A novel personal protective equipment coverall was rated higher than standard Ebola virus personal protective equipment in terms of comfort, mobility and perception of safety when tested by health care workers in Liberia and in a United States biocontainment unit

Abstract

Background: During the 2014-2016 Ebola virus epidemic, more than 500 health care workers (HCWs) died in spite of the use of personal protective equipment (PPE). The Johns Hopkins University Center for Bioengineering Innovation and Design (CBID) and Jhpiego, an international nongovernmental organization affiliate of Johns Hopkins, collaborated to create new PPE to improve the ease of the doffing process. Methods: HCWs in Liberia and a US biocontainment unit compared standard M edecins Sans Fronti ere PPE (PPE A) with the new PPE (PPE B). Participants wore each PPE ensemble while performing simulated patient care activities. Range of motion, time to doff, comfort, and perceived risk were measured. Results: Overall, 100% of participants preferred PPE B over PPE A (P < .0001); 98.1% of respondents would recommend PPE B for their home clinical unit (P < .0001). There was a trend towards greater comfort in PPE B. HCWs at both sites felt more at risk in PPE A than PPE B (71.9% vs 25% in Liberia, P < .0001; 100% vs 40% in the US biocontainment unit, P < .0001). Conclusions: HCWs preferred a new PPE ensemble to M edecins Sans Fronti ere PPE for high-consequence pathogens. Further studies on the safety of this new PPE need to be conducted.

Physiological Impacts of Personal Protective Equipment on Health Care Workers

“…It has been found that literature does support significant discomfort faced by health care workers (HCW) while wearing different designs and modifications of PPE in terms of bending, lifting arm, squatting, and walking, which represents that some levels of evidence exist in terms of discomfort being reported by all HCWs which may affect their delivery of patient care and overall performance. However, at very sparse levels they have validated the physiological changes that occur and adversely affect the health and efficiency of workers (O'Brien et al, 2011;Garibaldi et al, 2019;Akbar-Khanzadeh, Bisesi and Rivas, 1995).…”

Harmonization of Biosafety and Biosecurity Standards for High-Containment Facilities in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: An Approach From the Perspective of Occupational Safety and Health

“…The private sector is one key component of the non-state actors (73) who can contribute supporting global public health preparedness and responses. Some examples of medicotechnical resources such as portable nanotechnology for DNA/RNA sequencing (74), rapid diagnostics (75), and IPC tools (76) have been developed through various partnerships including the public–private R&D collaborations and are already available for deployment to control epidemics.…”

Biodegradable and multifunctional surgical face masks: A brief review on demands during COVID-19 pandemic, recent developments, and future perspectives

“…These include: (1) high filtration efficiency against bioaerosols, (2) fluid barrier properties, (3) low differential pressure (air permeability), (4) ability to kill microorganisms captured in the structure, and (5) excellent wearing properties (comfort, high fit, and minimal leakage) ( Barbosa and Graziano, 2006 ; Majchrzycka, 2014 ; Pourdeyhimi, 2020 ; Wang et al, 2018 ). These basic requirements are vital, since they help reduce the airborne viral concentrations and the transmission of pathogens (bacteria and viruses) in crowded indoor and outdoor communities, protecting us from SARS-CoV-2 ( Booth et al, 2013 ; Chuanfang, 2012 ; Fadare and Okoffo, 2020 ; Garibaldi et al, 2019 ; Prather et al, 2020 ). The shortage of PPE during the COVID-19 pandemic continues to be severe ( WHO, 2020b ), and multifunctional face masks may help alleviate this issue.…”