View clinical trials related to Personal Protective Equipment.
Filter by:A significant number of professionals subjected to high-risk situations have been infected by Covid-19, due to the lack of adequate respiratory protection equipment or poor marginal sealing adjustments. Then, the objective of this study is to determine if there are statistically significant differences in the level of respiratory protection of type IIR surgical face masks and filtering face masks, used with and without a peripheral sealing device, against the contagion of Covid-19 or other harmful biological agents. The proposed device is a thermoplastic resin ring composed of a reusable and biodegradable polylactic acid designed to be used in a healthcare environment. The individuals of the study will be submitted to qualitative fit tests, that meet current Ocupational Security and Health Administration (OSHA) standard. The mentioned qualitative fit test uses a sodium saccharin solution to evaluate the respiratory protection equipment in professionals in hospitals, emergency centers, and early childhood education centers.
Covid-19 disease has caused a worldwide pandemic. However, it was necessary to reduce the transmission of the disease as much as possible. The highest risk of transmission is airway management. Medical personnel responsible for airway management are at the greatest risk. One of the most important ways to protect anesthetists from contamination is to use PPE. But, it should be considered that there is some disadvantage about using PPE. The investigators aimed to evaluate the effects of the use of personal protective equipment and standard uniform during airway management.
Anesthesiologists and other professionals are at high risk of viral infection during aerosol-generating procedures. Knowledge of the protective quality of PPE suits and the risk of self-contamination after removal is paramount. This trial used an ultraviolet-fluorescent solution to explore differences in self-contamination after removal of gown PPE (PPE-G) and coverall PPE (PPE-C). A two-period/two-intervention (AB/BA) design was chosen; each intervention consisted of audio-guided placement of PPE, full-body spraying of fluorescent solution, audio-guided removal of PPE, and assessment of self-contamination through ultraviolet light scanning. The primary outcome was the mean within-participant difference (traces of any size) between PPE suits. Statistical significance was tested using t test for paired data.
This study aims to improve the personal protective equipment (PPE) used while treating patients with COVID-19, to protect staff and avoid cross-infection of patients. Protecting staff from infection during the Covid pandemic is critical to maintaining health services. Mistakes in using protective equipment (PPE) are the commonest avoidable factor in staff becoming infected at work. Recently, intensive care doctors have also reported an increase in the spread of dangerous multi-resistant bacteria between patients, which appears likely to be transmitted between patients by Level 2 PPE worn by staff (specifically gown sleeves). This study therefore seeks to develop and test a new protocol to decrease cross-infection risks whilst using Level 2 PPE.
Background The significant risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to healthcare staff mandated changes to Basic and Advanced Life Support (BLS and ALS) guidelines. As advised by the European Resuscitation Council (ERC), healthcare staff should put on airborne-precaution personal protective equipment (PPE) before starting chest compressions and/or airway interventions, as a minimum an FFP3 mask (FFP2 or N95 if FFP3 not available), eye and face protection and long-sleeved gown. However, wearing FFP3 masks has been shown to highly impair cardiopulmonary exercise capacity and the effect of wearing PPE on the quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation is not known. The aim of this project is therefore to to investigate whether wearing PPE has an effect on the quality of chest compressions. Methods The study forsees a simulated CPR scenario on manikins. Study participants are lay rescuers and members of the rescue organization Croce Bianca. Each participant will perform 5 sequences consisting of 2 min of chest compressions altered by 2 min of no chest compressions (break), as recommended by the current ERC guidelines. The participants will perform the described CPR sequence two times in a cross-over design with randomized order, once while wearing PPE and once without wearing PPE. Between the two CPR sequences (i.e. with and without PPE) a break of 60 min for recovery will be given. During both CPR sequences, the quality of chest compressions will be measured.
This QI project seeks to evaluate the relative test sample acquisition throughput, personal protective equipment utilization, and relative operational costs of provider-administered COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) nasal samples with and with the use of HEPA-filtered, positive pressure isolation booths.
Filter facepiece respirator (FFR) is a critical equipment to prevent the transmission of respiratory tract infection disease especially the dreadful corona virus 2(SARs-CoV-2).The N95 mask is the prototype of high efficiency protective device and can effectively protect airborne pathogens of less than 0.3 μm by more than 95%. It is tightly fit and had high filtration capacity. The widespread pandemic of COVID-19 leads to greater requirement of FFR. A rising in demand would greatly exceed current productive capabilities and stockpiles and would almost certainly result in a robust shortage. In order to solve these problems, our team had invented a new type of half-piece respirator made from silicone and assembled with hepa or elastostatic filter . A variety of methods have been used to evaluate this new device, including qualitative fit test with Bitrex® test kit and filtration test.
Alternative doffing strategies may help prevent self-contamination of staff members when using PPE. The study aims to determine which among the suggested methods in the literature that have been proposed as alternatives to the traditional CDC recommended doffing protocol, would be most beneficial to reduce healthcare worker self-contamination.
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 tests (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 questionnaires. Depending on the PPE system the most restrictive factors 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.