Explore the vast range of titles available.

To survey healthcare workers (HCW) on availability and use of personal protective equipment (PPE) caring for COVID-19 patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). A web-based survey distributed worldwide in April 2020. We received 2711 responses from 1797 (67%) physicians, 744 (27%) nurses, and 170 (6%) Allied HCW. For routine care, most (1557, 58%) reportedly used FFP2/N95 masks, waterproof long sleeve gowns (1623; 67%), and face shields/visors (1574; 62%). Powered Air-Purifying Respirators were used routinely and for intubation only by 184 (7%) and 254 (13%) respondents, respectively. Surgical masks were used for routine care by 289 (15%) and 47 (2%) for intubations. At least one piece of standard PPE was unavailable for 1402 (52%), and 817 (30%) reported reusing single-use PPE. PPE was worn for a median of 4 h (IQR 2, 5). Adverse effects of PPE were associated with longer shift durations and included heat (1266, 51%), thirst (1174, 47%), pressure areas (1088, 44%), headaches (696, 28%), Inability to use the bathroom (661, 27%) and extreme exhaustion (492, 20%). HCWs reported widespread shortages, frequent reuse of, and adverse effects related to PPE. Urgent action by healthcare administrators, policymakers, governments and industry is warranted. [Display omitted] •Wide variability in what PPE is available for ICU staff caring for COVID-19 patients.•More than half report at least one PPE item missing or out of stock.•Adverse effects of wearing PPE reported by 80% of health care workers.•Adverse effects related to duration of a shift wearing PPE without taking a break.

Pandemics and re-emerging diseases put pressure on the health care system to prepare for patient care and sample logistics requiring enhanced personnel protective equipment (PPE) for health care workers. We generated quantifiable data on ergonomics of PPE applicable in a health care setting by defining error rates and physically limiting factors due to PPE-induced restrictions. Nineteen study volunteers tested randomly allocated head- or full body-ventilated PPE suits equipped with powered-air-purifying-respirators and performed four different tasks (two laboratory tutorials, a timed test of selective attention and a test investigating reaction time, mobility, speed and physical exercise) during 6 working hours at 22°C on one day and 4 working hours at 28°C on another day. Error rates and physical parameters (fluid loss, body temperature, heart rate) were determined and ergonomic-related parameters were assessed hourly using assessment sheets. Depending on the PPE system the most restrictive factors, which however had no negative impact on performance (speed and error rate), were: reduced dexterity due to multiple glove layers, impaired visibility by flexible face shields and back pain related to the respirator of the fully ventilated suit. Heat stress and liquid loss were perceived as restrictive at a working temperature of 28°C but not 22°C.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate healthcare worker (HCW) risk of self-contamination when donning and doffing personal protective equipment (PPE) using fluorescence and MS2 bacteriophage. DESIGN Prospective pilot study. SETTING Tertiary-care hospital. PARTICIPANTS A total of 36 HCWs were included in this study: 18 donned/doffed contact precaution (CP) PPE and 18 donned/doffed Ebola virus disease (EVD) PPE. INTERVENTIONS HCWs donned PPE according to standard protocols. Fluorescent liquid and MS2 bacteriophage were applied to HCWs. HCWs then doffed their PPE. After doffing, HCWs were scanned for fluorescence and swabbed for MS2. MS2 detection was performed using reverse transcriptase PCR. The donning and doffing processes were videotaped, and protocol deviations were recorded. RESULTS Overall, 27% of EVD PPE HCWs and 50% of CP PPE HCWs made ≥1 protocol deviation while donning, and 100% of EVD PPE HCWs and 67% of CP PPE HCWs made ≥1 protocol deviation while doffing (P=.02). The median number of doffing protocol deviations among EVD PPE HCWs was 4, versus 1 among CP PPE HCWs. Also, 15 EVD PPE protocol deviations were committed by doffing assistants and/or trained observers. Fluorescence was detected on 8 EVD PPE HCWs (44%) and 5 CP PPE HCWs (28%), most commonly on hands. MS2 was recovered from 2 EVD PPE HCWs (11%) and 3 CP PPE HCWs (17%). CONCLUSIONS Protocol deviations were common during both EVD and CP PPE doffing, and some deviations during EVD PPE doffing were committed by the HCW doffing assistant and/or the trained observer. Self-contamination was common. PPE donning/doffing are complex and deserve additional study. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:1077-1083.

Healthcare workers exposed to coronavirus (COVID-19) may not have adequate access to personal protective equipment (PPE), safety procedures, and diagnostic protocols. Our objective was to evaluate the reality and perceptions about personal safety among healthcare workers in Latin America. This is a cross-sectional, online survey-based study administered to 936 healthcare professionals in Latin America from 31 March 2020 to 4 April 2020. A 12-item structured questionnaire was developed. A total of 936 healthcare workers completed the online survey. Of them, 899 (95.1%) were physicians, 28 (2.9%) were nurses, and 18 (1.9%) were allied health professionals. Access to protective equipment was as follows: gel hand sanitizer (n = 889; 95%), disposable gloves (n = 853; 91.1%), disposable gowns (n = 630; 67.3%), disposable surgical masks (785; 83.9%), N95 masks (n = 516; 56.1%), and facial protective shields (n = 305; 32.6%). The vast majority (n = 707; 75.5%) had access to personal safety policies and procedures, and 699 (74.7%) participants had access to diagnostic algorithms. On a 1-to-10 Likert scale, the participants expressed limited human resources support (4.92 ± 0.2; mean ± SD), physical integrity protection in the workplace (5.5 ± 0.1; mean ± SD), and support from public health authorities (5.01 ± 0.12; mean ± SD). Healthcare workers in Latin America had limited access to essential PPE and support from healthcare authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Laboratory-acquired infections due to a variety of bacteria, viruses, parasites, and fungi have been described over the last century, and laboratory workers are at risk of exposure to these infectious agents. However, reporting laboratory-associated infections has been largely voluntary, and there is no way to determine the real number of people involved or to know the precise risks for workers. In this study, an international survey based on volunteering was conducted in biosafety level 3 and 4 laboratories to determine the number of laboratory-acquired infections and the possible underlying causes of these contaminations. The analysis of the survey reveals that laboratory-acquired infections have been infrequent and even rare in recent years, and human errors represent a very high percentage of the cases. Today, most risks from biological hazards can be reduced through the use of appropriate procedures and techniques, containment devices and facilities, and the training of personnel.

The worldwide shortage of single-use N95 respirators and surgical masks due to the COVID-19 pandemic has forced many health care personnel to use their existing equipment for as long as possible. In many cases, workers cover respirators with available masks in an attempt to extend their effectiveness against the virus. Due to low mask supplies, many people instead are using face coverings improvised from common fabrics. Our goal was to determine what fabrics would be most effective in both practices. Under laboratory conditions, we examined the hydrophobicity of fabrics (cotton, polyester, silk), as measured by their resistance to the penetration of small and aerosolized water droplets, an important transmission avenue for the virus causing COVID-19. We also examined the breathability of these fabrics and their ability to maintain hydrophobicity despite undergoing repeated cleaning. Laboratory-based tests were conducted when fabrics were fashioned as an overlaying barrier for respirators and when constructed as face coverings. When used as material in these two situations, silk was more effective at impeding the penetration and absorption of droplets due to its greater hydrophobicity relative to other tested fabrics. We found that silk face coverings repelled droplets in spray tests as well as disposable single-use surgical masks, and silk face coverings have the added advantage over masks such that they can be sterilized for immediate reuse. We show that silk is a hydrophobic barrier to droplets, can be more breathable than other fabrics that trap humidity, and are re-useable via cleaning. We suggest that silk can serve as an effective material for making hydrophobic barriers that protect respirators, and silk can now be tested under clinical conditions to verify its efficacy for this function. Although respirators are still the most appropriate form of protection, silk face coverings possess properties that make them capable of repelling droplets.

Radioactive iodines are produced during the operation of nuclear power plants and during the detonation of nuclear weapons. In the event of a radiation incident, radioiodine is one of the contaminants that could be released into the environment. Exposure to radioiodine can lead to radiation injury to the thyroid, including thyroid cancer. Radiation to the thyroid from radioiodine can be limited by taking a nonradioactive iodine (stable iodine) such as potassium iodide. This book assesses strategies for the distribution and administration of potassium iodide (KI) in the event of a nuclear incident. The report says that potassium iodide pills should be available to everyone age 40 or younger-especially children and pregnant and lactating women-living near a nuclear power plant. States and municipalities should decide how to stockpile, distribute, and administer potassium iodide tablets, and federal agencies should keep a backup supply of tablets and be prepared to distribute them to affected areas.

To characterize associations between exposures within and outside the medical workplace with healthcare personnel (HCP) SARS-CoV-2 infection, including the effect of various forms of respiratory protection. Case-control study. We collected data from international participants via an online survey. In total, 1,130 HCP (244 cases with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, and 886 controls healthy throughout the pandemic) from 67 countries not meeting prespecified exclusion (ie, healthy but not working, missing workplace exposure data, COVID symptoms without lab confirmation) were included in this study. Respondents were queried regarding workplace exposures, respiratory protection, and extra-occupational activities. Odds ratios for HCP infection were calculated using multivariable logistic regression and sensitivity analyses controlling for confounders and known biases. HCP infection was associated with non-aerosol-generating contact with COVID-19 patients (adjusted OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.04-1.9; P = .03) and extra-occupational exposures including gatherings of ≥10 people, patronizing restaurants or bars, and public transportation (adjusted OR range, 3.1-16.2). Respirator use during aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) was associated with lower odds of HCP infection (adjusted OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.8, P = .005), as was exposure to intensive care and dedicated COVID units, negative pressure rooms, and personal protective equipment (PPE) observers (adjusted OR range, 0.4-0.7). COVID-19 transmission to HCP was associated with medical exposures currently considered lower-risk and multiple extra-occupational exposures, and exposures associated with proper use of appropriate PPE were protective. Closer scrutiny of infection control measures surrounding healthcare activities and medical settings considered lower risk, and continued awareness of the risks of public congregation, may reduce the incidence of HCP infection.

To the Editor.-In February 2020, the facilities manager of our hospital was tasked with evaluating our morgue airflow for compliance with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) standards for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) autopsies.1 The morgue had been built in 2015 to incorporate negative airflow that is exhausted to the outside of the hospital at a rate of 6 room air-exchanges per hour. [...]our initial autopsies lacked brain tissue. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/ 2019-ncov/hcp/guidance-postmortem-specimens. html.

Berries contain vitamin C and are also a rich source of phytochemicals, especially anthocyanins which occur along with other classes of phenolic compounds, including ellagitannins, flavan-3-ols, procyanidins, flavonols and hydroxybenzoate derivatives. This review examines studies with both human subjects and animals on the absorption of these compounds, and their glucuronide, sulphate and methylated metabolites, into the circulatory system from the gastrointestinal tract and the evidence for their localisation within the body in organs such as the brain and eyes. The involvement of the colonic microflora in catabolising dietary flavonoids that pass from the small to the large intestine is discussed along with the potential fate and role of the resultant phenolic acids that can be produced in substantial quantities. The in vitro and in vivo bioactivities of these polyphenol metabolites and catabolites are assessed, and the current evidence for their involvement in the protective effects of dietary polyphenols, within the gastrointestinal tract and other parts of the body to which they are transported by the circulatory system, is reviewed.