generating procedures. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This is the first time a human supine cough droplet visualisation has been developed. While multiple types of barrier shields have been described, this is the first systematic practical evaluation of a barrier shield designed for use in the interventional radiology theatre.

Potential Risk and Safety Measures in Laparoscopy in COVID-19 Positive Patients.

Background. During the COVID-19 pandemic the question arises if laparoscopy, as an aerosol forming procedure, poses a potential risk for viral transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to healthcare workers. Methods. A literature search was conducted using PubMed, Embase and MEDLINE. Articles reporting information regarding COVID-19 or other relevant viruses and laparoscopy, surgical smoke, aerosols and viral transmission were included. Results. Although aerosols produced during laparoscopy do not originate from the respiratory tract, the main transmission route of SARS-CoV-2, research did show SARS-CoV-2 to be present in other body fluids. The transmission risk via this route is however considered very low. As previous research showed potential viral transmission during laparoscopy for viruses that spread through contaminated body fluids, there might be a potential risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission during laparoscopy, albeit considered very small. Conclusion. Due to the small risk compared to widely known benefits of laparoscopy, there is no reason to replace laparoscopy by laparotomy due to COVID-19 infection. To avoid the potential small risk of viral transmission, additional safety measures are advised.

Cardiac surgery outcomes in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): A case-series report.

OBJECTIVE: The impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on the postoperative course of patients after cardiac surgery is unknown. We experienced a major severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) outbreak in our cardiac surgery unit, with several patients who tested positive early after surgery. Here we describe the characteristics, postoperative course, and laboratory findings of these patients, along with the fate of the health care workers. We also discuss how we reorganize and reallocate hospital resources to resume the surgical activity without further positive patients. METHODS: After diagnosis of the first symptomatic patient, surgery was suspended. Nasopharyngeal swabs were performed in all patients and health care workers. Patients who were positive for SARS-CoV-2 were isolated and monitored throughout the in-hospital stay and followed up after discharged until death or clinical recovery. RESULTS: Twenty patients were found to be positive for SARS-CoV-2 sometime after cardiac surgery (mean age 69 ± 10.4 years; median European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II score 3 [interquartile range, 5.1]); the median time from surgery to diagnosis was 15 days (interquartile range, 11). Among the patients, 18 had undergone cardiac surgery and 2 of them transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Overall mortality was 15%. Specific COVID-19-related symptoms were identified in 7 patients (35%). Among the 12 health care workers infected, 1 developed a bilateral mild-grade interstitial pneumonia. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 infection after cardiac surgery, regardless the time of the onset, is a serious condition. The systemic inflammatory state that follows extracorporeal circulation may mask the typical COVID-19 laboratory findings, making the diagnosis more difficult. A strict reorganization of the hospital resources is necessary to safely resume the cardiac surgical activity.

Intubation using VieScope vs. Video laryngoscopy in full personal protective equipment - a randomized, controlled simulation trial.

BACKGROUND: VieScope is a new type of laryngoscope, with a straight, transparent and illuminated blade, allowing for direct line of sight towards the larynx. In addition, VieScope is disposed of after single patient use, which can avoid cross-contaminations of contagious material. This has gained importance especially when treating patients with highly contagious infectious diseases, such as during the SARS-CoV2 pandemic. In this context, VieScope has not been evaluated yet in a clinical study. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study compared intubation with VieScope to video-laryngoscopy (GlideScope) in normal and difficult airway in a standardized airway manikin in a randomized controlled simulation trial. Thirty-five medical specialists were asked to perform endotracheal intubation in full personal protective equipment (PPE). Primary endpoint was correct tube position. First-pass rate (i.e., success rate at the first attempt), time until intubation and time until first correct ventilation were registered as secondary endpoints. RESULTS: For correct tracheal tube placement, there was no significant difference between VieScope and GlideScope in normal and difficult airway conditions. VieScope had over 91% fist-pass success rate in normal airway setting. VieScope had a comparable success rate to GlideScope in difficult airway, but had a significantly longer time until intubation and time until ventilation. CONCLUSION: VieScope and GlideScope had high success rates in normal as well as in difficult airway. There was no unrecognized esophageal intubation in either group. Overall time for intubation was longer in the VieScope group, though in an acceptable range given in literature. Results from this simulation study suggest that VieScope may be an acceptable alternative for tracheal intubation in full PPE. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered at the German Clinical Trials Register www.drks.de (Registration date: 09/11/2020; TrialID: DRKS00023406 ).

The use of personal protective equipment in endoscopy: what should the endoscopist wear during a pandemic?

Endoscopists are at high risk of exposure and nosocomial transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2 virus) when performing endoscopic procedures due to the highly aerosol generating nature of these procedures. At present, there is still no consensus among endoscopists with regards to the type of protective equipment to be worn by healthcare workers, when performing endoscopy during the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This review encompasses a summary of currently published guidelines related to the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) when performing endoscopic procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic. With increasing calls to rationalize the use of PPE due to shortages in global supply chains, the review offers a concise summary on the most appropriate and adequate use of PPE when performing endoscopy during the pandemic. It is expected that these adaptations in the use of PPE during the pandemic will help to improve standards of care and safety of healthcare workers.

Bronchoscopy during COVID-19 pandemic, ventilatory strategies and procedure measures.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has changed bronchoscopy practices worldwide. Bronchoscopy is a high-risk aerosol-generating procedure with a potential for direct SARS-CoV-2 exposure and hospital-acquired infection. Current guidelines about personal protective equipment and environment considerations represent key competencies to minimize droplets dispersion and reduce the risk of transmission. Different measures should be put in field based on setting, patient's clinical characteristics, urgency and indications of bronchoscopy. The use of this technique in SARS-CoV-2 patients is reported primarily for removal of airway plugs and for obtaining microbiological culture samples. In mechanically ventilated patients with SARS-CoV-2, bronchoscopy is commonly used to manage complications such as hemoptysis, atelectasis or lung collapse when prone positioning, physiotherapy or recruitment maneuvers have failed. Further indications are represented by assistance during percutaneous tracheostomy. Continuous positive airway pressure, non-invasive ventilation support and high flow nasal cannula oxygen are frequently used in patient affected by Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): management of patients' airways and ventilation strategies differs from bronchoscopy indications, patient's clinical status and in course or required ventilatory support. Sedation is usually administered by the pulmonologist (performing the bronchoscopy) or by the anesthetist depending on the complexity of the procedure and the level of sedation required. Lastly, elective bronchoscopy for diagnostic indications during COVID-19 pandemic should be carried on respecting rigid standards which allow to minimize potential viral transmission, independently from patient's COVID-19 status. This narrative review aims to evaluate the indications, procedural measures and ventilatory strategies of bronchoscopy performed in different settings during COVID-19 pandemic.

Revised recommendations from the CSO-HNS taskforce on performance of tracheotomy during the COVID-19 pandemic - what a difference a year makes.

BACKGROUND: During the early part of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Canadian Society of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery (CSO-HNS) task force published recommendations on performance of tracheotomy. Since then, our understanding of the virus has evolved with ongoing intensive research efforts. New literature has helped us better understand various aspects including patient outcomes and health care worker (HCW) risks associated with tracheotomy during the COVID-19 pandemic. Accordingly, the task force has re-evaluated and revised some of the previous recommendations. MAIN BODY: Based on recent evidence, a negative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) COVID-19 swab status is no longer the main deciding factor in the timing of tracheotomy. Instead, tracheotomy may be considered as soon as COVID-19 swab positive patients are greater than 20 days beyond initial symptoms and 2 weeks of mechanical ventilation. Furthermore, both open and percutaneous surgical techniques may be considered with both techniques showing similar safety and outcome profiles. Additional recommendations with discussion of current evidence are presented. CONCLUSION: These revised recommendations apply new evidence in optimizing patient and health care system outcomes as well as minimizing risks of COVID-19 transmission during aerosol-generating tracheotomy procedures. As previously noted, additional evidence may lead to further evolution of these and other similar recommendations.