Australian health care workers experience of PPE related side-effects. A cross-sectional survey.

Introduction: Protection of health care workers (HCWs) is a fundamental aspect of an effective pandemic response. During the COVID-19 pandemic, frequency, and duration of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) use increased. The experience of PPE-related side-effects has potential to contribute to decreased compliance resulting in breaches in infection prevention and increasing risk of HCW exposure. This study aims were to measure the frequency of PPE-related side-effects amongst HCW in Australia, and to establish if an increased frequency of adverse reactions was related to the significant increase in use and extended duration of time spent in PPE. Methods: A descriptive cross-sectional survey was used. Results: Of the 559 respondents the majority were female (83.7%), aged 31-45 years old (33.6%). A pre-existing skin condition was reported by 266 (47.6%). Frequency of PPE related side-effects were: pressure-related 401 (71.7%), skin 321 (57.4%) and respiratory 20 (3.6%). Surgical mask use was significantly associated with pre-exiting skin conditions (ß = 1.494 (SE 0.186), df (1), p < 0.001). Side effects to N95 respirator use was more commonly reported by staff working in COVID-19 high-risk areas (ß = 0.572 (SE 0.211), df (1), p = 0.007) independent of work duration (ß = -0.056 (SE 0.075), df (1), p = 0.456), and pre-existing skin conditions (ß = 1.272, (SE.198), df (1), p < 0.001). Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic has seen a significant increase in the use of PPE. While the preventative benefits of PPE are significant, adverse events related to PPE use are frequently reported by HCW. Findings in this study highlight the need for innovation in PPE design to maximize protection while decreasing adverse effects and maintaining adhere to use.

Personal Protective Equipment-Related Problems Experienced by Healthcare Workers, Solutions, and Recommendations: A Qualitative Study.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the problems experienced by healthcare workers (HCWs) who used personal protective equipment (PPE) on their face during the COVID-19 pandemic, their interventions to prevent these problems, and their recommendations for improving the quality of PPE. METHODS: This descriptive and qualitative study included HCWs (N = 29) from health institutions at different levels in Turkey. Researchers collected data using a semistructured data collection form (13 items) and in-depth individual interviews. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics and qualitative inductive content analysis. RESULTS: Of the 29 participants, 15 (51.7%) were women, and 18 (62.1%) were nurses. Participants' answers regarding problems related to PPE use were grouped into four main categories, answers regarding the prevention of these problems were grouped into three main categories, and answers regarding improving the quality of PPE were grouped into three main categories. Skin concerns were the most commonly reported problems related to PPE, and interventions to prevent these problems primarily related to skin protection and care. Recommendations to improve the quality of PPE focused on using materials for masks and face shields that reduce pressure and friction; participants also suggested that face shields be produced in sterile and disposable packages. CONCLUSIONS: This research indicates that HCWs need support and they are able to create individual solutions for the problems with PPE that they experience. Skin-friendly PPE that ensures the safety and comfort of HCWs should be produced, and hospitals should develop policies for institutional use to prevent PPE injury.

Severe allergic systemic reaction to personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Our case describes a hospital worker who suffered a severe reaction to personal protective equipment (PPE) during the COVID-19 pandemic. After researching the excipient list of her PPE and completing a literature review, we postulated that isocyanates used in the production of the polyurethane band of the N95 mask was the cause for her reaction. In the absence of standardised testing, we tested this hypothesis by replicating her reaction to PPE by using a commercially available isocyanate patch, identifying diphenylmethane-4, 4-diisocyanate as the culprit agent.We recommended caution in the use of polyurethane containing N95 masks- for people reporting allergic reaction- and testing for sensitivity for polyurethane. The patient was able to tolerate non-polyurethane containing standard surgical masks, providing an option for PPE in some clinical circumstances. Since avoiding N95 masks, she has not had any further reactions.

Skin problems associated with the use of personal protective equipment by healthcare workers during COVID-19 pandemic in Türkiye.

Background: Skin problems associated with the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) have been reported during the COVID-19 pandemic. Aims: To determine the skin problems experienced by healthcare workers in Türkiye who used PPE during COVID-19 and the effect of these problems on their quality-of-life. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted from 30 November 2020 to 30 May 2021. Data were collected from 404 healthcare workers recruited via social media. Participants completed a skin problem evaluation form and Skindex-16, which measures the effects of skin disease on quality-of-life. The t test and ANOVA were used to analyse differences between the means. Results: Most (85.1%) of the participants were nurses and 38.6% worked in COVID-19 intensive care units. All the participants wore gloves (53.2% wore double gloves), 99.3% wore surgical masks and 56.2% wore protective glasses. They washed their hands on average 31.94 [standard deviation (SD) 27.55] times a day. Skin problems developed were mostly around the forehead, hands, nose, and ears. The mean (SD) Skindex-16 score was 45.42 (26.31). Based on Skindex scores, respondents with chronic skin problems had a significantly lower quality-of-life than those without skin problems, as did those who developed skin problems during the COVID-19 pandemic than those who did not (P < 0.001). Conclusion: Skin problems associated with the use of PPE increased during the COVID-19 pandemic and these affected the quality-of-life of healthcare workers. Further studies should evaluate how to minimize adverse reactions due to PPE use.

Headache Associated with PPE During COVID-19 Pandemic in Health Care Workers.

PURPOSE: In the pandemic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), health care workers (HCWs) are at very high risk. Personal protective equipment (PPE) and masks are not only difficult to wear while working but also causes various complications. The present self-administered questionnaire- based study aimed to explore the headache and complications in HCWs on wearing PPE during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The present study was performed by obtaining a self-administered questionnaire from HCWs, which provides evidence of various complications due to the use of a PPE and mask. RESULTS: Out of a total of 329 respondents, 189(57.45%), 67(20.36%), 238(72.34%), 213(64.74%), 177(53.80%), and 34(10.33%) reported headache, breathlessness, suffocation, nose pain, ear pain, and leg pain respectively. Out of 329 respondents, 47(14.29%) had pre-existing headaches. Headache was significantly high for those who wore PPE for 4-6h (121/133; 87.05%) than that of those who wore up to 4h (18/26; 69.23%). Of the 34(24.46%) required medication who reported headaches wearing PPE. Acetaminophen is quite helpful in most health care workers to decrease headaches. Nose-related complications occur frequently in health care workers after regular shifts for more than 6 days. Gelatinous adhesives patch was a wonderful prophylactic remedy as it was helpful to prevent nose- related complications in 24 HCWs out of 25(96%). CONCLUSIONS: More than half of the HCWs reported headache, suffocation, nose pain, and ear pain. Duration of PPE use of more than 4h is significantly associated with headache. Short duration PPE use prevent HCWs from headache and various ill effects.

Personal protective equipment-induced systemic hypercapnic hypoxaemia: translational implications for impaired cognitive-clinical functional performance.

BACKGROUND: Personal protective equipment (PPE) adversely affects pulmonary gas exchange and may result in systemic hypercapnic hypoxaemia and headache. This study aimed to determine what extent PPE affects cerebral symptoms, global cerebral blood flow, and cognitive functional performance. METHODS: Higher surgical trainees participated in a randomized, repeated-measures, crossover study, completing 60 min of laparoscopic surgical simulation in both standard operating attire and type 3 PPE. Measurements were collected at baseline and after 60 min of simulation. The primary outcome measure was headache. Headache was examined using the validated visual analogue scale (VAS) and Environmental Symptoms Questionnaire C (ESQ-C), global cerebral blood flow with duplex ultrasonography, and visuospatial and executive gross/fine motor function with grooved peg board (GPB) and laparoscopic bead (LSB) board tasks. RESULTS: Thirty-one higher surgical trainees (20 men, 11 women) completed the study. Compared with standard operating attire, PPE increased headache assessment scores (mean(s.d.) VAS score 3.5(5.6) versus 13.0(3.7), P < 0.001; ESQ-C score 1.3(2.0) versus 5.9(5.1), P < 0.001) and was associated with poorer completion times for GPB-D (61.4(12.0) versus 71.1(12.4) s; P = 0.034) and LSB (192.5(66.9) versus 270.7(135.3) s; P = 0.025) tasks. Wearing PPE increased heart rate (82.5(13.6) versus 93.5(13.0) beats/min; P = 0.022) and skin temperature (36.6(0.4) versus 37.1(0.5)°C; P < 0.001), but decreased peripheral oxygen saturation (97.9(0.8) versus 96.8(1.0) per cent; P < 0.001). Female higher surgical trainees exhibited higher peripheral oxygen saturation across all conditions. No differences were observed in global cerebral blood flow as a function of attire, time or sex. CONCLUSION: Despite no marked changes in global cerebral blood flow, type 3 PPE was associated with increased headache scores and cerebral symptoms (VAS and ESQ-C) alongside impaired executive motor function highlighting the clinical implications of PPE-induced impairment for cognitive-clinical performance.

Prevention of skin damages related to personal protective equipment among healthcare workers: Summary of best-evidence practiced strategies.

AIM: To conduct a quality evaluation of the literature for the prevention of skin damage caused by personal protective equipment among healthcare workers and to summarise the best-evidence practice strategies to prevent it. DESIGN: Review. METHODS: Two researchers retrieved the literature from Web of Science, Public Medicine, etc., from the establishment of the database until 24 June 2022. Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II was used to assess the methodological quality of the guidelines. Expert consensus was assessed by the 2016 version of the Australian Joanna Briggs Institute Evidence-based Health Care Center corresponding evaluation standards. By tracking the original study, the quality of practice recommendations and best-practice evidence information sheets were evaluated by the 2016 version of the Australian Joanna Briggs Institute Evidence-based Health Care Center corresponding evaluation standards. The classification of evidence and recommendation level adopted the 2014 version of the Australian Joanna Briggs Institute evidence pre-grading and recommending level system. RESULTS: A total of 5476 studies were retrieved after duplications were eliminated. After the quality evaluation, 10 qualified studies were finally included. All consisted of two guidelines, one best practice information sheet, five practice recommendations, and one expert consensus. The evaluation results of the guidelines were both B-level recommendations. The consistency strength of expert consensus was moderate (Cohen's kappa coefficient = .571). Thirty best-evidence practised strategies were compiled for four elements, including cleaning, moisturising, prophylactic dressings and others. CONCLUSION: Our study evaluated the quality of the included studies and summarised the preventive measures of PPE-related skin lesions according to the recommendation level. The main preventive measures were divided into 4 parts and 30 items. However, the associated literature was rare, and the quality was slightly low. More high-quality research is needed to focus on healthcare workers' health and not just skin in the future.

Prevention of Laboratory Animal Allergy and Impact of COVID-19 on Prevention Programs in the United States: A National Survey 10-Year Update.

OBJECTIVE: Laboratory animal allergy (LAA) is common and preventable. This study provides a 10-year update on LAA prevention programs in the United States and the effect of COVID-19 on prevention practices. METHODS: An electronic survey was e-mailed to designated institutional officials at laboratory animal facilities identified by the National Institutes of Health Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare. Results were compared with the prior survey. RESULTS: A total of 141 institutions employing 58,224 laboratory animal workers responded. Results were similar to the prior survey with wide variation in practices. Medical surveillance increased (58%-71%), but N95 respirator use decreased (17%-13%). As before, only 25% of institutions knew their LAA incidence and prevalence rates. COVID-19 had a small time-limited effect on personal protective equipment use. CONCLUSIONS: Universal use of evidence-based practices and improved medical surveillance would provide greater worker protection from LAA.

Laryngeal injury in a coronavirus disease 2019 caregiver following voluntary cough-holding within an inappropriately sized personal protective equipment suit.

OBJECTIVE: To document laryngeal framework rupture following voluntary cough-holding as an airway complication of donning a personal protective equipment suit that was too small in size. METHODS: Clinical record and literature review, with proposition of plausible aerodynamics of the airway injury. RESULTS: Whilst carrying out his duty in the coronavirus disease ward, a resident attempted to stifle a paroxysm of cough when wearing a personal protective equipment suit that was too small with his neck flexed and restricted. There was a sudden release of pressure, intense pain and swelling in the neck with crepitus. Imaging revealed a non-displaced fracture in the lower end of the partially ossified right thyroid lamina, a cricothyroid membrane tear and subcutaneous emphysema. The symptoms resolved gradually on conservative management. CONCLUSION: This report underlines the importance of donning appropriately sized personal protective equipment and encouraging its proper use amongst coronavirus disease 2019 caregivers. Non-traumatic laryngeal injury, itself a rare event, has never been reported as a posture-related complication of wearing personal protective equipment.

Best-practices for preventing skin injury beneath personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic: A position paper from the National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel.

COVID-19 has infected millions of patients and impacted healthcare workers worldwide. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) is a key component of protecting frontline clinicians against infection. The benefits of PPE far outweigh the risks, nonetheless, many clinicians are exhibiting skin injury caused by PPE worn incorrectly. These skin injuries, ranging from lesions to open wounds are concerning because they increase the susceptibility of viral infection and transmission to other individuals. Early into the COVID-19 pandemic (April 2020), the U. S. National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel (NPIAP) developed a series of position statements to improve wear-ability of PPE and protect healthcare professionals and their patients as safe from harm as possible under the circumstances. The NPIAP positions, which were formed by conducting a systematic review of what was known at the time, include: (a) Prepare skin before and after wearing PPE with skin sealants, barrier creams and moisturisers; (b) Frequent PPE offloading to relieve pressure and shear applied to skin; (c) treat visible skin injuries immediately caused by PPE to minimise future infection; (d) non-porous dressings may provide additional skin protection, but lack evidence; (e) health systems should take care to educate clinicians about placement and personal hygiene related to handling PPE. Throughout all of these practices, handwashing remains a top priority to handle PPE. These NPIAP positions provided early guidance to reduce the risk of skin injury caused by PPE based on available research regarding PPE injuries, a cautious application of evidence-based recommendations on prevention of device-related pressure injuries in patients and the expert opinion of the NPIAP Board of Directors. Clinicians who adhere to these recommendations reduce the prospects of skin damage and long-term effects (e.g. scarring). These simple steps to minimise the risk of skin injury and reduce the risk of coronavirus infection from PPE can help.

Heat strain of Japanese firefighters wearing personal protective equipment: a review for developing a test method.

The aim of this review was to develop a test method for the evaluation of heat strain for structural firefighters wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) in Japan. We analysed a series of our laboratory's questionnaires and experimental studies and reviewed international standards on test methods. We investigated the actual average working conditions (total firefighting time on one incidence, working time with full PPE, maximum temperature and humidity during firefighting) at structural firefighting site in Japan by conducting a large-scale questionnaire survey of Japanese firefighters. We discussed test subjects (firefighters vs. non-firefighters; body size; physical fitness), exercise intensity (absolutes vs. relative; light vs. heavy) and duration, experimental temperature and relative humidity, experimental clothing items including station uniforms (shorts vs. long), and measurement variables (physiological and subjective responses), and suggested a standard test method to evaluate the heat strain of firefighters in hot and humid environments.Practitioner summary: We reviewed studies on human wear trials of firefighting personal protective equipment (PPE) in hot environments and suggested a standard test method to evaluate the heat strain of firefighters. The test method can be internationally utilised to examine the comfort functions and heat stress of PPE in hot, humid environments.

Adverse effects of personnel protective equipment among first line COVID-19 healthcare professionals: A survey in Southern Tunisia.

BACKGROUND: Health care professionals (HCP) were obliged to wear personal protective equipment (PPE) during pandemic in order to minimize the risk of transmission of the emerging virus. The objective of the study was to estimate the prevalence of adverse effects related to the wear of PPE among HCP and to determinate their predictive factors. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study including a representative sample of 300 randomized HCP at Hedi Chaker University Hospital Sfax, Tunisia, during the period August-September 2021. Data collection was carried out by an anonymous self-administered questionnaire. RESULTS: PPE related adverse effects were noted among 87 HCP with a prevalence of 57.2%. Multivariate analysis showed that factors independently associated with PPE adverse effects were female gender (Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) = 1.8; p = 0.048), chronic diseases (AOR = 0.29; p = 0.001) and previous infection with COVID-19 (AOR = 0.46; p = 0.004). Frequent use of bleach or other disinfection product without protection and use of hot water at work were independently associated with a high risk of adverse effects ((AOR = 2.22; p = 0.003) and (AOR = 2.83; p = 0.005), respectively). Similarly, a duration of use of PPE>4 h per day (AOR = 1.98; p = 0.039), as well as use of visors and/or glasses (AOR = 1.84; p = 0.045) were independently associated with PPE related adverse effects. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of adverse effects related to the wear of PPE was alarmingly high among HCP. Multiple risk factors were highlighted, notably professional aspects. Adequate and repetitive training for caregivers on the correct use of PPE remain essential to manage this problem.

Skin lesions resulting from use of personal protective equipment in the context of COVID-19: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: During the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic, to prevent the transmission of the virus, the use of personal protection products and equipment were recommended by international and national organisations. The need to use it more frequently and for a long time can damage the skin of health professionals. The aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence and factors associated with skin lesions in health professionals resulting from the use of personal protective equipment (PPE). METHOD: This was a cross-sectional exploratory study through an online questionnaire. The first part of the questionnaire collected socio-labour characterisation data and the second part related to exposure factors. The variables were analysed according to the prevalence and the odds ratio (OR), within a 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Of the 398 participants who met the inclusion criteria, 65.3% were self-diagnosed with skin lesions: 37.3% with pressure injury, 25.8% with contact/allergic dermatitis and 2.7% with acne. Regarding the use of PPE, of the 240 professionals who reported using an N95 mask, 80.4% developed injuries, 70.4% of which related to a work regime of >6 hours per day (OR: 2.08, 95% CI: 1.79-2.42). CONCLUSION: The results of this study showed a significant prevalence of skin lesions in health professionals. Among exposure factors, the N95 mask and goggles stand out. Longer or more frequent exposure time to personal protective products and equipment proved to be important factors to be considered.

Personal protective equipment-related dermatoses in COVID-19 frontline health workers. A lesson learned from 1-year single center in the UAE.

Since COVID-19 was declared a pandemic in March 2020, frontline health care workers wear personal protective equipment (PPE, surgical masks, N95 or similar respirators, gloves, goggles, face shields, and gowns). Alcohol-based sanitizers and wipes were recommended. Such measures lead to disruption of the natural skin habitat and skin barrier and various cutaneous reactions. The aim was to assess the prevalence and characteristics of PPE-related dermatoses among health care workers in Sheikh Khalifa Medical City (SKMC), a COVID-19 facility, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. We conducted a voluntary, cross-sectional anonymous survey among first-line health care workers addressing types of PPE used, dermatoses classified as PPE related, and factors that influence them. Facial, nasal, and hand dermatoses were the most prevalent with 40.2%, 19.9%, and 14.1%, respectively. The changes are primarily attributed to surgical masks, N-95 masks, and gloves. The shift duration is a contributing factor correlating with the severity of skin damage. Results of this study encouraged decision makers to recognize PPE-related dermatoses as a continuously growing burden, reorganized the shift duration and PPE exposure, animated the personal to apply preventive measures, and promoted the well-being of medical professionals in new waves of the pandemic.

Investigation of the problems experienced by perioperative nurses due to the use of personal protective equipment and their attitudes towards caregiving roles.

AIM: This study aims to investigate the problems experienced by perioperative nurses due to the use of personal protective equipment and their attitudes towards caregiving roles. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted with 175 volunteer nurses working in surgical clinics across Turkey between March-June 2021. Data were collected online with a personal information form, an information form regarding the personal protective equipment usage times of nurses and the problems experienced, and the Attitude Scale for Nurses in Caregiving Roles. RESULTS: It was found that 98.3% of nurses had problems with personal protective equipment (excluding gloves); 97.7% of them had problems with sterile or non-sterile gloves, and 65.7% of them stated that pressure injuries developed due to personal protective equipment. It was determined that the rate of nurses considering leaving the profession today is higher than before the outbreak. The Attitude Scale for Nurses in Caregiving Roles obtained a mean score of 65.83 ± 9.41. Those who did not intend to leave the nursing profession had higher scale mean scores than those who thought to leave. CONCLUSION: It was determined that perioperative nurses experienced skin problems due to the use of personal protective equipment and most of them developed pressure injuries, nearly half of them considered leaving the profession during the COVID-19 pandemic, and considering leaving the profession adversely affected their caregiver roles. According to the results of this study, it is recommended that attempts should be made to develop strategies to prevent skin problems and pressure injuries in perioperative nurses.

Headache related to personal protective equipment in healthcare workers during COVID-19 pandemic in Mexico: baseline and 6-month follow-up.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Headaches related to the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) could affect performance at work in healthcare personnel. Our aim was to describe the prevalence and risk factors for headaches related to PPE, in the personnel of a specialized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) tertiary hospital. METHODS: In this cross-sectional survey study, we invited healthcare workers from COVID-19 referral center in Mexico (May 22-June 19, 2020) to answer a standardized structure questionnaire on characteristics of new-onset PPE-related headache or exacerbation of primary headache disorder. Participants were invited regardless of whether they had a current headache to avoid selection bias. This is the primary analysis of these data. RESULTS: Two hundred and sixty-eight subjects were analyzed, 181/268 (67.5%) women, 177/268 (66%) nurses, mean age 28 years. The prevalence of PPE-related headache was 210/268 (78.4%). Independent risk factors were occupation other than physician (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.20-2.10), age > 30 years (OR 2.54, 95% CI 1.25-5.14), and female sex (OR 3.58, 95% CI 1.86-6.87). In the 6-month follow-up, 13.1% of subjects evolve to chronic headache, with stress as predictive risk factor. CONCLUSION: The frequency of PPE-associated headache is high, and a subgroup could evolve to chronic headache. More studies are necessary to improve the knowledge about this condition.

Indirect consequences of coronavirus disease 2019: Skin lesions caused by the frequent hand sanitation and use of personal protective equipment and strategies for their prevention.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) enforced the use of hand sanitation and of personal protective equipment, such as masks and visors, especially by health-care professionals, but also by the general public. However, frequent hand sanitation and the prolonged and continuous use of personal protective equipment are responsible for constant frictional and pressure forces on skin causing lesions, the most reported being acne, facial itching, dryness, and rash. Thus, it is important to find measures to prevent skin lesions, in order to improve the quality of life of health-care professionals and of the general public. This article gathers the current information regarding measures to prevent human to human transmission of COVID-19, reviews the most common skin lesions caused by the use of hand sanitizers and different types of personal protective equipment, and the possible preventive measures that can be used on a daily basis to minimize the risk of developing skin-related pathologies. Daily skin care routines and the incorporation of a dressing between the skin and the personal protective equipment to serve as a protective barrier are some of the applied measures. Moisturizers and dressings improve the skin's ability to respond to constant aggressions. Lastly, the need for additional studies to evaluate the lubrication properties of different types of dressings is discussed. The understanding of what kind of dressing is more suitable to prevent pressure injuries is crucial to promote healthy skin and wellbeing during pandemic times.

Skin injuries due to Personal Protective Equipment and preventive measures in the COVID-19 context: an integrative review. / Lesões de pele por Equipamentos de Proteção Individual e medidas preventivas no contexto da COVID-19: revisão integrativa.

OBJECTIVE: to identify the diverse scientific evidence on the types of skin lesions caused due to the use of Personal Protective Equipment in health professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic and to verify the recommended prevention measures. METHOD: this is an integrative review carried out in the MEDLINE, CINAHL, LILACS, SCOPUS, Science Direct, Web of Science and SciELO databases. The search was conducted in a paired manner, constituting a sample of 17 studies categorized according to the types of skin lesions and preventive measures. RESULTS: the main types of skin lesions related to mask use were stage 1 pressure ulcers, acne and cutaneous depression. Regarding the use of glasses and face shields, the most frequent were stage 1 and 2 pressure ulcers. Xerosis and irritant contact dermatitis occurred due to using gloves and protective clothing, respectively. The main preventive measures recommended were using hydrocolloid or foam dressing in the pressure regions, moisturizers and emollients. CONCLUSION: a considerable number of skin lesions associated with using the equipment were noticed, and the data obtained can guide the professionals in identifying risks and promoting preventive measures to avoid their occurrence.

The prevalence, characteristics, and related factors of pressure injury in medical staff wearing personal protective equipment against COVID-19 in Turkey: A multicenter cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of device-related pressure injury (DRPI) related to the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) among healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic and the associated risk factors effective in the development of DRPI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This descriptive, cross-sectional and correlational study was conducted with 1465 healthcare professionals working in healthcare institutions in Eastern Turkey during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study data were collected by means of an online anonymous survey questioning the prevalence, characteristics, and associated factors of DRPI in the first week of April 2021, using the snowball sampling method. Number, percentage, arithmetic mean, Chi-Square, and regression analysis were used for the evaluation of the study data. RESULTS: The prevalence of DRPI due to the use of PPE use among healthcare professionals was calculated to be 60.5%. Of the developed DRPIs, 79.5% were stage 1, and the most frequent anatomical locations of DRPI were the bridge of the nose (30.2%), behind the ears (24.6%), and cheeks (20.8%). The logistic regression analysis revealed that male gender, age <35 years, being a physician and nurse, prolonged duration of PPE use (>4 h), working in a high-risk clinic (COVID-19 clinic and COVID-19 intensive care unit), and sweating during the use of PPE were predictive factors for the development of DRPI (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of DRPI due to PPE use among healthcare workers was quite high. Gender, age, occupation, long duration of PPE use, working in a high-risk clinic, and sweating during the use of PPE were found to be risk factors in the development of DRPI.

Prevalence of dermatological, oral and neurological problems due to face mask use during COVID-19 and its associated factors among the health care workers of Bangladesh.

BACKGROUND: When caring for COVID-19 patients, using personal protective equipment (PPE) may significantly lower the risk of infection of health care workers (HCWs). However, adverse responses due to PPE use have been observed during the 2003 SARS pandemic. This study will highlight the different adverse reactions caused by face mask use, one of the essential components of PPE in the HCWs, and identify the factors associated with these problems. METHODS: This cross-sectional survey was conducted between September and October 2021. 404 HCWs were selected by snowball sampling from four randomly selected healthcare facilities of Bangladesh. Trained volunteers collected data by face-to-face interview using a pretested structured questionnaire. Data were analyzed using STATA (v.16) and summarized using frequency and relative frequency. Later, the chi-square test was used to explore bivariate relationships, and the binary logistic regression model was fit to identify the predictors. RESULTS: The majority of the respondents were 26-36 years (70.30%), male (69.80%), and doctors (74.50%). 48.76% of the respondents had unfavorable skin responses beneath the face masks; female gender, physicians, professionals working more than 32 hours a week, wearing N95, and more than one mask were predictors of skin problem. 28.47% and 60.15% of all participants suffered from some form of oral and neurological problems, respectively. CONCLUSION: Face mask use sequelae, especially skin, oral and neurological problems, are prevalent among health care workers. Therefore, necessary precautionary measures should be taken to safeguard our frontlines.