Background: In a low resource setting, strategies to optimize Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) supplies are being observed. Alternative protective measures were identified to protect health care personnel during delivery of care Objective: To provide list of recommendations on alternative protective equipment during this Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic Methodology: Articles available on the various research databases were reviewed, appraised and evaluated for its quality and relevance. Discrepancies were rechecked and consensus was achieved by discussion. Recommendations: The use of engineering control such as barriers in the reception areas minimize the risk of healthcare personnel. Personal protective equipment needed are face shields or googles, N95 respirators, impermeable gown and gloves. If supplies are limited, the use of N95 respirators are prioritized in performing aerosol-generating procedures, otherwise, surgical masks are acceptable alternative. Cloth masks do not give adequate protection, but can be considered if it is used with face shield. Fluid-resistance, impermeable gown and non-sterile disposable gloves are recommended when attending to patients suspected or confirmed COVID-19. Used, soiled or damaged PPE should be carefully removed and properly discarded. Extended use of PPE can be considered, while re-use is only an option if supplies run low. Reusable equipment should be cleaned and disinfected every after use Conclusion In supplies shortage, personal protective equipment was optimized by extended use and reuse following observance of standard respiratory infection control procedures such as avoid touching the face and handwashing. The addition of physical barriers in ambulatory and triage areas add another layer of protection
Personal Protective Equipment ; Triage

Readiness of Health Care Staff: Statement 1. Family physicians and their staff should prepare themselves mentally, physically and emotionally before resuming clinic services. Prior to starting every clinic day, physicians and their staff should take their temperature and note respiratory symptoms. Statement 2. All clinical staff should be properly trained on proper use of PPEs, clinic disinfection, infection control and other safety procedures. Statement 3. Family Physicians should design an office management and operations plan that includes triage, patient flow, treatment and other patient care protocols including strict implementation of infection prevention and control procedures, management of PPE supplies and potential staff shortages. Statement 4. The clinic staff must inform their patients of the changes that may result from the new management and operations plan that will be made in the facility Clinic Procedures, Disinfection and Infection Control: Statement 5. After undergoing proper triage, non-COVID 19 patients entering the clinic should use a hand sanitizer, step on a foot bath or pad soaked in chlorine or any approved disinfectant solution at the entrance. All clinic staff, patients and accompanying persons should be wearing at least a mask inside the clinic. They should be instructed to avoid touching their face or mask and perform hand hygiene immediately before and after if cannot be avoided. Statement 6. Appropriate visual alerts or educational posters regarding infection control, proper handwashing, cough or sneezing etiquette should be visible inside the clinic. Statement 7. The clinic facility must have infection prevention and control measures that adhere to international and local standards. Statement 8. After appropriate triaging, a family physician when attending to a patient shall wear mask, single use gloves and eye protection while apron or gown is optional. It is up to the discretion of the family physician to use higher level of protection based on his risk assessment of the clinic environment and if resources are available. Clinical Services Statement 9. As much as possible, family physicians should continue all primary care services in the clinics. However, it is advisable to first limit the service to non-COVID-19 (suspect or diagnosed) patients. Patients needing COVID-19 assessment and management should be referred to appropriate facilities and follow the guidelines set forth by the Department of Health. Statement 10. A patient who consulted and whose symptoms were resolved may choose not come back for follow-up. Patients with chronic diseases may be followed-up at longer intervals if their illness is stable. Statement 11. Referrals for further assessment, diagnostic tests, or other procedures not available in the clinic must first be coordinated with the referral center/site
Personal Protective Equipment ; Triage ; Disinfection

Objective: This study aims to establish baseline information on the practice of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS) among Filipino gynecologic endoscopists amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Materials and Methods: MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online survey was conducted among Fellows of the Philippine Society for Gynecologic Endoscopy (PSGE) practicing in private and government hospitals in the Philippines after informed consent. The survey had five subsections: (1) demographic data, (2) impact of COVID-19 pandemic on MIGS practice, (3) changes of practice during the COVID-19 pandemic, and (4) changes in the conduct of surgery and postoperative care. Results: A total of 119 out of 144 PSGE Fellows based in the Philippines participated in the survey, 83% were Fellows in both laparoscopy and hysteroscopy. The majority had more than 15 years of practice and were practicing in the National Capital Region. Surgeries were canceled initially but have since resumed. The majority were hysteroscopy cases, the most common being polypectomy. Majority of the respondents reduced their clinic hours and appointments. Most have used telemedicine for consultations. Use of face masks, face shields, and personal protective equipment (PPE) were the top precautions taken in the clinics. Screening and precautions per guidelines inside the operating room setting were observed. Modifications during surgery include the use of smoke evacuators, minimizing energy device use, and wearing enhanced PPE. Conclusion The volume of laparoscopy and hysteroscopy cases was greatly reduced during the pandemic. The pandemic has disrupted the practice of MIGS both in the outpatient clinics and the operating rooms. Most of the changes made are congruent to local and international automotive task force guidelines. Precautionary measures and screening procedures must remain in place to reduce the risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 transmission to patients and health-care workers.
COVID-19 ; Personal Protective Equipment ; Telemedicine

Objective: We investigated the effect of personal protective equipment (PPE) on prevention of COVID-19 on health care workers (HCW) assigned in the wards, intensive care (ICU) and emergency room (ER). Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL as of 30 April 2021, as well as trial registers, preprint sites and COVID-19 living evidence sites. We included studies that compared use of PPE versus no use in the prevention of COVID-19. We screened studies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using GRADE approach. Results: Five observational studies (three cohort and two case control) were found. There was moderate certainty of evidence that the use of Level 2 PPE (OR 0.03 [95% CI 0, 0.19]; 1 study, n = 5542) was protective for HCW. Level 2 PPE used N95 or higher standard respirators, goggles/protective mask, medical protective clothing and disposable hats, gloves and shoe covers. We also confirmed with moderate certainty evidence the protective use of N95 respirators (OR 0.035 [95% CI 0.002, 0.603]; 1 study, n = 493). There was very low certainty of evidence that demonstrated the protective effect of face shield (OR 0.338 [95% CI 0.272, 0.420]; 2 studies, n = 6717, I2 = 45% P < 0.00001). Very low certainty of evidence showed no significance difference with use of face/surgical mask (OR 1.40 [95% CI 0.30, 6.42]; 1 study, n = 186), gowns (OR 0.768 [95% 0.314, 1.876]; 1 study, n = 179) and disposable gloves (OR 0.62 [95% CI 0.13, 2.90]; 1 study, n = 179) when attending to patients with COVID-19. Conclusion There was lower odds of COVID-19 infection in HCW assigned to the wards, ICU and ER with possible direct contact with COVID-19 patients who wear Level 2 PPE including N95 respirators and face shields.
Personal Protective Equipment ; SARS-CoV-2 ; Pandemics

Background. The use of face shield in addition to face mask is thought to reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by blocking respiratory droplets and by preventing one from touching facial orifices.

Objective. To determine the effectiveness of face mask with face shield, compared to face mask alone, in reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

Methods. We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, as well as trial registers, preprint sites and COVID-19 living evidence sites as of 30 September 2021. We included studies that used face shield with face mask versus face mask alone to prevent COVID-19. We screened studies, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias and certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Review Manager 5.4 was used to estimate pooled effects.

Results. There is no available direct evidence for face shield plus face mask versus face mask alone in the general public. Five (5) observational studies with very low certainty of evidence due to serious risk of bias and indirectness were included. Participants in all the studies were health care workers (HCWs) who used the face shield with their standard personal protective equipment (PPE). Four (4) of the studies were in the hospital setting (three case control studies, one pre- and post-surveillance study); one was done in the community (one pre- and post-surveillance study) in which HCWs visited the residence of the contacts of SARS-CoV-2 positive patients. The case control studies done in the hospital setting showed a trend toward benefit with the use of face shield or goggle but this was inconclusive (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.68-1.08) while the pre- and post-surveillance study showed significant benefit when face shield (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.22-0.37) use became a requirement for HCWs upon hospital entry. In the study done in the community setting, significant protection for HCWs was noted with the use of face shield (OR 0.04, 95% CI 0.00-0.69) but the results were limited by serious risk of bias and imprecision.

Conclusion. In the hospital setting, there was a lower likelihood of COVID-19 infection in HCWs who used a face shield or goggles on top of their PPE. For the general public in the community, there is presently no study on the use of face shield in addition to the face mask to prevent COVID-19 infection.

Decontamination ; Disinfection ; Manikins ; Protective Clothing ; Personal Protective Equipment ; Health Personnel

Introduction: COVID-19 infection spreads through respiratory droplets, contact, and airborne transmission. During aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs), the risk of spreading SARS-CoV-2 via aerosols is increased significantly. This rapid review determined the association between using personal protective equipment (PPE) during AGPs, including those during surgery, among confirmed or suspected patients with COVID-19 and the risk of infection among healthcare workers. Method: A systematic search of electronic databases MEDLINE, EBSCO, Science Direct, Google Scholar, and Cochrane CENTRAL base was performed last March 21, 2021, using the Boolean combination of keywords for SARS-CoV-2, PPE, and surgery. Two reviewers screened the articles for relevance and extracted the data from the included studies. We critically appraised the included studies using criteria from the Painless Evidence-Based Medicine Evaluation of Articles on Harm. We used RevMan for data pooling, with a 40% heterogeneity cut-off score. GRADEpro guideline development tool determined the quality of evidence of the included studies. Results: Five observational studies investigated the effectiveness of PPE use in reducing SARS-CoV-2 transmission among healthcare workers during any AGPs. The use of N95 masks (OR 0.37 [95% CI 0.21, 0.67], 1 study, n=195), surgical gown (OR 0.59 [95% CI 0.46, 0.77] I2= 0%, 2 studies, n= 941) and gloves (OR 0.42 [95% CI 0.43, 0.55] I2=34%, 3 studies, n=978) versus their non-use significantly reduced the odds of SARS-COV-2 transmission among healthcare workers involved in AGP. Albeit inconclusive due to the very low quality of evidence, using face shields or goggles was not associated with a significant reduction in the odds of SARS-CoV-2 transmission (OR 0.70 [95% CI 0.31, 1.59]) than the non-use of face shields or goggles. The certainty of the overall body of evidence on PPE use in reducing SARS-CoV-2 transmission during AGP procedures was rated very low. In addition, confounders in the assessment could have been using individual PPE with the other standard PPE, compliance of healthcare worker on properly wearing it, and observing other preventive measures. Conclusion There were lower odds of COVID-19 infection among healthcare workers using appropriate PPE, including N95 respirators, surgical gowns, and gloves during AGPs in suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients. Several guidelines recommended using enhanced PPE among healthcare workers during surgery despite limited and low-quality evidence. The findings should help in developing recommendations in reducing SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the Philippines. The findings should provide the information needed for healthcare policy decision-making.
Personal Protective Equipment ; Methods ; COVID-19 ; SARS-CoV-2

BACKGROUND: This study determined current status of laboratory biosafety in Nigerian veterinary research facilities. METHODS: A questionnaire was developed to obtain information from researchers across Nigeria from July 2014 to July 2015. Information regarding demographics, knowledge of laboratory biosafety, availability and proper use of personal protective equipment (PPE), any priority pathogens researched, attitude on and use of standard laboratory practices, and biosafety awareness was obtained using a numeric scoring system. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics, and univariate and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 74 participants from 19 facilities completed the questionnaire. General knowledge scores ranged from 3 to 28 (out of 28 possible points), with 94.6% of respondents receiving low scores (scores < mean + 1 standard deviation). Very few (17.6%) reported availability or use PPE. Many participants (63.5%) reported no access to biosafety level (BSL)-1–3 facilities. None reported availability of a BSL-4 facility. Knowledge scores pertaining to biosafety management practices ranged from 0 to 14 (out of 14 possible points) with 47.3% of respondents receiving good scores (scores > mean + 1 standard deviation). Only 16.2% of respondents (from four facilities) reported having biosafety officers. Rabies virus was the most researched pathogen (31.1% of respondents). The majority (71.6%) were unaware of laws guiding biosafety. Researchers [odds ratio (OR) = 18.0; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.63, 198.5; p = 0.023], especially in BSL-2 (OR = 258.5; 95% CI: 12.71, 5256; p < 0.001) facility of research institute (OR = 25.0; 95% CI: 5.18, 120.6; p < 0.001), are more likely to have adequate access to and properly utilize biosafety devices and PPE. CONCLUSIONS: Current knowledge of laboratory biosafety is limited except among a few researchers.
Academies and Institutes ; Demography ; Jurisprudence ; Logistic Models ; Nigeria* ; Personal Protective Equipment ; Rabies virus ; Surveys and Questionnaires

BACKGROUND: The law enforcement officer profession requires performance of arduous occupational tasks while carrying an external load, consisting of, at minimum, a chest rig, a communication system, weaponry, handcuffs, personal protective equipment and a torch. The aim of this systematic review of the literature was to identify and critically appraise the methodological quality of published studies that have investigated the impacts of body armour on task performance and to synthesize and report key findings from these studies to inform law enforcement organizations. METHODS: Several literature databases (Medline, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, EMBAS) were searched using key search words and terms to identify appropriate studies. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were critically evaluated using the Downs and Black protocol with inter-rater agreement determined by Cohen's Kappa. RESULTS: Sixteen articles were retained for evaluation with a mean Downs and Black score of 73.2 ± 6.8% (k = 0.841). Based on the research quality and findings across the included studies, this review determined that while effects of body armour on marksmanship and physiological responses have not yet been adequately ascertained, body armour does have significant physical performance and biomechanical impacts on the wearer, including: a) increased ratings of perceived exertion and increased time to complete functional tasks, b) decreased work capability (indicated by deterioration in fitness test scores), c) decreased balance and stability, and d) increased ground reaction forces. CONCLUSIONS: Given the physical performance and biomechanical impacts on the wearer, body armour should be carefully selected, with consideration of the physical fitness of the wearers and the degree to which the armour systems can be ergonomically optimized for the specific population in question.
Humans ; Jurisprudence* ; Law Enforcement* ; Personal Protective Equipment ; Physical Fitness ; Police ; Task Performance and Analysis ; Thorax

Transmission of tuberculosis (TB) is a recognized risk to patients and healthcare workers in healthcare settings. The literature review suggests that implementation of combination control measures reduces the risk of TB transmission. Guidelines suggest a three-level hierarchy of controls including administrative, environmental, and respiratory protection. Among environmental controls, installation of ventilation systems is a priority because ventilation reduces the number of infectious particles in the air. Natural ventilation is cost-effective but depends on climatic conditions. Supplemented intervention such as air-cleaning methods including high efficiency particulate air filtration and ultraviolet germicidal irradiation should be considered in areas where adequate ventilation is difficult to achieve. Personal protective equipment including particulate respirators provides additional benefit when administrative and environmental controls cannot assure protection.
Delivery of Health Care ; Environment, Controlled ; Filtration ; Humans ; Infection Control* ; Personal Protective Equipment ; Tuberculosis* ; Ventilation ; Ventilators, Mechanical