Kimberly Erukunuakpor MPH, PhD , Jill Morgan RN, BSN , Colleen S. Kraft MD , David Grimm MS , Alexandra Nguyen MS , Joel M. Mumma PhD , Lisa M. Casanova MS, PhD
{"title":"高水平个人防护装备降落过程中的自污染风险和失效模式:两种动力空气净化呼吸器(PAPR)罩的比较:一项试点研究。","authors":"Kimberly Erukunuakpor MPH, PhD , Jill Morgan RN, BSN , Colleen S. Kraft MD , David Grimm MS , Alexandra Nguyen MS , Joel M. Mumma PhD , Lisa M. Casanova MS, PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.ajic.2025.01.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Personal protective equipment doffing protocols can reduce risks of pathogen self-contamination. Powered air-purifying respirators may increase these risks. This study compares viral contamination and errors during simulated doffing of single-layer versus double-layer hood powered air-purifying respirators.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Eight participants performed 2 simulations (video recorded for failure modes [FMs] and effects analysis): 1 single-layer hood (laid over Tyvek suit) and 1 double-layer hood (top laid over and bottom tucked into suit). Hoods were contaminated with viruses. After doffing, inner gloves, face, hands, and scrubs were sampled.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Virus contaminated at least 1 site in 6/8 single- and 5/8 double-layer simulations. Virus-contaminated inner gloves in single- (6 participants, median 5.42 × 10<sup>4</sup> plaque-forming units) and double-layer (2 participants, median 7.23 × 10<sup>2</sup> plaque-forming units) simulations, and hands of 2 participants in single-layer simulations. Single-layer doffing had 13 FMs; double had 31.</div></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><div>Double-layer doffing reduced inner glove contamination. The double-layer protocol may reduce glove-face shield contact but allow more opportunities for error. Double-layer doffing errors may less frequently lead to contamination than single layer.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Contamination and FMs may differ between double- and single-layer doffing. Although inner glove contamination was reduced, double-layer doffing may need redesign to reduce FMs and contamination.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":7621,"journal":{"name":"American journal of infection control","volume":"53 5","pages":"Pages 582-587"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Self-contamination risk and failure modes during high-level PPE doffing: A pilot comparison of 2 powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR) hoods\",\"authors\":\"Kimberly Erukunuakpor MPH, PhD , Jill Morgan RN, BSN , Colleen S. Kraft MD , David Grimm MS , Alexandra Nguyen MS , Joel M. Mumma PhD , Lisa M. Casanova MS, PhD\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ajic.2025.01.002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Personal protective equipment doffing protocols can reduce risks of pathogen self-contamination. Powered air-purifying respirators may increase these risks. This study compares viral contamination and errors during simulated doffing of single-layer versus double-layer hood powered air-purifying respirators.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Eight participants performed 2 simulations (video recorded for failure modes [FMs] and effects analysis): 1 single-layer hood (laid over Tyvek suit) and 1 double-layer hood (top laid over and bottom tucked into suit). Hoods were contaminated with viruses. After doffing, inner gloves, face, hands, and scrubs were sampled.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Virus contaminated at least 1 site in 6/8 single- and 5/8 double-layer simulations. Virus-contaminated inner gloves in single- (6 participants, median 5.42 × 10<sup>4</sup> plaque-forming units) and double-layer (2 participants, median 7.23 × 10<sup>2</sup> plaque-forming units) simulations, and hands of 2 participants in single-layer simulations. Single-layer doffing had 13 FMs; double had 31.</div></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><div>Double-layer doffing reduced inner glove contamination. The double-layer protocol may reduce glove-face shield contact but allow more opportunities for error. Double-layer doffing errors may less frequently lead to contamination than single layer.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Contamination and FMs may differ between double- and single-layer doffing. Although inner glove contamination was reduced, double-layer doffing may need redesign to reduce FMs and contamination.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7621,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American journal of infection control\",\"volume\":\"53 5\",\"pages\":\"Pages 582-587\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American journal of infection control\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0196655325000069\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/9 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INFECTIOUS DISEASES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of infection control","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0196655325000069","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Self-contamination risk and failure modes during high-level PPE doffing: A pilot comparison of 2 powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR) hoods
Background
Personal protective equipment doffing protocols can reduce risks of pathogen self-contamination. Powered air-purifying respirators may increase these risks. This study compares viral contamination and errors during simulated doffing of single-layer versus double-layer hood powered air-purifying respirators.
Methods
Eight participants performed 2 simulations (video recorded for failure modes [FMs] and effects analysis): 1 single-layer hood (laid over Tyvek suit) and 1 double-layer hood (top laid over and bottom tucked into suit). Hoods were contaminated with viruses. After doffing, inner gloves, face, hands, and scrubs were sampled.
Results
Virus contaminated at least 1 site in 6/8 single- and 5/8 double-layer simulations. Virus-contaminated inner gloves in single- (6 participants, median 5.42 × 104 plaque-forming units) and double-layer (2 participants, median 7.23 × 102 plaque-forming units) simulations, and hands of 2 participants in single-layer simulations. Single-layer doffing had 13 FMs; double had 31.
Discussion
Double-layer doffing reduced inner glove contamination. The double-layer protocol may reduce glove-face shield contact but allow more opportunities for error. Double-layer doffing errors may less frequently lead to contamination than single layer.
Conclusions
Contamination and FMs may differ between double- and single-layer doffing. Although inner glove contamination was reduced, double-layer doffing may need redesign to reduce FMs and contamination.
期刊介绍:
AJIC covers key topics and issues in infection control and epidemiology. Infection control professionals, including physicians, nurses, and epidemiologists, rely on AJIC for peer-reviewed articles covering clinical topics as well as original research. As the official publication of the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC)