Prácticas de retiro del equipo de protección personal para personal sanitario.

RESUMENCuando se retira el equipo de protección personal (EPP), los patógenos pueden transferirse desde el EPP al cuerpo de los trabajadores de la salud, poniendo en riesgo de exposición e infección tanto a ellos mismos como a sus pacientes. Entre marzo de 2017 y abril de 2018 se observaron las prácticas de retirada del EPP del personal sanitario que atendía pacientes con infecciones respiratorias virales en un hospital de atención de enfermedades agudas. Un observador capacitado registró el desempeño del personal sanitario cuando retiraba el EPP dentro de las habitaciones de los pacientes, utilizando una lista de verificación predefinida basada en las directrices de los Centros para el Control y Prevención de Enfermedades (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC). Se observaron 162 prácticas de retirada durante el cuidado de 52 pacientes infectados con patógenos virales respiratorios. De estos 52 pacientes, 30 estaban en aislamiento por gota y contacto, 21 en aislamiento por gota y uno en aislamiento de contacto. En general, en 90% de los casos la retirada del EPP observada se realizó de manera incorrecta, ya sea en cuanto a la secuencia de retirada, la técnica de retirada o el uso del EPP apropiado. Los errores más comunes consistieron en quitarse la bata por adelante, retirar la pantalla facial de la mascarilla y tocar superficies y EPP potencialmente contaminados durante el proceso. Las desviaciones del protocolo recomendado para retirar el EPP son comunes y pueden aumentar el potencial de contaminación de la ropa o la piel del personal sanitario después de proporcionar atención. Existe una clara necesidad de cambiar el enfoque utilizado para capacitar al personal en las prácticas de retirada del EPP.

Environmental Contact and Self-contact Patterns of Healthcare Workers: Implications for Infection Prevention and Control.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory viruses on fomites can be transferred to sites susceptible to infection via contact by hands or other fomites. METHODS: Care for hospitalized patients with viral respiratory infections was observed in the patient room for 3-hour periods at an acute care academic medical center for over a 2 year period. One trained observer recorded the healthcare activities performed, contacts with fomites, and self-contacts made by healthcare workers (HCWs), while another observer recorded fomite contacts of patients during the encounter using predefined checklists. RESULTS: The surface contacted by HCWs during the majority of visits was the patient (90%). Environmental surfaces contacted by HCWs frequently during healthcare activities included the tray table (48%), bed surface (41%), bed rail (41%), computer station (37%), and intravenous pole (32%). HCWs touched their own torso and mask in 32% and 29% of the visits, respectively. HCWs' self-contacts differed significantly among HCW job roles, with providers and respiratory therapists contacting themselves significantly more times than nurses and nurse technicians (P < .05). When HCWs performed only 1 care activity, there were significant differences in the number of patient contacts and self-contacts that HCWs made during performance of multiple care activities (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: HCWs regularly contact environmental surfaces, patients, and themselves while providing care to patients with infectious diseases, varying among care activities and HCW job roles. These contacts may facilitate the transmission of infection to HCWs and susceptible patients.

Potential for occupational exposures to pathogens during bronchoscopy procedures.

Bronchoscopy is classified as an aerosol-generating procedure, but it is unclear what drives the elevated infection risk observed among healthcare personnel performing the procedure. The objective of this study was to characterize pathways through which bronchoscopists may be exposed to infectious agents during bronchoscopy procedures. Aerosol number concentrations (0.2-1 µm aerodynamic diameter) were measured using a P-Trak Ultrafine Particle Counter 8525 and mass concentrations (<10 µm) were measured using a SidePak Personal Aerosol Monitor AM510 near the head of patients during bronchoscopy procedures. Procedure pathway, number of patient coughs, number of suctioning events, number of contacts with different surfaces by the pulmonologist, and the use and doffing of personal protective equipment were recorded by the investigator on a specially designed form. Any pulmonologist performing a bronchoscopy procedure was eligible to participate. A total of 18 procedures were observed. Mean particle number and mass concentrations were not elevated during procedures relative to those measured before or after the procedure, on average, but the concentrations were highly variable, exhibiting high levels periodically. Patients frequently coughed during procedures (median 65 coughs, range: 0-565 coughs), and suctioning was commonly performed (median 6.5 suctioning events, range: 0-42). In all procedures, pulmonologists contacted the patient (mean 22.3 contacts, range: 1-48), bronchoscope (mean 19.4 contacts, range: 1-46), and at least one environmental surface (mean 31.2 contacts, range: 3-62). In the majority of procedures, the participant contacted his or her body or personal protective equipment (PPE), with a mean of 17.3 contacts (range: 4-48). More often than not, the observed PPE doffing practices differed from those recommended. Bronchoscopy procedures were associated with short-term increased ultrafine or respirable aerosol concentrations, and there were opportunities for contact transmission.

Personal protective equipment doffing practices of healthcare workers.

During the doffing of personal protective equipment (PPE), pathogens can be transferred from the PPE to the bodies of healthcare workers (HCWs), putting HCWs and patients at risk of exposure and infection. PPE doffing practices of HCWs who cared for patients with viral respiratory infections were observed at an acute care hospital from March 2017 to April 2018. A trained observer recorded doffing performance of HCWs inside the patient rooms using a pre-defined checklist based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guideline. Doffing practices were observed 162 times during care of 52 patients infected with respiratory viral pathogens. Out of the 52 patients, 30 were in droplet and contact isolation, 21 were in droplet isolation, and 1 was in contact isolation. Overall, 90% of observed doffing was incorrect, with respect to the doffing sequence, doffing technique, or use of appropriate PPE. Common errors were doffing gown from the front, removing face shield of the mask, and touching potentially contaminated surfaces and PPE during doffing. Deviations from the recommended PPE doffing protocol are common and can increase potential for contamination of the HCW's clothing or skin after providing care. There is a clear need to change the approach used to training HCWs in PPE doffing practices.

Chicago transit authority train noise exposure.

To characterize noise exposure of riders on Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) trains, we measured noise levels twice on each segment of 7 of the 8 CTA train lines, which are named after colors, yielding 48 time-series measurements. We found the Blue Line has the highest noise levels compared to other train lines, with mean 76.9 dBA; and that the maximum noise level, 88.9 dBA occurred in the tunnel between the Chicago and Grand stations. Train segments involving travel through a tunnel had significantly higher noise levels than segments with travel on elevated and ground level tracks. While 8-hr doses inside the passenger cars were not estimated to exceed occupational exposure limits, train operators ride in a separate cab with operational windows and may therefore have higher noise exposures than riders. Despite the low risk of hearing loss for riders on CTA trains, in part because transit noise accounts for a small part of total daily noise exposure, 1-min average noise levels exceeded 85 dBA at times. This confirms anecdotal observations of discomfort due to noise levels, and indicates a need for noise management, particularly in tunnels.

Respiratory viruses in the patient environment.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the presence and magnitude of viruses in the air and on surfaces in the rooms of hospitalized patients with respiratory viral infections, and to explore the association between care activities and viral contamination. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTING: Acute-care academic hospital. PARTICIPANTS: In total, 52 adult patients with a positive respiratory viral infection test within 3 days of observation participated. Healthcare workers (HCWs) were recruited in staff meetings and at the time of patient care, and 23 wore personal air-sampling devices. METHODS: Viruses were measured in the air at a fixed location and in the personal breathing zone of HCWs. Predetermined environmental surfaces were sampled using premoistened Copan swabs at the beginning and at the end of the 3-hour observation period. Preamplification and quantitative real-time PCR methods were used to quantify viral pathogens. RESULTS: Overall, 43% of stationary and 22% of personal air samples were positive for virus. Positive stationary air samples were associated with ≥5 HCW encounters during the observation period (odds ratio [OR], 5.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-37.8). Viruses were frequently detected on all of the surfaces sampled. Virus concentrations on the IV pole hanger and telephone were positively correlated with the number of contacts made by HCWs on those surfaces. The distributions of influenza, rhinoviruses, and other viruses in the environment were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare workers are at risk of contracting respiratory virus infections when delivering routine care for patients infected with the viruses, and they are at risk of disseminating virus because they touch virus-contaminated fomites.

The cost of not breastfeeding: global results from a new tool.

Evidence shows that breastfeeding has many health, human capital and future economic benefits for young children, their mothers and countries. The new Cost of Not Breastfeeding tool, based on open access data, was developed to help policy-makers and advocates have information on the estimated human and economic costs of not breastfeeding at the country, regional and global levels. The results of the analysis using the tool show that 595 379 childhood deaths (6 to 59 months) from diarrhoea and pneumonia each year can be attributed to not breastfeeding according to global recommendations from WHO and UNICEF. It also estimates that 974 956 cases of childhood obesity can be attributed to not breastfeeding according to recommendations each year. For women, breastfeeding is estimated to have the potential to prevent 98 243 deaths from breast and ovarian cancers as well as type II diabetes each year. This level of avoidable morbidity and mortality translates into global health system treatment costs of US$1.1 billion annually. The economic losses of premature child and women's mortality are estimated to equal US$53.7 billion in future lost earnings each year. The largest component of economic losses, however, is the cognitive losses, which are estimated to equal US$285.4 billion annually. Aggregating these costs, the total global economic losses are estimated to be US$341.3 billion, or 0.70% of global gross national income. While the aim of the tool is to capture the majority of the costs, the estimates are likely to be conservative since economic costs of increased household caregiving time (mainly borne by women), and treatment costs related to other diseases attributable to not breastfeeding according to recommendations are not included in the analysis. This study illustrates the substantial costs of not breastfeeding, and potential economic benefits that could be generated by government and development partners' investments in scaling up effective breastfeeding promotion and support strategies.

Environmental and Personal Protective Equipment Contamination during Simulated Healthcare Activities.

Providing care to patients with an infectious disease can result in the exposure of healthcare workers (HCWs) to pathogen-containing bodily fluids. We performed a series of experiments to characterize the magnitude of environmental contamination-in air, on surfaces and on participants-associated with seven common healthcare activities. The seven activities studied were bathing, central venous access, intravenous access, intubation, physical examination, suctioning and vital signs assessment. HCWs with experience in one or more activities were recruited to participate and performed one to two activities in the laboratory using task trainers that contained or were contaminated with fluorescein-containing simulated bodily fluid. Fluorescein was quantitatively measured in the air and on seven environmental surfaces. Fluorescein was quantitatively and qualitatively measured on the personal protective equipment (PPE) worn by participants. A total of 39 participants performed 74 experiments, involving 10-12 experimental trials for each healthcare activity. Healthcare activities resulted in diverse patterns and levels of contamination in the environment and on PPE that are consistent with the nature of the activity. Glove and gown contamination were ubiquitous, affirming the value of wearing these pieces of PPE to protect HCW's clothing and skin. Though intubation and suctioning are considered aerosol-generating procedures, fluorescein was detected less frequently in air and at lower levels on face shields and facemasks than other activities, which suggests that the definition of aerosol-generating procedure may need to be revised. Face shields may protect the face and facemask from splashes and sprays of bodily fluids and should be used for more healthcare activities.

The financing need for expanded maternity protection in Indonesia.

Background: Almost half of all Indonesian children under 6 months of age were not exclusive breastfed in 2017. Optimizing maternity protection programs may result in increased breastfeeding rates. This study aims to: estimate the potential cost implications of optimizing the current paid maternity protection program, estimate budgets needed to increase coverage of lactation rooms in mid and large firms, and explore challenges in its implementation in Indonesia. Methods: The potential cost implication of the current and increased maternity leave length (three and 6 months) as well as the potential budget impact to the government were estimated for 2020 to 2030. The cost of setting up lactation rooms in formal sector companies was estimated using the Alive & Thrive standards. Interviews were conducted in five different provinces to 29 respondents in 2016 to identify current and potential challenges in implementing both existing and improved maternity protection policies. Results: The costs of expanding paid maternity leave from three to 6 months and incorporating standardized lactation rooms in 80% of medium and large size firms in Indonesia was estimated at US$1.0 billion (US$616.4/mother per year) from 2020 to 2030, covering roughly 1.7 million females. The cost of setting up a basic lactation room in 80% of medium and large companies may reach US$18.1 million over 10 years. The three main barriers to increasing breastfeeding rates were: breastmilk substitutes marketing practices, the lack of lactation rooms in workplaces, and local customs that may hamper breastfeeding according to recommendations. Conclusions: The cost of expanding paid maternity leave is lower than the potential cost savings of US$ 1.5 billion from decreased child mortality and morbidity, maternal cancer rates and cognitive loss. Sharing the cost of paid maternity leave between government and the private sector may provide a feasible economic solution. The main barriers to increasing breastfeeding need to be overcome to reap the benefits of recommended breastfeeding practices.

Respiratory viruses on personal protective equipment and bodies of healthcare workers.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the magnitude of virus contamination on personal protective equipment (PPE), skin, and clothing of healthcare workers (HCWs) who cared for patients having acute viral infections. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTING: Acute-care academic hospital. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 59 HCWs agreed to have their PPE, clothing, and/or skin swabbed for virus measurement. METHODS: The PPE worn by HCW participants, including glove, face mask, gown, and personal stethoscope, were swabbed with Copan swabs. After PPE doffing, bodies and clothing of HCWs were sampled with Copan swabs: hand, face, and scrubs. Preamplification and quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) methods were used to quantify viral RNA copies in the swab samples. RESULTS: Overall, 31% of glove samples, 21% of gown samples, and 12% of face mask samples were positive for virus. Among the body and clothing sites, 21% of bare hand samples, 11% of scrub samples, and 7% of face samples were positive for virus. Virus concentrations on PPE were not statistically significantly different than concentrations on skin and clothing under PPE. Virus concentrations on the personal stethoscopes and on the gowns were positively correlated with the number of torso contacts (P < .05). Virus concentrations on face masks were positively correlated with the number of face mask contacts and patient contacts (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare workers are routinely contaminated with respiratory viruses after patient care, indicating the need to ensure that HCWs complete hand hygiene and use other PPE to prevent dissemination of virus to other areas of the hospital. Modifying self-contact behaviors may decrease the presence of virus on HCWs.