ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Literature states a higher self-contamination rate among healthcare workers (HCWs) while doffing personal protective equipment (PPE). During the Covid-19 pandemic, onsite trained observers were not always available to monitor PPE compliance. The remote audio-visual doffing surveillance (RADS) system has the potential to overcome this limitation. We aimed to compare the efficacy of this real-time RADS system against the onsite buddy system for monitoring the doffing of PPE. METHODS: This prospective, observational study was carried out at our tertiary care centre in northern India. 200 HCWs who cared for Covid-19 patients in the intensive care units/operation theatres were included. Group A included HCWs who performed doffing with the help of an onsite trained observer and group B included HCWs who performed doffing with the RADS system. An independent observer noted the error at any step using the CDC doffing checklist, in both groups. An online questionnaire to analyse the level of satisfaction post-doffing was also surveyed. RESULTS: The proportion of errors committed during doffing was significantly lower in group B compared to group A with a low relative risk of 0.34 (95% CI 0.22-0.51) (p < 0.001) (Figure 1A,B). In both groups, there was no difference in HCWs feedback regarding the ease of the system and fear of committing an error. Though the perceived quality of monitoring was felt better with onsite buddy, the overall confidence rating of being safe after doffing was better with the RADS system. CONCLUSION: Real-time RADS system may be more effective than the onsite buddy system for ensuring the safety of HCWs during doffing PPE. HCWs level of satisfaction related to the ease and anxiety with the monitoring systems were comparable. RADS system can reduce reliance on HCW resources and can integrate well into existing healthcare systems.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Pandemics/prevention & control , Prospective Studies , Anxiety , ChecklistABSTRACT
Background & objectives: The high mortality associated with the thrombotic events in hospitalized COVID-19 patients resulted in the usage of anticoagulants in varying doses. Whether high-dose anticoagulants have led to better outcomes or higher incidence of clinically significant bleeding events is debatable. Thus, this study was conducted to find the incidence of clinically significant bleeding events in moderate-to-severe COVID-19 ARDS (acute respiratory distress syndrome) patients on therapeutic anticoagulation and their outcomes. Methods: In this retrospective, single-centre study of 155 critically ill COVID-19 patients, the incidence of clinically significant bleeding was observed. Multivariate regression models were used to evaluate the association between anticoagulant regimen, coagulation and inflammatory markers with the incidence of bleeding and thrombotic events. Results: The incidence of clinically relevant non-major bleeding was 33.54 per cent (26.17-41.46%) and major bleeding was 9.03 per cent (5.02-14.69%). The anticoagulation intensity at baseline had a high odds of major bleeding when enoxaparin and dual antiplatelet therapy were used together [adjusted odds ratio OR of 434.09 (3.81-49502.95), P<0.05]. At admission, bleeders had a poorer PaO2/FiO2 ratio with more patients on invasive ventilation. At the time of bleeding, the bleeders had a higher D-dimer, ferritin, C-reactive protein and procalcitonin compared to non-bleeders. The subhazard ratio for death in bleeders was 3.35 (95% confidence interval, 1.97-5.65; P<0.001). Interpretation & conclusions: The incidence of bleeding in critically ill COVID-19 patients on therapeutic anticoagulation may increase with the severity of the disease as well as with concurrent use of dual antiplatelets. Major bleeding may also contribute to higher mortality.
