Complete protection from covid-19 is possible for health workers

Karlsson, Ulf O.; Fraenkel, Carl-Johan

doi:10.1136/bmj.m2641

Cited by 19 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In one study in Jordan, only 18.5% of frontline doctors reported that all PPE were available and most shortage was reported in protective facemasks [19]. Several studies emphasized that adequate training, proper use and uninterrupted availability of adequate PPE give HCPs a minimal risk of infection when treating suspected or confirmed cases of COVID-19 [18,20,21]. A study in China found that of 420 doctors and nurses deployed to frontline work at Wuhan hospitals between January and April 2020 none of them contracted COVID-19 after receiving training in proper use of PPE and provided with appropriate PPE [22].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Availability of personal protective equipment and satisfaction of healthcare professionals during COVID-19 pandemic in Ethiopia

Deressa

Worku

Abebe

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Healthcare professionals (HCPs) are at the frontline in the fight against COVID-19 and are at an increased risk of becoming infected with coronavirus. Risk of infection can be minimized by use of proper personal protective equipment (PPE). This study assessed the availability of PPE and satisfaction of HCPs in six public hospitals in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. A cross-sectional study was conducted from 9th to 26th June 2020. The study hospitals included: Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital, Zewditu Memorial Hospital, Ghandi Memorial Hospital, Menelik II Hospital, Yekatit 12 Hospital Medical College and St. Paul Hospital Millennium Medical College. Data were collected using a self-administered questionnaire. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the data and Chi-square test was used to assess the association between the groups. Bivariate and multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess factors associated with the satisfaction level of healthcare workers with regard to the availability and use of proper PPE during the current COVID-19 pandemic. A total of 1,134 (92.3%) valid questionnaires from a possible 1,228 were included in the analysis. The mean (SD) age of the participants was 30.26 (6.43) year and 52.6% were females. Nurses constituted about 40% of the overall sample, followed by physicians (22.2%), interns (10.8%), midwives (10.3%) and others (16.7%). An overall shortage of PPE was reported in all study hospitals. The majority (77%) of the healthcare professionals reported that their hospital did not have adequate PPE. A critical shortage of N95 respirator was particularly reported, the self-reported availability of N95 increased from 13% to 24% before and during COVID-19, respectively. The self-reported use of N95 increased from 9% to 21% before and during COVID-19, respectively. Almost 72% of the respondents were dissatisfied with the availability of PPE in their hospital. The independent predictors of the respondents satisfaction level about PPE were male gender (adjusted OR=1.39, 95% CI:1.05-1.85), healthcare workers who reported that PPE was adequately available in the hospital (adjusted OR=7.53, 95% CI:5.08-11.16), and preparedness to provide care to COVID-19 cases (adjusted OR=1.65, 95% CI:1.22-2.12). A critical shortage of appropriate PPE both before and during COVID-19 was identified. The high level of dissatisfaction with the availability of PPE might potentially lead to a lower level of preparedness and readiness to fight against COVID-19. Therefore, urgent efforts are needed to adequately supply the healthcare facilities with appropriate PPE to alleviate the challenges.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Availability of personal protective equipment and satisfaction of healthcare professionals during COVID-19 pandemic in Ethiopia

Deressa

Worku

Abebe

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1 While there is evidence that PPE is effective in limiting transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the necessity and extent of PPE for use in different circumstances is still subject to debate. 2 Excessive use of PPE risks generating unnecessary financial cost: for example, the UK government budgeted GBP £15bn of funds for purchasing PPE for public sector workers in 2020-2021. 3 In addition, the use of PPE generates a cost to the environment (which in turn impacts on human health), but to date that risk has not been quantified.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental impact of personal protective equipment distributed for use by health and social care services in England in the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To quantify the environmental impact of personal protective equipment (PPE) distributed for use by the health and social care system to control the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in England, and model strategies for mitigating the environmental impact. Design Life cycle assessment was used to determine environmental impacts of PPE distributed to health and social care in England during the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic. The base scenario assumed all products were single-use and disposed of via clinical waste. Scenario modelling was used to determine the effect of environmental mitigation strategies: (1) eliminating international travel during supply; (2) eliminating glove use; (3) reusing gowns and face shields; and (4) maximal recycling. Setting Royal Sussex County Hospital, Brighton, UK. Main outcome measures The carbon footprint of PPE distributed during the study period totalled 106,478 tonnes CO2e, with greatest contributions from gloves, aprons, face shields and Type IIR surgical masks. The estimated damage to human health was 239 DALYs (disability-adjusted life years), impact on ecosystems was 0.47 species.year (loss of local species per year), and impact on resource depletion was costed at US $12.7m (GBP £9.3m). Scenario modelling indicated UK manufacture would have reduced the carbon footprint by 12%, eliminating gloves by 45%, reusing gowns and gloves by 10% and maximal recycling by 35%. Results A combination of strategies may have reduced the carbon footprint by 75% compared with the base scenario, and saved an estimated 183 DALYS, 0.34 species.year and US $7.4m (GBP £5.4m) due to resource depletion. Conclusion The environmental impact of PPE is large and could be reduced through domestic manufacture, rationalising glove use, using reusables where possible and optimising waste management.

show abstract

“…Karlsson and Fraenkel [86] expressed an optimistic opinion that providing the right PPE would ensure complete protection from COVID-19 for HCWs. They based their view on the Chinese experiences from the first stage of pandemics in Wuhan and Hefei, where providing the appropriate PPE (N95 respirators or surgical masks, protective suits, isolation gowns, gloves, face shields or goggles, hair covers, boots, and shoe covers) and adequate training in its use completely protected large groups of 420 and 426 first line HCWs from the disease, of which nobody was infected.…”

Section: Disinfection and Sterilization During Covid-19mentioning

confidence: 99%

COVID 19 – Possible interrelations with respiratory comorbidities caused by occupational exposure to various hazardous bioaerosols. Part II. Clinical course, diagnostics, treatment and prevention

Maćkiewicz¹,

Lemieszek²,

Dutkiewicz³

2021

Ann Agric Environ Med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction and objective. The course of COVID-19 caused by the SARS-CoV-2 may be aggravated by bioaerosols containing other viruses, bacteria, and fungi, occurring mainly in the occupational environment. Hence, the diagnostics and treatment of COVID-19 should address such a possibility in the anamnesis, treatment and final recommendations for avoiding of adverse exposure. Abbreviated description of the state of knowledge. As SARS-CoV-2 attacks primarily the respiratory system and the severe manifestation of COVID-19 is interstitial pneumonia, diagnostics should include the following clinical and laboratory examinations: chest X-ray; high resolution computed tomography (HRCT); pulmonary function tests; arterial-blood gas test; genetic tests for the presence of SARS-CoV-2, in the future with the use of highly specific and sensitive nano-based biosensors; tests for the presence of specific immunity against the antigens of microorganisms causing other infectious or allergic pulmonary diseases (in the case of anamnestic indications). Because an universally accepted treatment for COVID-19 does not exist, the hitherto prescribed antiviral and immune-modulating drugs should be used be with caution. In many cases, a better alternative could be a safe supportive therapy, such as supplementation of the diet with probiotics, prebiotics, vitamins and microelements. Conclusions. The most important preventive measures against COVID-19 should include: vaccination; the use of filter or surgical masks; disinfection and sterilization; maintaining of well-functioning ventilation and air conditioning systems; reduction of the community air pollution which has been identified as an important factor increasing the COVID-19 severity. In the choice of preventive measures, the above should be considered for their potential efficacy against other bioaerosols as potential disease-aggravating agents.

show abstract

Complete protection from covid-19 is possible for health workers

Abstract: All they need is the right protective equipment

Cited by 19 publications

References 10 publications

Availability of personal protective equipment and satisfaction of healthcare professionals during COVID-19 pandemic in Ethiopia

Availability of personal protective equipment and satisfaction of healthcare professionals during COVID-19 pandemic in Ethiopia

Environmental impact of personal protective equipment distributed for use by health and social care services in England in the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic

COVID 19 – Possible interrelations with respiratory comorbidities caused by occupational exposure to various hazardous bioaerosols. Part II. Clinical course, diagnostics, treatment and prevention

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About