Adherence to personal protective equipment use among healthcare workers caring for confirmed COVID-19 and alleged non-COVID-19 patients

Neuwirth, Meike Maria; Mattner, Frauke; Otchwemah, Robin

doi:10.1186/s13756-020-00864-w

Cited by 66 publications

(73 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Adherence observations of HCWs in a university hospital in Germany, revealed deficiencies in the use of recommended personal protective equipment (PPE) among HCW caring in Covid-19 wards during the first period of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. The deficits indicated a clear need for training in the correct use of PPE [ 80 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…From a different viewpoint, HCWs often struggle with emotional distress that is caused by the representation of HCWs as heroes by the media and in the public discourse. It seems that these representations put pressure on HCWs to fulfil an ideal adding an extra level of anxiety [ 80 ] and also often associates with feelings of guilt for HCWs who do not offer services at the front-line against Covid-19 [ 110 ]…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Relatedly, it is also important to engage with HCWs regarding their concerns that might drive Covid-19 vaccine hesitancy or reluctance [ 128 ]. Mandatory training for all staff is an important measure to support the adherence of safe PPE use, and it can simultaneously act as a preventative measure to the anxiety related to the use of PPE [ 80 , 129 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A Scoping Review of Psychosocial Risks to Health Workers during the Covid-19 Pandemic

Franklin

Gkiouleka

2021

IJERPH

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Covid-19 pandemic has exposed health workers to a diverse set of hazards impacting their physical, psychological and social wellbeing. This review aims to provide an overview of the categories of the psychosocial risk factors and hazards affecting HCWs during the Covid-19 pandemic and the recommendations for prevention. We used the scoping review methodology to collate categories of psychosocial risks, the related health outcomes, interventions, and data gaps. The review was conducted on global peer-reviewed academic and authoritative grey literature, published between 1. January–26. October 2020; in total, 220 articles were included into the review and the subsequent analysis. Analysis of the extracted data found PSRs related to four sources: personal protective equipment (PPE), job content, work organisation, and social context. is. Women health workers and nurses reported worst health outcomes. Majority of the research to date concerns health workers in secondary care, while data on psychosocial risks at primary and community-based settings are scarce. However, the emerging research implies that the pandemic creates psychosocial risks also to non-clinical health workers. The intervention and mitigation measures address individual and organisational levels. Preventative and mitigating measures for social and societal risks—such as staff shortages, intersecting inequalities, and financial stressors require further research.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Scoping Review of Psychosocial Risks to Health Workers during the Covid-19 Pandemic

Franklin

Gkiouleka

2021

IJERPH

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…31 Another later study reported an even higher level of adherence, averaging at 90%. 32 Factors affecting usage of recommended PPE are similar, however. A previous study reported different working stations showed different levels of adherence for PPE use, especially for previously nonroutine PPE such as goggles and gowns.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determinants of Mental Health and Practice Behaviors of General Practitioners During COVID-19 Pandemic in Bali, Indonesia: A Cross-sectional Study

Sitanggang¹,

Wirawan²,

Wirawan³

et al. 2021

RMHP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: We aim to study the level of mental health distress and COVID-19 prevention in practice behaviors among general practitioners (GPs) in Bali, Indonesia, as well as their determinants. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey. Survey recruitment material was disseminated by purposive snowballing through regional professional association as well as research team's personal acquaintances. The survey measured mental health status by DASS-21 questionnaire and practice behavior by a questionnaire based on WHO recommendations for hand hygiene and PPE use during the COVID-19 pandemic. We conducted multivariate analyses to identify independent determinants for mental health and practice behavior. Results: Analyses included 635 (41.75%) of GPs in Bali. Mental health status was relatively good with prevalence of depression, anxiety, and stress of 13.2%, 19.7%, and 11% respectively, lower than previous studies in Indonesia and elsewhere. Practice behavior, however, was not considerably lower with only 65.4% and 32.1% reported consistent hand hygiene and recommended PPE use respectively. Routine optional PPE use was reported by 23.6% of respondents. Long working hours and fear of COVID-19 was identified as detrimental to mental health while consistent hand hygiene improved it. Meanwhile, workplace, work setting, and fear of COVID-19, were identified as determinants for PPE use. GPs working in primary health centers and private hospitals were also found to have less adherence to hand hygiene protocols. Conclusion: Our results showed relatively good mental health status along with inadequate infection prevention in practice behavior of GPs in Bali, Indonesia. Intervention should be made to improve practice behavior. Determinants of practice behavior identified in this study could help to pinpoint intervention targets.

show abstract

“…We now have data suggesting around 50% of transmission arises from spread from asymptomatic or presymptomatic persons, and recent models suggest that the average outpatient clinic provider is likely seeing several asymptomatic patients a week depending on the local infection rates [26,27]. However, it is clear that the risk of transmission depends on the prevalence of disease in the community, the ability to socially distance in non-clinical spaces such as lunch rooms, the availability of PPE, the adherence of patients and healthcare workers to proper use of PPE and uptake of vaccination [28][29][30]. Most retrievals are performed under MAC anesthesia, which is not considered an aerosolgenerating procedure, but the American Society of Anesthesia still recognizes MAC as a risk for "dispersion of potentially contaminated exhaled gases" [31].…”

Section: Deciding Who and When To Treat: A Balancing Actmentioning

confidence: 99%

We are here for you: infertility clinic communication during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic

Mehr

Jackson-Bey

et al. 2021

J Assist Reprod Genet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To study how SART-member fertility clinics communicated via clinic websites during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic following publication of ASRM COVID-19 Task Force recommendations. Methods SART-member fertility clinic websites were systematically surveyed for the presence of an REI-specific COVID-19 message (REI-CM) and analyzed for their adherence to ASRM guidance. Results Of the 381 active clinic websites, 249 (65.3%) had REI-specific COVID messaging. The presence of REI-CM was more common in private than in academic practices (73% vs 38%, p < 0.001) and with increasing practice volume: 38% of clinics with < 200 annual cycles vs 91% of clinics with > 1000 cycles ( p < 0.001). Adherence to ASRM guidance was more common in academic than in private practices (54% vs 31%, p = 0.02). Additionally, 9% of REI-CM ( n = 23) announced continued treatment regardless of a patient’s clinical urgency. This messaging was more common in groups doing > 1000 cycles a year (18%, p = 0.009) . Clinics treating all-comers were less likely to cite ASRM than other clinics (41% vs 62%, p = 0.045). However, 75% ( n = 14) cited COVID-19 guidance from WHO, CDC, and state and local governments. Conclusions Clinic response to ASRM recommendations during the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic was heterogeneous. Although academic practices were more likely to follow ASRM guidance, there was a lower extent of patient-facing messaging among academic practices than private clinics. In event of further escalations of this and future pandemics, clinics can learn from experiences to provide clear messaging to patients.

show abstract

Adherence to personal protective equipment use among healthcare workers caring for confirmed COVID-19 and alleged non-COVID-19 patients

Cited by 66 publications

References 10 publications

A Scoping Review of Psychosocial Risks to Health Workers during the Covid-19 Pandemic

A Scoping Review of Psychosocial Risks to Health Workers during the Covid-19 Pandemic

Determinants of Mental Health and Practice Behaviors of General Practitioners During COVID-19 Pandemic in Bali, Indonesia: A Cross-sectional Study

We are here for you: infertility clinic communication during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About