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.

Background Poor sleep is common in intensive care unit (ICU) patients, where environmental factors contribute to reduce and fragment sleep. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of earplugs and eye mask on sleep architecture in ICU patients. Methods A single-center randomized controlled trial of 64 ICU patients was conducted from July 2012 to December 2013. Patients were randomly assigned to sleep with or without earplugs and an eye mask from inclusion until ICU discharge. Polysomnography was performed on the first day and night following inclusion. The primary outcome was the proportion of stage N3 sleep over total sleep time. Secondary outcomes were other descriptors of sleep and major outcome variables. Results In the intervention group, nine (30%) patients did not wear earplugs all night long. The proportion of N3 sleep was 21 [7–28]% in the intervention group and 11 [3–23]% in the control group ( p  = 0.09). The duration of N3 sleep was higher among the patients in the intervention group who wore earplugs all night long than in the control group (74 [32–106] vs. 31 [7–76] minutes, p  = 0.039). The number of prolonged awakenings was smaller in the intervention group (21 [19–26] vs. 31 [21–47] in the control group, p  = 0.02). No significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of clinical outcome variables. Conclusions Earplugs and eye mask reduce long awakenings and increase N3 duration when they are well tolerated. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02292134 . Registered on 21 Nov 2013.

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.

To evaluate the efficacy and feasibility of the eye protection chamber compared to adhesive tape in preventing corneal injury in critically ill adult patients. A two-arm, double-blind pilot randomized controlled trial following CONSORT guidelines. 80 critically ill patients were randomized into an intervention group (n = 40; eye drops plus eye protection chamber) and a control group (n = 40; eye drops plus micropore adhesive tape). Corneal health was assessed by a trained critical care nurse on days 1, 3, 5, 7, and 10 using fluorescein staining and portable slit-lamp examination. The primary outcome was the incidence of corneal injury. Secondary outcomes included the severity and associated risk factors. During the study period, 203 patients were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 123 (60.6 %) presented with corneal injury upon admission and were excluded, while 80 patients (39.4 %) met the inclusion criteria and were enrolled in the trial. In a randomized trial, corneal injury occurred in 11.2 % of participants, 7.5 % in the control group, and 3.75 % in the intervention group, indicating a 50 % reduction in risk with the chamber. Most injuries were classified as Grade 1. Grade 2 and bilateral injuries occurred only in the control group. The eye protection chamber was effective and viable in reducing the incidence and severity of corneal injuries compared to adhesive tape. The chamber demonstrated efficacy and feasibility in preventing corneal injuries in critically ill patients with impaired or absent blink reflexes, and it can be tested in other centers. Implementing preventive strategies, such as eyelid closure, lubrication, and mechanical protection, is essential to enhance patient safety and reduce avoidable ocular complications in intensive care settings.

Unprecedented demand for N95 respirators during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a global shortage of these masks. We validated a rapidly applicable, low-cost decontamination protocol in compliance with regulatory standards to enable the safe reuse of N95 respirators. We inoculated 4 common models of N95 respirators with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and evaluated viral inactivation after disinfection for 60 minutes at 70°C and 0% relative humidity. Similarly, we evaluated thermal disinfection at 0% to 70% relative humidity for masks inoculated with Escherichia coli. We assessed masks subjected to multiple cycles of thermal disinfection for structural integrity using scanning electron microscopy and for protective functions using standards of the United States National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health for particle filtration efficiency, breathing resistance and respirator fit. A single heat treatment rendered SARS-CoV-2 undetectable in all mask samples. Compared with untreated inoculated control masks, E. coli cultures at 24 hours were virtually undetectable from masks treated at 70°C and 50% relative humidity (optical density at 600nm wavelength, 0.02±0.02 v. 2.77 ± 0.09, p < 0.001), but contamination persisted for masks treated at lower relative humidity. After 10 disinfection cycles, masks maintained fibre diameters similar to untreated masks and continued to meet standards for fit, filtration efficiency and breathing resistance. Thermal disinfection successfully decontaminated N95 respirators without impairing structural integrity or function. This process could be used in hospitals and long-term care facilities with commonly available equipment to mitigate the depletion of N95 masks.

Nursing homes (NH) for the elderly have been particularly affected by the Covid-19 pandemic mainly due to their hosted vulnerable populations and poor outbreak preparedness. In Belgium, the medical humanitarian organization Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) implemented a support project for NH including training on infection prevention and control (IPC), (re)-organization of care, and psychosocial support for NH staff. As psychosocial and mental health needs of NH residents in times of Covid-19 are poorly understood and addressed, this study aimed to better understand these needs and how staff could respond accordingly. A qualitative study adopting thematic content analysis. Eight focus group discussions with direct caring staff and 56 in-depth interviews with residents were conducted in eight purposively and conveniently selected NHs in Brussels, Belgium, June 2020. NH residents experienced losses of freedom, social life, autonomy, and recreational activities that deprived them of their basic psychological needs. This had a massive impact on their mental well-being expressed in feeling depressed, anxious, and frustrated as well as decreased meaning and quality of life. Staff felt unprepared for the challenges posed by the pandemic; lacking guidelines, personal protective equipment and clarity around organization of care. They were confronted with professional and ethical dilemmas, feeling 'trapped' between IPC and the residents' wellbeing. They witnessed the detrimental effects of the measures imposed on their residents. This study revealed the insights of residents' and NH staff at the height of the early Covid-19 pandemic. Clearer outbreak plans, including psychosocial support, could have prevented the aggravated mental health conditions of both residents and staff. A holistic approach is needed in NHs in which tailor-made essential restrictive IPC measures are combined with psychosocial support measures to reduce the impact on residents' mental health impact and to enhance their quality of life.

Background Respiratory protective devices are critical in protecting against infection in healthcare workers at high risk of novel 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID‐19); however, recommendations are conflicting and epidemiological data on their relative effectiveness against COVID‐19 are limited. Purpose To compare medical masks to N95 respirators in preventing laboratory‐confirmed viral infection and respiratory illness including coronavirus specifically in healthcare workers. Data Sources MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL from January 1, 2014, to March 9, 2020. Update of published search conducted from January 1, 1990, to December 9, 2014. Study Selection Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the protective effect of medical masks to N95 respirators in healthcare workers. Data Extraction Reviewer pair independently screened, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence. Data Synthesis Four RCTs were meta‐analyzed adjusting for clustering. Compared with N95 respirators; the use of medical masks did not increase laboratory‐confirmed viral (including coronaviruses) respiratory infection (OR 1.06; 95% CI 0.90‐1.25; I2 = 0%; low certainty in the evidence) or clinical respiratory illness (OR 1.49; 95% CI: 0.98‐2.28; I2 = 78%; very low certainty in the evidence). Only one trial evaluated coronaviruses separately and found no difference between the two groups (P = .49). Limitations Indirectness and imprecision of available evidence. Conclusions Low certainty evidence suggests that medical masks and N95 respirators offer similar protection against viral respiratory infection including coronavirus in healthcare workers during non–aerosol‐generating care. Preservation of N95 respirators for high‐risk, aerosol‐generating procedures in this pandemic should be considered when in short supply.

Objective The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of cloth masks to medical masks in hospital healthcare workers (HCWs). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between medical masks and cloth masks. Setting 14 secondary-level/tertiary-level hospitals in Hanoi, Vietnam. Participants 1607 hospital HCWs aged ≥18 years working full-time in selected high-risk wards. Intervention Hospital wards were randomised to: medical masks, cloth masks or a control group (usual practice, which included mask wearing). Participants used the mask on every shift for 4 consecutive weeks. Main outcome measure Clinical respiratory illness (CRI), influenza-like illness (ILI) and laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus infection. Results The rates of all infection outcomes were highest in the cloth mask arm, with the rate of ILI statistically significantly higher in the cloth mask arm (relative risk (RR)=13.00, 95% CI 1.69 to 100.07) compared with the medical mask arm. Cloth masks also had significantly higher rates of ILI compared with the control arm. An analysis by mask use showed ILI (RR=6.64, 95% CI 1.45 to 28.65) and laboratory-confirmed virus (RR=1.72, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.94) were significantly higher in the cloth masks group compared with the medical masks group. Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%. Conclusions This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated. Trial registration number Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12610000887077.

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.

Abstract Using data from the 2022 Korea Community Health Survey (n = 13 320), this study investigated helmet use and related factors among Korean adults using personal mobility devices, without distinguishing between private and hired users. Among mobility device users, 32.1% responded that they always wore a helmet. The proportion of helmet use was 35.2% among men, 25.8% among women, 29.2% among those aged 19–44 years, 42.3% among those aged 45–64 years and 26.6% among those aged 65 years or older. Furthermore, those who drank less frequently and were physically active were more likely to wear helmets. Moreover, people who always wore a seat belt when driving a car or sitting in the rear seat and people who always wore a helmet when riding a motorcycle were more likely to wear a helmet while using electric personal mobility devices. Approximately one-third of users always wore a helmet. The helmet-wearing rate was related to general characteristics such as gender and education level, and to safety behaviors such as wearing a seat belt when driving a car, sitting in the rear seat of a car, or when riding a motorcycle. In addition to considering personal characteristics investigated in this study, the helmet-wearing rate should be improved through policies or systems at the national or regional levels.