MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a nationwide, online-based cross-sectional study utilising a self-administered questionnaire that was distributed to tertiary hospital HCWs in Malaysia, conducted between June and August 2020.
RESULTS: Forty-eight physicians, 66 nurses and 79 medical assistants participated in this study. 73.6% correctly recognised PPE components while 40.4% revealed correct hand hygiene practices and approximately 20% had misconceptions about the proper usage of PPE. Although 78.8% disclosed high compliance, 37.3% perceived that PPE protocol interferes with patient care. HCWs have suboptimal knowledge levels of hand hygiene. Age and poor behaviour were the independent predictors of good compliance with PPE.
CONCLUSION: This study highlights the necessity to analyse discrepancies in PPE practice among HCWs and its contributing elements. Recognised barriers should be addressed to narrow the gap between knowledge, attitude and behaviour to improve compliance. The study findings would assist in developing an improved disease transmission control and prevention training protocols for HCWs as a preparation for possible infectious outbreaks in the future.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study evaluated the adherence to IPC measures among HCWs working at coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment centers in Punjab, Pakistan. HCWs were recruited by means of convenient sampling through Google Form® using the World Health Organization risk assessment tool. All data were analyzed using SPSS 20.
RESULTS: A total of 414 HCWs completed the survey (response rate = 67.8%), and majority of them were males (56.3%). Most of the HCWs were nurses (39.6%) followed by medical doctors (27.3%). Approximately 53% reported insufficiency of personal protective equipment (PPE), 58.2% did not receive IPC training and 40.8% did not have functional IPC team at their health facilities. The majority of HCWs (90%) used disposable gloves and N95 facemasks while interacting with COVID-19 patients. Nearly 45% used protective face shields and gowns before providing care to their patients. Hand hygiene practices while touching, and performing any aseptic procedure was adopted by 70.5% and 74.1% of HCWs, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the adherence to IPC measures among Pakistani HCWs working in COVID-19 treatment centers is good despite the limited availability of PPEs. Their practices can be optimized by establishing institutional IPC teams, periodic provision of IPC training, and necessary PPE.
METHODOLOGY: A total of 571 healthcare workers at COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 wards as well as the emergency department and laboratory staff at COVID-19 testing labs were recruited. The presence of novel human coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) and IgM/IgG antibodies were confirmed in all healthcare workers. The healthcare workers responded to an online Google Forms questionnaire that evaluates demographic information and comorbidities, exposure and adherence to infection prevention and control measures against COVID-19. Descriptive analysis was performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences 24.0.
RESULTS: Three healthcare workers (0.5%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, while the remaining 568 (99.5%) were negative. All were negative for IgM and IgG antibodies during recruitment (day 1) and follow-up (day 15). More than 90% of the healthcare workers followed infection prevention and control practices recommendations regardless of whether they have been exposed to occupational risk for COVID-19.
CONCLUSIONS: The healthcare workers' high level of adherence to infection prevention practices at this hospital helped reduce and minimize their occupational exposure to COVID-19.
METHODS: A systematic search for published documents on COVID-19 and masks/PPE was conducted across six databases: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, ERIC, ASSIA and Psycinfo. Reviews, policy documents, briefs related to COVID-19 and masks/PPE were included in the review. To assess the extent of incorporation of equity in the policy documents, a guidance framework known as 'PROGRESS-Plus': Place of residence, Race/ethnicity, Occupation, Gender/sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, Social capital, Plus (age, disability etc.) was utilized.
RESULTS: This review included 212 policy documents. Out of 212 policy documents, 190 policy documents (89.62%) included at least one PROGRESS-plus component. Most of the policy documents (n = 163, 85.79%) focused on "occupation" component of the PROGRESS-plus followed by personal characteristics associated with discrimination (n = 4;2.11%), place of residence (n = 2;1.05%) and education (n = 1;0.53%). Subgroup analysis revealed that most of the policy documents (n = 176, 83.01%) were focused on "workers" such as healthcare workers, mortuary workers, school workers, transportation workers, essential workers etc. Of the remaining policy documents, most were targeted towards whole population (n = 30; 14.15%). Contrary to "worker focused" policy documents, most of the 'whole population focused' policy documents didn't have a PROGRESS-plus equity component rendering them equity limiting for the society.
CONCLUSION: Our review highlights even if policies considered health inequity during the design/implementation, this consideration was often one dimensional in nature. In addition, population wide policies should be carefully designed and implemented after identifying relevant equity related barriers in order to produce better outcomes for the whole society.
Materials and Methods: An online survey of 35 questions was conducted to evaluate impact on (i) general orthopaedic practice (ii) hospital protocols (iii) out-patient practice (iv) surgical practice (v) personal protective equipment (PPE) use and (vi) post-lockdown preparedness.
Results: A total number of 588 practising orthopaedic surgeons from India completed the survey. Majority (88.3%) found severe impact (>50%) on trauma surgery and non-trauma surgery with significant reduction in out -patient attendance compared to corresponding time in 2019. There were significant changes made in individual hospital protocols (91.7 %). Appropriate required PPE was available in majority of the hospitals (74.3%). No remodelling or upgrading of the existing operating theatre infrastructure was done by most surgeons (89.5%).
Conclusion: This pan India survey of orthopaedic surgeons has indicated that COVID-19 has had a profound impact on their outpatient and surgical trauma and non-trauma practice, due to the lockdown and resulted in significant changes to hospital protocols. Preparedness to resume clinical and surgical practice was associated with anxiety in two-thirds of the respondents. Majority of the orthopaedic practitioners felt that they would continue to conduct pre-operative COVID-19 screening and use PPE even after the lockdown is over.
METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was carried out among spine surgeons in Asia Pacific. The questionnaires were focused on the usage, recycling and disposal of PPE.
RESULTS: Two hundred and twenty-two surgeons from 19 countries participated in the survey. When we sub-analysed the differences between countries, the provision of adequate PPE by hospitals ranged from 37.5% to 100%. The usage of PPE was generally high. The most used PPE were surgical face masks (88.7%), followed by surgical caps (88.3%), gowns (85.6%), sterile gloves (83.3%) and face shields (82.0%). The least used PPE were powered air-purifying respirators (PAPR) (23.0%) and shoes/boots (45.0%). The commonly used PPE for surgeries involving COVID-19 positive patients were N95 masks (74.8%), sterile gloves (73.0%), gowns (72.1%), surgical caps (71.6%), face shields (64.4%), goggles (64.0%), shoe covers (58.6%), plastic aprons (45.9%), shoes/boots (45.9%), surgical face masks (36.5%) and PAPRs (21.2%). Most PPE were not recycled. Biohazard bins were the preferred method of disposal for all types of PPE items compared to general waste.
CONCLUSIONS: The usage of PPE was generally high among most countries especially for surgeries involving COVID-19 positive patients except for Myanmar and Nepal. Overall, the most used PPE were surgical face masks. For surgeries involving COVID-19 positive patients, the most used PPE were N95 masks. Most PPE were not recycled. Biohazard bins were the preferred method of disposal for all types of PPE.
METHODS: This was a randomised cross-over study conducted between 9 April to 5 May 2020 in the ED of University Malaya Medical Centre. Postgraduate Emergency Medicine trainees performed video laryngoscope-assisted intubation on an airway manikin with and without an aerosol box in a random order. Contamination was simulated by nebulised Glo Germ. Primary outcome was number of contaminated front and back body regions pre-doffing and post-doffing of PPE of the intubator and assistant. Secondary outcomes were intubation time, Cormack-Lehane score, number of intubation attempts and participants' feedback.
RESULTS: Thirty-six trainees completed the study interventions. The number of contaminated front and back body regions pre-doffing of PPE was significantly higher without the aerosol box (all p values<0.001). However, there was no significant difference in the number of contaminations post-doffing of PPE between using and not using the aerosol box, with a median contamination of zero. Intubation time was longer with the aerosol box (42.5 s vs 35.5 s, p<0.001). Cormack-Lehane scores were similar with and without the aerosol box. First-pass intubation success rate was 94.4% and 100% with and without the aerosol box, respectively. More participants reported reduced mobility and visibility when intubating with the aerosol box.
CONCLUSIONS: An aerosol box may significantly reduce exposure to contaminations but with increased intubation time and reduced operator's mobility and visibility. Furthermore, the difference in degree of contamination between using and not using an aerosol box could be offset by proper doffing of PPE.