Search

RESUMENCuando se retira el equipo de protección personal (EPP), los patógenos pueden transferirse desde el EPP al cuerpo de los trabajadores de la salud, poniendo en riesgo de exposición e infección tanto a ellos mismos como a sus pacientes. Entre marzo de 2017 y abril de 2018 se observaron las prácticas de retirada del EPP del personal sanitario que atendía pacientes con infecciones respiratorias virales en un hospital de atención de enfermedades agudas. Un observador capacitado registró el desempeño del personal sanitario cuando retiraba el EPP dentro de las habitaciones de los pacientes, utilizando una lista de verificación predefinida basada en las directrices de los Centros para el Control y Prevención de Enfermedades (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC). Se observaron 162 prácticas de retirada durante el cuidado de 52 pacientes infectados con patógenos virales respiratorios. De estos 52 pacientes, 30 estaban en aislamiento por gota y contacto, 21 en aislamiento por gota y uno en aislamiento de contacto. En general, en 90% de los casos la retirada del EPP observada se realizó de manera incorrecta, ya sea en cuanto a la secuencia de retirada, la técnica de retirada o el uso del EPP apropiado. Los errores más comunes consistieron en quitarse la bata por adelante, retirar la pantalla facial de la mascarilla y tocar superficies y EPP potencialmente contaminados durante el proceso. Las desviaciones del protocolo recomendado para retirar el EPP son comunes y pueden aumentar el potencial de contaminación de la ropa o la piel del personal sanitario después de proporcionar atención. Existe una clara necesidad de cambiar el enfoque utilizado para capacitar al personal en las prácticas de retirada del EPP.

Objective:To characterize the presence and magnitude of viruses in the air and on surfaces in the rooms of hospitalized patients with respiratory viral infections, and to explore the association between care activities and viral contamination.Design:Prospective observational study.Setting:Acute-care academic hospital.Participants:In total, 52 adult patients with a positive respiratory viral infection test within 3 days of observation participated. Healthcare workers (HCWs) were recruited in staff meetings and at the time of patient care, and 23 wore personal air-sampling devices.Methods:Viruses were measured in the air at a fixed location and in the personal breathing zone of HCWs. Predetermined environmental surfaces were sampled using premoistened Copan swabs at the beginning and at the end of the 3-hour observation period. Preamplification and quantitative real-time PCR methods were used to quantify viral pathogens.Results:Overall, 43% of stationary and 22% of personal air samples were positive for virus. Positive stationary air samples were associated with ≥5 HCW encounters during the observation period (odds ratio [OR], 5.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2–37.8). Viruses were frequently detected on all of the surfaces sampled. Virus concentrations on the IV pole hanger and telephone were positively correlated with the number of contacts made by HCWs on those surfaces. The distributions of influenza, rhinoviruses, and other viruses in the environment were similar.Conclusions:Healthcare workers are at risk of contracting respiratory virus infections when delivering routine care for patients infected with the viruses, and they are at risk of disseminating virus because they touch virus-contaminated fomites.

Highlights • Selection of personal protective equipment (PPE) can be systematic and risk-based. • Potential exposures are compared with sites susceptible to infection. • Facilitates transparent decision-making about personal protective equipment. • PPE evaluation includes: donning/doffing/changing, usability, and fit for purpose., Background Personal protective equipment (PPE) is a primary strategy to protect health care personnel (HCP) from infectious diseases. When transmission-based PPE ensembles are not appropriate, HCP must recognize the transmission pathway of the disease and anticipate the exposures to select PPE. Because guidance for this process is extremely limited, we proposed a systematic, risk-based approach to the selection and evaluation of PPE ensembles to protect HCP against infectious diseases. Methods The approach used in this study included the following 4 steps: (1) job hazard analysis, (2) infectious disease hazard analysis, (3) selection of PPE, and (4) evaluation of selected PPE. Selected PPE should protect HCP from exposure, be usable by HCP, and fit for purpose. Results The approach was demonstrated for the activity of intubation of a patient with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus or Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus. As expected, the approach led to the selection of different ensembles of PPE for these 2 pathogens. Discussion A systematic risk-based approach to the selection of PPE will help health care facilities and HCP select PPE when transmission-based precautions are not appropriate. Owing to the complexity of PPE ensemble selection and evaluation, a team with expertise in infectious diseases, occupational health, the health care activity, and related disciplines, such as human factors, should be engaged. Conclusions Participation, documentation, and transparency are necessary to ensure the decisions can be communicated, critiqued, and understood by HCP.

Objective:To characterize the magnitude of virus contamination on personal protective equipment (PPE), skin, and clothing of healthcare workers (HCWs) who cared for patients having acute viral infections.Design:Prospective observational study.Setting:Acute-care academic hospital.Participants:A total of 59 HCWs agreed to have their PPE, clothing, and/or skin swabbed for virus measurement.Methods:The PPE worn by HCW participants, including glove, face mask, gown, and personal stethoscope, were swabbed with Copan swabs. After PPE doffing, bodies and clothing of HCWs were sampled with Copan swabs: hand, face, and scrubs. Preamplification and quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) methods were used to quantify viral RNA copies in the swab samples.Results:Overall, 31% of glove samples, 21% of gown samples, and 12% of face mask samples were positive for virus. Among the body and clothing sites, 21% of bare hand samples, 11% of scrub samples, and 7% of face samples were positive for virus. Virus concentrations on PPE were not statistically significantly different than concentrations on skin and clothing under PPE. Virus concentrations on the personal stethoscopes and on the gowns were positively correlated with the number of torso contacts (P < .05). Virus concentrations on face masks were positively correlated with the number of face mask contacts and patient contacts (P < .05).Conclusions:Healthcare workers are routinely contaminated with respiratory viruses after patient care, indicating the need to ensure that HCWs complete hand hygiene and use other PPE to prevent dissemination of virus to other areas of the hospital. Modifying self-contact behaviors may decrease the presence of virus on HCWs.

Background Respiratory viruses on fomites can be transferred to sites susceptible to infection via contact by hands or other fomites. Methods Care for hospitalized patients with viral respiratory infections was observed in the patient room for 3-hour periods at an acute care academic medical center for over a 2 year period. One trained observer recorded the healthcare activities performed, contacts with fomites, and self-contacts made by healthcare workers (HCWs), while another observer recorded fomite contacts of patients during the encounter using predefined checklists. Results The surface contacted by HCWs during the majority of visits was the patient (90%). Environmental surfaces contacted by HCWs frequently during healthcare activities included the tray table (48%), bed surface (41%), bed rail (41%), computer station (37%), and intravenous pole (32%). HCWs touched their own torso and mask in 32% and 29% of the visits, respectively. HCWs’ self-contacts differed significantly among HCW job roles, with providers and respiratory therapists contacting themselves significantly more times than nurses and nurse technicians (P < .05). When HCWs performed only 1 care activity, there were significant differences in the number of patient contacts and self-contacts that HCWs made during performance of multiple care activities (P < .05). Conclusions HCWs regularly contact environmental surfaces, patients, and themselves while providing care to patients with infectious diseases, varying among care activities and HCW job roles. These contacts may facilitate the transmission of infection to HCWs and susceptible patients., Contact pattern of healthcare workers and patients during care activities for hospitalized patients with viral respiratory infections are described. Healthcare workers regularly contact environmental surfaces that may be contaminated with pathogens and their bodies, putting them at risk for acquiring infection of disseminating pathogens through the contact route.

During the doffing of personal protective equipment (PPE), pathogens can be transferred from the PPE to the bodies of healthcare workers (HCWs), putting HCWs and patients at risk of exposure and infection. PPE doffing practices of HCWs who cared for patients with viral respiratory infections were observed at an acute care hospital from March 2017 to April 2018. A trained observer recorded doffing performance of HCWs inside the patient rooms using a pre-defined checklist based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guideline. Doffing practices were observed 162 times during care of 52 patients infected with respiratory viral pathogens. Out of the 52 patients, 30 were in droplet and contact isolation, 21 were in droplet isolation, and 1 was in contact isolation. Overall, 90% of observed doffing was incorrect, with respect to the doffing sequence, doffing technique, or use of appropriate PPE. Common errors were doffing gown from the front, removing face shield of the mask, and touching potentially contaminated surfaces and PPE during doffing. Deviations from the recommended PPE doffing protocol are common and can increase potential for contamination of the HCW’s clothing or skin after providing care. There is a clear need to change the approach used to training HCWs in PPE doffing practices.

Introduction Cell-free plasma hemoglobin is associated with poor outcome in patients with sepsis. Extracellular hemoglobin and secondarily released heme amplify inflammation in the presence of microbial TLR ligands and/or endogenous mediators. Hemopexin, a plasma protein that binds heme with extraordinary affinity, blocks these effects and has been proposed as a possible treatment approach to decrease inflammation in critically ill patients. Methods We studied mouse models of endotoxemia, burn wound infections and peritonitis in order to assess if a repletion strategy for hemopexin might be reasonable. We also measured hemopexin in small numbers of three patient populations that might be logical groups for hemopexin therapy: patients with sepsis and ARDS, patients with severe burns, and premature infants. Results Despite severe disease, mean plasma hemopexin levels were increased above baseline in each murine model. However, plasma hemopexin levels were decreased or markedly decreased in many patients in each of the three patient populations. Conclusions Potentially different behavior of hemopexin in mice and humans may be important to consider when utilizing murine models to represent acute human inflammatory diseases in which heme plays a role. The findings raise the possibility that decreased hemopexin could result in insufficiently neutralized or cleared heme in some patients with ARDS, burns, or in premature infants who might be candidates to benefit from hemopexin administration.