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.

Utilizing the focused conversation method in qualitative public health research: a team-based approach.

BACKGROUND: Qualitative research studies are becoming increasingly necessary to understand the complex challenges in the healthcare setting. Successfully integrating interdisciplinary teams of investigators can be challenging, as investigators inherently view data through their disciplinary lens. Thus, new methods, such as focused conservation, are needed to facilitate qualitative data analysis by interdisciplinary teams. The purpose of this manuscript is to provide a clear description of how we implemented the focused conversation method to facilitate an organized data-driven discussion that responded to our study objectives and ensured participation of our interdisciplinary team. The focused conversation method has not, to our knowledge, been utilized for this purpose to date. METHODS: To better understand the experience of healthcare personnel (HCP) during preparations for the 2014-2015 Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) outbreak, we interviewed HCP who participated in decision making about EVD preparations and training of workers in the use of enhanced personal protective equipment ensembles in the metropolitan Chicagoland area of Illinois to attain a priori research objectives. We identified a systematic method - the focused conversation method - that enabled our interdisciplinary team to interactively contribute to the framing, analysis and interpretation of the data that would enable us to focus on our research objectives. RESULTS: The focused conversation developed to support our a priori research objective about the training of HCP in preparations included objective, reflective, interpretive and decisional questions. These questions grounded the conversation in the data, while leveraging discipline-specific lenses and professional experience in the analysis and interpretation. Insights from the conversation were reviewed later against interview transcripts to ensure validity. The conversation identified areas for future research directions and deficiencies in the interview instrument. CONCLUSIONS: The focused conversation is an efficient, organized method for analysis of qualitative data by an interdisciplinary team.

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.

Experience of Chicagoland acute care hospitals in preparing for Ebola virus disease, 2014-2015.

During the 2014-2015 Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) outbreak, hospitals in the United States selected personal protective equipment (PPE) and trained healthcare personnel (HCP) in anticipation of receiving EVD patients. To improve future preparations for high-consequence infectious diseases, it was important to understand factors that affected PPE selection and training in the context of the EVD outbreak. Semistructured interviews were conducted with HCP involved with decision-making during EVD preparations at acute care hospitals in the Chicago, IL area to gather information about the PPE selection and training process. HCP who received training were surveyed about elements of training and their perceived impact and overall experience by email invitation. A total of 28 HCP from 15 hospitals were interviewed, and 55 HCP completed the survey. Factors affecting PPE selection included: changing guidance, vendor supply, performance evaluations, and perceived risk and comfort for HCP. Cost did not affect selection. PPE acquisition challenges were mitigated by: sharing within hospital networks, reusing PPE during training, and improvising with existing PPE stock. Selected PPE ensembles were similar across sites. Training included hands-on activities with trained observers, instructional videos, and simulations/drills, which were felt to increase HCP confidence. Many felt refresher training would be helpful. Hands-on training was perceived to be effective, but there is a need to establish the appropriate frequency of refresher training frequency to maintain competence. Lacking confidence in the CDC guidance, interviewed trainers described turning to other sources of information and developing independent PPE evaluation and selection. Response to emerging and/or high consequence infectious diseases would be enhanced by transparent, risk-based guidance for PPE selection and training that addresses protection level, ease of use, ensembles, and availability.

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.

Environmental and body contamination from cleaning vomitus in a health care setting: A simulation study.

BACKGROUND: Environmental service workers may be exposed to pathogens during the cleaning of pathogen-containing bodily fluids. METHODS: Participants with experience cleaning hospital environments were asked to clean simulated, fluorescein-containing vomitus using normal practices in a simulated patient room. Fluorescein was visualized in the environment and on participants under black lights. Fluorescein was quantitatively measured on the floor, in the air, and on gloves and shoe covers. RESULTS: In all 21 trials involving 7 participants, fluorescein was found on the floor after cleaning and on participants' gloves. Lower levels of floor contamination were associated with the use of towels to remove bulk fluid (ρ = -0.56, P = .01). Glove contamination was not associated with the number or frequency of contacts with environmental surfaces, suggesting contamination occurs with specific events, such as picking up contaminated towels. Fluorescein contamination on shoe covers was measured in 19 trials. Fluorescein was not observed on participants' facial personal protective equipment, if worn, or faces. Contamination on other body parts, primarily the legs, was observed in 8 trials. Fluorescein was infrequently quantified in the air. CONCLUSIONS: Using towels to remove bulk fluid prior to mopping is part of the recommended cleaning protocol and should be used to minimize residual contamination. Contamination on shoes and the floor may serve as reservoirs for pathogens.

Contact patterns during cleaning of vomitus: A simulation study.

BACKGROUND: Environmental service workers cleaning bodily fluids may transfer pathogens through the environment and to themselves through contacts. METHODS: Participants with experience in cleaning of hospital environments were asked to clean simulated vomitus using normal practices in a simulated patient room while being videorecorded. Contacts with environmental surfaces and self were later observed. RESULTS: In 21 experimental trials with 7 participants, environmental surfaces were contacted 26.8 times per trial, at a frequency of 266 contacts per hour, on average. Self-contact occurred in 9 of 21 trials, and involved 1-18 contacts, mostly to the upper body. The recommended protocol of cleaning bodily fluids was followed by a minority of participants (2 of 7), and was associated with fewer surface contacts, improved cleaning quality, and different tool use. Participants used different cleaning practices, but each employed similar practices each time they performed an experimental trial. CONCLUSIONS: Training in the use of the recommended protocol may standardize cleaning practices and reduce the number of surface contacts.