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

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers (HCWs) employed personal protective equipment (PPE) during the COVID-19 pandemic, crucial to protecting themselves from infection. To highlight the efficacy of PPE in preventing environmental infection among HCWs, a systematic review was conducted in line with PRISMA guidance. METHODS: A search of the PubMed and Web of Science databases was conducted from January 2019 to April 2021 using pre-defined search terms. Articles were screened by three researchers. The approved papers were read in full and included in this review if relevance was mutually agreed upon. Data were extracted by study design and types of PPEs. RESULTS: 47 of 108 identified studies met the inclusion criteria, with seven reviews and meta-analyses, seven cohort, nine case-control, fifteen cross-sectional studies, four before and after, four case series, and one modeling studies. Wearing PPE offered COVID-19 protection in HCWs but required adequate training. Wearing surgical masks provided improved protection over cloth masks, while the benefit of powered air-purifying respirators is less clear, as are individual gowns, gloves, and/or face shields. CONCLUSIONS Wearing PPE, especially facial masks, is necessary among HCWs, while training in proper use of PPE is also important to prevent COVID-19 infection.
Humans ; COVID-19/prevention & control* ; Pandemics/prevention & control* ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Personal Protective Equipment ; Health Personnel

Humans ; Disease Outbreaks/prevention & control* ; Respiratory Tract Infections/epidemiology* ; Personal Protective Equipment ; Disaster Planning ; Singapore

INTRODUCTION: Oropharyngeal swabs for diagnosis of COVID-19 often induce violent coughing, which can disperse infectious droplets onto providers. Incorrectly doffing personal protective equipment (PPE) increases the risk of transmission. A cheap, single-use variation of the face shield invented by a Singaporean team, SG Shield, aims to reduce this risk. This manikin study aimed to study the efficacy of the SG Shield in combination with standard PPE. METHODS: A person attired in full PPE whose face and chest was lined with grid paper stood in front of an airway manikin in an enclosed room. A small latex balloon containing ultraviolet fluorescent dye was placed in the oral cavity of the manikin and inflated until explosion to simulate a cough. Three study groups were tested: (a) control (no shield), (b) face shield and (c) SG Shield. The primary outcome was droplet dispersion, determined quantitatively by calculating the proportion of grid paper wall squares stained with fluorescent dye. The secondary outcome was the severity of provider contamination. RESULTS: The SG Shield significantly reduced droplet dispersion to 0% compared to the controls (99.0%, P = 0.001). The face shield also significantly reduced droplet contamination but to a lesser extent (80.0%) compared to the control group (P = 0.001). Although the qualitative severity of droplet contamination was significantly lower in both groups compared to the controls, the face shield group had more contamination of the provider's head and neck. CONCLUSION The manikin study showed that the SG Shield significantly reduces droplet dispersion to the swab provider's face and chest.
Humans ; Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control* ; COVID-19 ; Fluorescent Dyes ; Personal Protective Equipment ; Cough

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.

The complete picture regarding transmission modes of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is unknown. This review summarises the available evidence on its transmission modes, our preliminary research findings and implications for infection control policy, and outlines future research directions. Environmental contamination has been reported in hospital settings occupied by infected patients, and is higher in the first week of illness. Transmission via environmental surfaces or fomites is likely, but decontamination protocols are effective in minimising this risk. The extent of airborne transmission is also unclear. While several studies have detected SARS-CoV-2 ribonucleic acid in air samples, none has isolated viable virus in culture. Transmission likely lies on a spectrum between droplet and airborne transmission, depending on the patient, disease and environmental factors. Singapore's current personal protective equipment and isolation protocols are sufficient to manage this risk.
COVID-19 ; Hospitals ; Humans ; Infection Control/methods* ; Personal Protective Equipment ; SARS-CoV-2

COVID-19/transmission* ; COVID-19 Testing ; Humans ; Infection Control ; Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control* ; Intraoperative Care ; Pandemics ; Personal Protective Equipment ; Postoperative Care ; Preoperative Care ; Tracheostomy/methods*

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

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

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