Personal protective equipment preparedness in Asia-Pacific intensive care units during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: A multinational survey.
Australia
/ epidemiology
COVID-19
/ epidemiology
Hong Kong
/ epidemiology
Humans
India
/ epidemiology
Infection Control
/ organization & administration
Intensive Care Units
/ organization & administration
New Zealand
/ epidemiology
Pandemics
Personal Protective Equipment
Philippines
/ epidemiology
SARS-CoV-2
Singapore
/ epidemiology
Surveys and Questionnaires
Coronavirus
ICU
Personal protective equipment
Preparedness
Quality assurance
Training
Journal
Australian critical care : official journal of the Confederation of Australian Critical Care Nurses
ISSN: 1036-7314
Titre abrégé: Aust Crit Care
Pays: Australia
ID NLM: 9207852
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2021
Mar 2021
Historique:
received:
04
08
2020
revised:
09
09
2020
accepted:
13
09
2020
pubmed:
21
11
2020
medline:
27
3
2021
entrez:
20
11
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
There has been a surge in coronavirus disease 2019 admissions to intensive care units (ICUs) in Asia-Pacific countries. Because ICU healthcare workers are exposed to aerosol-generating procedures, ensuring optimal personal protective equipment (PPE) preparedness is important. The aim of the study was to evaluate PPE preparedness across ICUs in six Asia-Pacific countries during the initial phase of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, which is defined by the World Health Organization as guideline adherence, training healthcare workers, procuring stocks, and responding appropriately to suspected cases. A cross-sectional Web-based survey was circulated to 633 level II/III ICUs of Australia, New Zealand (NZ), Singapore, Hong Kong (HK), India, and the Philippines. Two hundred sixty-three intensivists responded, representing 231 individual ICUs eligible for analysis. Response rates were 68-100% in all countries except India, where it was 24%. Ninety-seven percent of ICUs either conformed to or exceeded World Health Organization recommendations for PPE practice. Fifty-nine percent ICUs used airborne precautions irrespective of aerosol generation procedures. There were variations in negative-pressure room use (highest in HK/Singapore), training (best in NZ), and PPE stock awareness (best in HK/Singapore/NZ). High-flow nasal oxygenation and noninvasive ventilation were not options in most HK (66.7% and 83.3%, respectively) and Singapore ICUs (50% and 80%, respectively), but were considered in other countries to a greater extent. Thirty-eight percent ICUs reported not having specialised airway teams. Showering and "buddy systems" were underused. Clinical waste disposal training was suboptimal (38%). Many ICUs in the Asia-Pacific reported suboptimal PPE preparedness in several domains, particularly related to PPE training, practice, and stock awareness, which requires remediation. Adoption of low-cost approaches such as buddy systems should be encouraged. The complete avoidance of high-flow nasal oxygenation reported by several intensivists needs reconsideration. Consideration must be given to standardise PPE guidelines to minimise practice variations. Urgent research to evaluate PPE preparedness and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 transmission is required.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
There has been a surge in coronavirus disease 2019 admissions to intensive care units (ICUs) in Asia-Pacific countries. Because ICU healthcare workers are exposed to aerosol-generating procedures, ensuring optimal personal protective equipment (PPE) preparedness is important.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
The aim of the study was to evaluate PPE preparedness across ICUs in six Asia-Pacific countries during the initial phase of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, which is defined by the World Health Organization as guideline adherence, training healthcare workers, procuring stocks, and responding appropriately to suspected cases.
METHODS
METHODS
A cross-sectional Web-based survey was circulated to 633 level II/III ICUs of Australia, New Zealand (NZ), Singapore, Hong Kong (HK), India, and the Philippines.
FINDINGS
RESULTS
Two hundred sixty-three intensivists responded, representing 231 individual ICUs eligible for analysis. Response rates were 68-100% in all countries except India, where it was 24%. Ninety-seven percent of ICUs either conformed to or exceeded World Health Organization recommendations for PPE practice. Fifty-nine percent ICUs used airborne precautions irrespective of aerosol generation procedures. There were variations in negative-pressure room use (highest in HK/Singapore), training (best in NZ), and PPE stock awareness (best in HK/Singapore/NZ). High-flow nasal oxygenation and noninvasive ventilation were not options in most HK (66.7% and 83.3%, respectively) and Singapore ICUs (50% and 80%, respectively), but were considered in other countries to a greater extent. Thirty-eight percent ICUs reported not having specialised airway teams. Showering and "buddy systems" were underused. Clinical waste disposal training was suboptimal (38%).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Many ICUs in the Asia-Pacific reported suboptimal PPE preparedness in several domains, particularly related to PPE training, practice, and stock awareness, which requires remediation. Adoption of low-cost approaches such as buddy systems should be encouraged. The complete avoidance of high-flow nasal oxygenation reported by several intensivists needs reconsideration. Consideration must be given to standardise PPE guidelines to minimise practice variations. Urgent research to evaluate PPE preparedness and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 transmission is required.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33214027
pii: S1036-7314(20)30306-4
doi: 10.1016/j.aucc.2020.09.006
pmc: PMC7522707
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Pagination
135-141Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Australian College of Critical Care Nurses Ltd. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of interest All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare no support from any organisation for the submitted work, no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years, and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
Références
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2012 Oct;33(10):1008-16
pubmed: 22961020
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Dec 3;71(9):2311-2313
pubmed: 32628269
N Engl J Med. 2020 May 21;382(21):2049-2055
pubmed: 32202722
Lancet. 2020 Sep 5;396(10252):653-655
pubmed: 32681821
Indian J Anaesth. 2020 May;64(Suppl 2):S151-S152
pubmed: 32773859
Lancet. 2020 Jul 25;396(10246):e6-e7
pubmed: 32653078
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Dec 17;71(10):2702-2707
pubmed: 32548613
JAMA. 2020 Aug 4;324(5):441-442
pubmed: 32749495
Lancet Respir Med. 2020 May;8(5):506-517
pubmed: 32272080
Indian J Crit Care Med. 2020 Apr;24(4):285-286
pubmed: 32565642
BMJ. 2020 Apr 14;369:m1492
pubmed: 32291274
Clin Ther. 2015 Nov 1;37(11):2402-2410
pubmed: 26452427
Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 Apr;20(4):397-398
pubmed: 32085850
Emerg Infect Dis. 2020 Jul;26(7):1583-1591
pubmed: 32275497
Chin Med Sci J. 2020 Feb 27;:
pubmed: 32102726
Med J Aust. 2020 Jul;213(1):44-44.e1
pubmed: 32524609
Aust Crit Care. 2022 Jul;35(4):415-423
pubmed: 34404579
BMJ. 2020 Apr 2;369:m1297
pubmed: 32241766
WHO South East Asia J Public Health. 2020 Apr;9(1):1-4
pubmed: 32341214
Eur J Health Econ. 2018 Sep;19(7):935-943
pubmed: 29149432
Crit Care Med. 2019 Sep;47(9):e782-e784
pubmed: 31162194
JAMA Netw Open. 2020 May 1;3(5):e209666
pubmed: 32437575
J Crit Care. 2020 Oct;59:70-75
pubmed: 32570052
BMJ Glob Health. 2020 Dec;5(12):
pubmed: 33277297
Crit Care Med. 2020 Jun;48(6):e440-e469
pubmed: 32224769
BMC Public Health. 2015 Sep 03;15:847
pubmed: 26335570
Bull World Health Organ. 2020 May 1;98(5):304-305
pubmed: 32514195