Under Armour - 在对 COVID-19 患者进行模拟心肺复苏时使用个人防护装备:一项观察研究。

IF 4.8 2区 医学 Q1 INFECTIOUS DISEASES Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control Pub Date : 2024-05-31 DOI:10.1186/s13756-024-01404-6
S Kraus, R Macherey, L Rimkus, S Tschudin-Sutter, S Marsch, Timur Sellmann
{"title":"Under Armour - 在对 COVID-19 患者进行模拟心肺复苏时使用个人防护装备:一项观察研究。","authors":"S Kraus, R Macherey, L Rimkus, S Tschudin-Sutter, S Marsch, Timur Sellmann","doi":"10.1186/s13756-024-01404-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Personal protective equipment (PPE) protects healthcare workers and patients. Data on guideline compliance on how to dress (donning) or remove (doffing) PPE and the assistance among multiple participants (buddying) are limited. This study assesses the quality of donning, doffing, and buddying of PPE in a simulated medical emergency.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Physicians handling a simulated cardiac arrest of a COVID-19 patient. Adjacent to the victim, PPE was available. The appropriateness of PPE choice was assessed by using video recordings, with each individual participant being analyzed from the beginning of the simulation scenario from two perspectives regarding the selection of items during donning and doffing, hygiene aspects, time, and team support (buddying). The primary outcome was the number of participants being appropriately protected, defined as both wearing (a) all PPE items provided, and (b) all PPE items correctly at the time of first patient contact (FPC). Secondary outcomes included the timing of participants being appropriately protected. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS (version 28). Mann-Whitney test, chi-square test, and linear regression analysis were performed as appropriate.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At first patient contact 21% (91/437) were correctly protected. One or more incorrect PPE items were found in 4% (19/437), whereas 61% (265/437) wore one or more PPE items incorrectly. In 14% (62/437), one or more PPE items were missing. The time interval between donning start and FPC was 66 (55-78) sec. Time to FPC was longer in correctly than in incorrectly protected participants 77 (66-87) vs. 64 (54-75) sec; p < 0.001) and decreased by 7 ± 2 s per PPE item omitted (P = 0.002). Correct doffing was observed in 192/345 (56%), while buddying occurred in 120 participants (27%), indicating that they either assisted other participants in some manner (verbally or physically) or received assistance themselves.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings imply a need for education in correct and timely PPE donning and doffing. Donning PPE as intended delayed FPC. This and the influence of buddying needs further investigation (German study register number DRKS00023184).</p>","PeriodicalId":7950,"journal":{"name":"Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control","volume":"13 1","pages":"55"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11141070/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Under Armour - Use of personal protective equipment for simulated CPR of COVID-19 patients: an observational study.\",\"authors\":\"S Kraus, R Macherey, L Rimkus, S Tschudin-Sutter, S Marsch, Timur Sellmann\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13756-024-01404-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Personal protective equipment (PPE) protects healthcare workers and patients. Data on guideline compliance on how to dress (donning) or remove (doffing) PPE and the assistance among multiple participants (buddying) are limited. This study assesses the quality of donning, doffing, and buddying of PPE in a simulated medical emergency.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Physicians handling a simulated cardiac arrest of a COVID-19 patient. Adjacent to the victim, PPE was available. The appropriateness of PPE choice was assessed by using video recordings, with each individual participant being analyzed from the beginning of the simulation scenario from two perspectives regarding the selection of items during donning and doffing, hygiene aspects, time, and team support (buddying). The primary outcome was the number of participants being appropriately protected, defined as both wearing (a) all PPE items provided, and (b) all PPE items correctly at the time of first patient contact (FPC). Secondary outcomes included the timing of participants being appropriately protected. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS (version 28). Mann-Whitney test, chi-square test, and linear regression analysis were performed as appropriate.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At first patient contact 21% (91/437) were correctly protected. One or more incorrect PPE items were found in 4% (19/437), whereas 61% (265/437) wore one or more PPE items incorrectly. In 14% (62/437), one or more PPE items were missing. The time interval between donning start and FPC was 66 (55-78) sec. Time to FPC was longer in correctly than in incorrectly protected participants 77 (66-87) vs. 64 (54-75) sec; p < 0.001) and decreased by 7 ± 2 s per PPE item omitted (P = 0.002). Correct doffing was observed in 192/345 (56%), while buddying occurred in 120 participants (27%), indicating that they either assisted other participants in some manner (verbally or physically) or received assistance themselves.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings imply a need for education in correct and timely PPE donning and doffing. Donning PPE as intended delayed FPC. This and the influence of buddying needs further investigation (German study register number DRKS00023184).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7950,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"55\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11141070/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13756-024-01404-6\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INFECTIOUS DISEASES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13756-024-01404-6","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:个人防护设备(PPE)可保护医护人员和患者的安全。有关如何穿戴(穿戴)或脱下(脱下)个人防护设备以及多人协助(结伴同行)的指南合规性的数据十分有限。本研究评估了在模拟医疗紧急情况下穿脱个人防护设备的质量:方法:医生处理一名 COVID-19 患者的模拟心脏骤停。在受害者旁边提供个人防护设备。通过录像对个人防护设备选择的适当性进行评估,从模拟场景的一开始就从穿脱时的物品选择、卫生方面、时间和团队支持(结伴)两个角度对每个参与者进行分析。主要结果是受到适当保护的参与者人数,其定义是:(a) 穿戴了提供的所有个人防护设备;(b) 在首次接触病人(FPC)时正确穿戴了所有个人防护设备。次要结果包括参与者获得适当保护的时间。统计分析采用 SPSS(28 版)进行。根据情况进行曼-惠特尼检验、卡方检验和线性回归分析:首次接触患者时,21%(91/437)的患者得到了正确保护。4%(19/437)的人佩戴了一件或多件错误的个人防护设备,61%(265/437)的人错误佩戴了一件或多件个人防护设备。14%(62/437)的人丢失了一件或多件个人防护设备。从开始穿戴到完成 FPC 的时间间隔为 66 (55-78) 秒。正确穿戴个人防护装备的受试者比错误穿戴个人防护装备的受试者的 FPC 时间长 77 (66-87) 秒 vs. 64 (54-75) 秒;P 结论:我们的研究结果表明,有必要开展正确、及时穿脱个人防护设备的教育。按规定穿戴个人防护设备会延迟全防护周期。这一点以及同伴的影响还需要进一步研究(德国研究登记号 DRKS00023184)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Under Armour - Use of personal protective equipment for simulated CPR of COVID-19 patients: an observational study.

Background: Personal protective equipment (PPE) protects healthcare workers and patients. Data on guideline compliance on how to dress (donning) or remove (doffing) PPE and the assistance among multiple participants (buddying) are limited. This study assesses the quality of donning, doffing, and buddying of PPE in a simulated medical emergency.

Method: Physicians handling a simulated cardiac arrest of a COVID-19 patient. Adjacent to the victim, PPE was available. The appropriateness of PPE choice was assessed by using video recordings, with each individual participant being analyzed from the beginning of the simulation scenario from two perspectives regarding the selection of items during donning and doffing, hygiene aspects, time, and team support (buddying). The primary outcome was the number of participants being appropriately protected, defined as both wearing (a) all PPE items provided, and (b) all PPE items correctly at the time of first patient contact (FPC). Secondary outcomes included the timing of participants being appropriately protected. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS (version 28). Mann-Whitney test, chi-square test, and linear regression analysis were performed as appropriate.

Results: At first patient contact 21% (91/437) were correctly protected. One or more incorrect PPE items were found in 4% (19/437), whereas 61% (265/437) wore one or more PPE items incorrectly. In 14% (62/437), one or more PPE items were missing. The time interval between donning start and FPC was 66 (55-78) sec. Time to FPC was longer in correctly than in incorrectly protected participants 77 (66-87) vs. 64 (54-75) sec; p < 0.001) and decreased by 7 ± 2 s per PPE item omitted (P = 0.002). Correct doffing was observed in 192/345 (56%), while buddying occurred in 120 participants (27%), indicating that they either assisted other participants in some manner (verbally or physically) or received assistance themselves.

Conclusions: Our findings imply a need for education in correct and timely PPE donning and doffing. Donning PPE as intended delayed FPC. This and the influence of buddying needs further investigation (German study register number DRKS00023184).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control
Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH -INFECTIOUS DISEASES
CiteScore
9.70
自引率
3.60%
发文量
140
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control is a global forum for all those working on the prevention, diagnostic and treatment of health-care associated infections and antimicrobial resistance development in all health-care settings. The journal covers a broad spectrum of preeminent practices and best available data to the top interventional and translational research, and innovative developments in the field of infection control.
期刊最新文献
Determinants of non-adherence to antibiotic treatment guidelines in hospitalized adults with suspected community-acquired pneumonia: a prospective study. Impact of universal contact precautions and chlorhexidine bathing on the acquisition of carbapenem-resistant enterobacterales in the intensive care unit: a cohort study. The impact of enhanced cleaning on bacterial contamination of the hospital environmental surfaces: a clinical trial in critical care unit in an Egyptian hospital. A multicentric survey and single-centre observational study of usage behaviour of sinks in intensive care: training is needed to minimize risk. Effects of establishing infection control program with core components of World Health Organization on reducing the risk of residents' infections and improving staff infection control competency in a nursing home.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1