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.

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.

Many affected counties have had experienced a shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE) during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. We aimed to investigate the needs of healthcare professionals and the technical difficulties faced by them during the initial outbreak. A cross-sectional web-based survey was conducted among the healthcare workforce in the most populous cities from three Latin American countries in April 2020. In total, 1,082 participants were included. Of these, 534 (49.4%), 263 (24.3%), and 114 (10.5%) were physicians, nurses, and other professionals, respectively. At least 70% of participants reported a lack of PPE. The most common shortages were shortages in gown coverall suits (643, 59.4%), N95 masks (600, 55.5%), and face shields (569, 52.6%). Professionals who performed procedures that generated aerosols reported shortages more frequently (p<0.05). Professionals working in the emergency department and primary care units reported more shortages than those working in intensive care units and hospital-based wards (p<0.001). Up to 556 (51.4%) participants reported the lack of sufficient knowledge about using PPE. Professionals working in public institutions felt less prepared, received less training, and had no protocols compared with their peers in working private institutions (p<0.001). Although the study sample corresponded to different hospital centers in different cities from the participating countries, sampling was non-random. Healthcare professionals in Latin America may face more difficulties than those from other countries, with 7 out of 10 professionals reporting that they did not have the necessary resources to care for patients with COVID-19. Technical and logistical difficulties should be addressed in the event of a future outbreak, as they have a negative impact on healthcare workers. Clinical trial registration: NCT04486404

Policy Points Reflecting on current response deficiencies, we offer a model for a national contingency supply chain cell (NCSCC) construct to manage the medical materials supply chain in support of emergencies, such as COVID‐19. We develop the following: a framework for governance and response to enable a globally independent supply chain; a flexible structure to accommodate the requirements of state and county health systems for receiving and distributing materials; and a national material “control tower” to improve transparency and real‐time access to material status and location. Context Much of the discussion about the failure of the COVID‐19 supply chain has centered on personal protective equipment (PPE) and the degree of vulnerability of care. Prior research on supply chain risks have focused on mitigating the risk of disruptions of specific purchased materials within a bounded region or on the shifting status of cross‐border export restrictions. But COVID‐19 has impacted every purchase category, region, and border. This paper is responsive to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine recommendation to study and monitor disasters and to provide governments with course of action to satisfy legislative mandates. Methods Our analysis draws on our observations of the responses to COVID‐19 in regard to acquisition and contracting problem‐solving, our review of field discussions and interactions with experts, a critique of existing proposals for managing the strategic national stockpile in the United States a mapping of the responses to national contingency planning phases, and the identification of gaps in current national healthcare response policy frameworks and proposals. Findings Current proposals call for augmenting a system that has failed to deliver the needed response to COVID‐19. These proposals do not address the key attributes for pandemic plan renewal: flexibility, traceability and transparency, persistence and responsiveness, global independence, and equitable access. We offer a commons‐based framework for achieving the opportunities and risks which are responsive to a constellation of intelligence assets working in and across focal targets of global supply chain risk. Conclusions The United States needs a “commons‐based strategy” that is not simply a stockpile repository but instead is a network of repositories, fluid inventories, and analytic monitoring governed by the experts. We need a coordinated effort, a “commons” that will direct both conventional and new suppliers to meet demands and to eliminate hoarding and other behaviors.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to devastate US nursing homes. Adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) and staffing levels are critical to protect nursing home residents and staff. Despite the importance of these basic measures, few national data are available concerning the state of nursing homes with respect to these resources. This article presents results from a new national database containing data from 98 percent of US nursing homes. We find that more than one in five nursing homes reports a severe shortage of PPE and any shortage of staff. Rates of both staff and PPE shortages did not meaningfully improve from May to July 2020. Facilities with COVID-19 cases among residents and staff, as well as those serving more Medicaid recipients and those with lower quality scores, were more likely to report shortages. Policies aimed at providing resources to obtain additional direct care staff and PPE for these vulnerable nursing homes, particularly in areas with rising community COVID-19 case rates, are needed to reduce the national COVID-19 death toll.

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.

U.S. hospitals are already reporting shortages of key equipment needed to care for critically ill patients with Covid-19, including ventilators and personal protective equipment for medical staff. Adequate production and distribution of this equipment is crucial.

In the current absence of a vaccine for COVID-19, public health responses aim to break the chain of infection by focusing on the mode of transmission. We reviewed the current evidence on the transmission dynamics and on pathogenic and clinical features of COVID-19 to critically identify any gaps in the current infection prevention and control (IPC) guidelines. In this study, we reviewed global COVID-19 IPC guidelines by organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO), the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). Guidelines from 2 high-income countries (Australia and United Kingdom) and from 1 middle-income country (China) were also reviewed. We searched publications in English on 'PubMed' and Google Scholar. We extracted information related to COVID-19 transmission dynamics, clinical presentations, and exposures that may facilitate transmission. We then compared these findings with the recommended IPC measures. Nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare settings occurs through droplets, aerosols, and the oral-fecal or fecal-droplet route. However, the IPC guidelines fail to cover all transmission modes, and the recommendations also conflict with each other. Most guidelines recommend surgical masks for healthcare providers during routine care and N95 respirators for aerosol-generating procedures. However, recommendations regarding the type of face mask varied, and the CDC recommends cloth masks when surgical masks are unavailable. IPC strategies should consider all the possible routes of transmission and should target all patient care activities involving risk of person-to-person transmission. This review may assist international health agencies in updating their guidelines.

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.

The public health policies that were introduced in response to the emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 prevented a lot of workers from returning to their factory jobs. At the end of March, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus stated that “the chronic global shortage of personal protective equipment is now one of the most urgent threats to our collective ability to save lives”. There are continuing shortages of particular raw materials and not all manufacturers have returned to pre-pandemic levels of production. [...]some companies that diverted their production facilities to making PPE may stop making the products as the pandemic runs its course.