Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-27gpq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-29T12:25:33.426Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Self-Contamination While Doffing Personal Protective Equipment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 November 2020

Jaqueline Pereira da Silva
Affiliation:
University of Iowa
Priyadarshini Pennathur
Affiliation:
Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Iowa
Hugh Salehi
Affiliation:
University Of Dayton
Emily Chasco
Affiliation:
University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine / Iowa City VA Health Care System
Jure Baloh
Affiliation:
University of Arkansas For Medical Sciences
Kimberly Dukes
Affiliation:
Dept of Gen Int Med, Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa
Melissa Ward
Affiliation:
University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine
Heather Reisinger
Affiliation:
University of Iowa
Loreen Herwaldt Abbott
Affiliation:
University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Background: Personal protective equipment (PPE) effectiveness can be undermined by inappropriate doffing methods. Objective: We used human factors engineering methods to evaluate self-contamination during PPE doffing. Methods: In this study, 30 participants at a Midwestern academic hospital (A) donned and doffed 3 mask styles (n = 10), 2 gown styles (n = 10), and 2 glove styles (n = 10; the Doffy glove has a tab to facilitate doffing). Also, 30 additional participants at hospital A (residents or fellows, nurses, special isolation trained staff [SITS]) and 10 SITS at academic hospital B doffed a surgical mask, a breakaway neck gown, and exam gloves (PPE ensemble) twice: once while distracted with conversation and once when not distracted. We randomized the order in which participants used different PPE styles or they did the doffing scenario. We collected demographic data. We applied Glo Germ Mist (1.5 dilution in water) with a mucosal atomizer to participants’ PPE before they doffed. We video-recorded participants as they doffed, and we photographed their scrubs and exposed skin before and after each donning and doffing episode. We reviewed videos for doffing errors and photographs for fluorescent spots. We counted fluorescent spots and noted their locations. Results: Overall, 45 (64.3%) participants were women, 31 (44.3%) were nurses, 24 (34.3%) were physicians. Among the participants, 25 (35.7%) had >15 years of experience and 61 (87.1%) had some training in doffing. Participants frequently contaminated their skin or clothing while doffing (Table 1). For all scenarios, hands followed by the torso were contaminated most frequently. Analysis of the videos found that touching the gown front with bare hands was the most common doffing error. Fewer participants self-contaminated when using the Doffy glove without training than when using the standard exam glove. Although most participants in the glove trial indicated that they did not need to watch the Doffy glove training video again, most had difficulty doffing the Doffy glove with the beak method. Many participants stopped doffing to answer questions when they doffed the PPE ensemble during the interruption scenario. Conclusions: Self-contamination was very common with all PPE styles and during all scenarios. Distraction did not increase the risk of contamination. However, participants often stopped doffing to answer questions, which they rarely do in practice. Watching a video was inadequate training for the beak glove-doffing method. The Doffy glove, which decreased contamination compared with the standard glove in the untrained scenario, may have advantages over standard exam gloves and should be evaluated further.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None

Type
Poster Presentations
Copyright
© 2020 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved.