To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Women with bipolar disorder have a high recurrence rate in the perinatal period. However, the use of prophylactic medication can be a concern during pregnancy and breastfeeding. There are few studies looking at the impact of prophylactic medication on the risk of recurrence.The aims of this study are to describe the use of medication in women with bipolar disorder in the perinatal period and the impact of that prophylactic medication on the rate of postnatal recurrence.
The BDRN (Bipolar Disorder Research Network Study) is the largest individual network of individuals with bipolar disorder and related mood disorders in the world. The BDRN pregnancy study is a prospective observational study which took place in the UK. We collected sociodemographic, clinical and medication data from pregnant women with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder and who were euthymic entering the postpartum period. The clinical data were collected via interviews during pregnancy and the postpartum and access to clinical records where those were available.
Data were analysed for association using χ2 tests and logistic regression.
Our total sample for this analysis comprised of 103 women who met the criteria.
We found that 71 (70%) were taking medication at delivery: 43 (43%) antipsychotics, 9 (9%) antidepressants, 10 (10%) mood stabilisers, (6 lithium, 4 anticonvulsants and 9 multiple medication classes).
Of the total sample, 44 (43%) experienced a postpartum recurrence: 21 (20%) had an episode of postpartum psychosis, 15 (15%) of non-psychotic depression and 8 (8%) of hypomania. Of the postpartum psychotic episodes 11 were of mania with psychosis, 8 of mania without psychosis and 2 of psychotic depression.
There was no significant association between taking medication at delivery and postpartum recurrence χ2 (1)=0.116, p=0.73.
In a multivariable analysis there continued to be no association when adjusted for age, ethnicity, parity, severity (previous admissions, age at impairment, bipolar subtype) and previous psychotic symptoms aOR 1.35 95%CI [0.45; 4.00], p=0.59.
A high number of bipolar women are taking medication at delivery and in the majority, antipsychotics are prescribed. The postnatal recurrence rate in both medicated and unmedicated women is high.
Our findings align with recent electronic health records and observational studies, but differ from older clinical cohort and higher Lithium-prescribing sample studies. Limitations include the study design and confounding by indication. Further research in larger populations is necessary to inform clinical decision-making for women and their healthcare providers.
Background: High-level personal protective equipment (PPE) protects healthcare workers (HCWs) during the care of patients with serious communicable diseases. Doffing body fluid–contaminated PPE presents a risk of self-contamination. A study assessing HCW failure modes and self-contamination with viruses during PPE doffing found that, of all PPE items, the highest number of doffing failure modes and highest self-contamination risk occurred during removal of the 1-layer powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR) hood. Hood type may affect contamination risk; however, no experimental evidence exists comparing hood types. Objective: We quantified and compared the risk of self-contamination with viruses during doffing of a 1e-layer versus a 2-layer PAPR hood. Methods: In this study, 8 HCWs with experience using high-level PPE donned PPE contaminated on 4 prespecified areas with 2 surrogate human viruses, bacteriophage MS2 (a nonenvelope virus) and Φ6 (an enveloped virus). They completed a clinical task then doffed PPE according to a standard protocol. Following doffing, inner gloves, hands, face, and scrubs were sampled for viral contamination using infectivity assays. HCWs performed the entire sequence twice, first with a 1-layer hood with 1 shroud then with a 2-layer hood with 2 shrouds. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare viral contamination between the 2 hood types. HCWs were video-recorded to identify failure modes in their doffing process using a failure modes and effects analysis to identify ways that individual actions deviated from optimal behavior. Results: Φ6 transfer to hands, inner gloves, and scrubs were observed for 1 HCW using the 1-layer hood versus scrubs only for 1 HCW using the 2-layer hood. MS2 transfer to hands was observed for 2 HCWs using the 1-layer hood versus none using the 2-layer hood. Inner glove contamination was observed for 6 of 8 HCWs using the 1-layer hood versus 2 of 8 using the 2-layer hood. Conclusions: A significantly higher number of MS2 virus was recovered on the inner gloves of HCWs using the 1-layer versus the 2-layer hood (median difference, 2.27×104; P = .03). In addition, 31 failure modes were identified during removal of the 2-layer hood versus 13 failure modes for the 1-layer hood. The magnitude of self-contamination depends on the type of PAPR hood used. The 2-layer hood resulted in significantly less inner glove contamination than the 1-layer hood. However, more failure modes were identified during the doffing process for the 2-layer hood. In conclusion, the failure modes identified during the use of the 2-layer hood were less likely to result in self-contamination compared to the failure modes identified during use of the 1-layer hood.
To identify ways that the built environment may support or disrupt safe doffing of personal protective equipment (PPE) in biocontainment units (BCU).
We observed interactions between healthcare workers (HCWs) and the built environment during 41 simulated PPE donning and doffing exercises.
The BCUs of 4 Ebola treatment facilities and 1 high-fidelity BCU mockup.
A total of 64 HCWs (41 doffing HCWs and 15 trained observers) participated in this study.
In each facility, we observed how the physical environment influences risky behaviors by the HCW. The environmental design impeded communication between trained observers (TOs) and HCWs because of limited window size or visual obstructions with louvers, which allowed unobserved errors. The size and configuration of the doffing area impacted HCW adherence to protocol, and lack of clear demarcation of zones resulted in HCWs inadvertently leaving the doffing area and stepping back into the contaminated areas. Lack of standard location for items resulted in equipment and supplies frequently shifting positions. Finally, different solutions for maintaining balance while removing shoe covers (ie, chair, hand grips, and step stool) had variable success. We identified the 5 key requirements that doffing areas must achieve to support safe doffing of PPE, and we developed a matrix of proposed design strategies that can be implemented to meet those requirements.
Simple, low-cost environmental design interventions can provide structure to support and improve HCW safety in BCUs. These interventions should be implemented in both current and future BCUs.
Ebola virus disease (EVD) places healthcare personnel (HCP) at high risk for infection during patient care, and personal protective equipment (PPE) is critical. Protocols for EVD PPE doffing have not been validated for prevention of viral self-contamination. Using surrogate viruses (non-enveloped MS2 and enveloped Φ6), we assessed self-contamination of skin and clothes when trained HCP doffed EVD PPE using a standardized protocol.
A total of 15 HCP donned EVD PPE for this study. Virus was applied to PPE, and a trained monitor guided them through the doffing protocol. Of the 15 participants, 10 used alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) for glove and hand hygiene and 5 used hypochlorite for glove hygiene and ABHR for hand hygiene. Inner gloves, hands, face, and scrubs were sampled after doffing.
After doffing, MS2 virus was detected on the inner glove worn on the dominant hand for 8 of 15 participants, on the non-dominant inner glove for 6 of 15 participants, and on scrubs for 2 of 15 participants. All MS2 on inner gloves was observed when ABHR was used for glove hygiene; none was observed when hypochlorite was used. When using hypochlorite for glove hygiene, 1 participant had MS2 on hands, and 1 had MS2 on scrubs.
A structured doffing protocol using a trained monitor and ABHR protects against enveloped virus self-contamination. Non-enveloped virus (MS2) contamination was detected on inner gloves, possibly due to higher resistance to ABHR. Doffing protocols protective against all viruses need to incorporate highly effective glove and hand hygiene agents.