The importance of companion animals in the daily lives of people, and the increasing incidence and severity of natural disasters impacting people and their animals, is very well documented. However, despite the advancement of companion animal response capabilities, decontamination remains an inconsistently implemented component of disaster response. The challenge for local authorities is their need for planning factors and protocols specific to companion animal decontamination which are generally lacking. Data is provided on the average time requirements, water use and containment resources necessary, and the personnel required to decontaminate (decon) a large number of companion dogs.

Sixty-three lightly contaminated, medium weight, short to medium coat, highly tractable dogs (Labradors and Hounds) from a State facility colony were used to determine the water requirements, soap effectiveness, and time required to complete decon (washing/bathing). Data were collected over a 6-mo period using 2 personnel that were randomly assigned to wash the dogs. Difference in weight, bathing time, and water use between groups was evaluated using a 2-tailed 2-sample t-test for independent data.

The time and water requirements were significantly different between medium coated dogs and short coated dogs. On average, for a short coated dog, the amount of time to complete decon was 7 min, and the amount of water was 8-10 gal. For medium coated dogs, the time increased to 10-12 min to complete the process and 12-15 gal water.

The results of this study provide important insights emergency management planners, animal response team members, and community personnel tasked with implementation of mass decontamination of companion dogs following a natural or man-made disaster.

Understand how the built environment can affect safety and efficiency outcomes during doffing of personal protective equipment (PPE) in the context of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patient care.

We conducted (1) field observations and surveys administered to healthcare workers (HCWs) performing PPE doffing, (2) focus groups with HCWs and infection prevention experts, and (3) a with healthcare design experts.

This study was conducted in 4 inpatient units treating patients with COVID-19, in 3 hospitals of a single healthcare system.

The study included 24 nurses, 2 physicians, 1 respiratory therapist, and 2 infection preventionists.

The doffing task sequence and the layout of doffing spaces varied considerably across sites, with field observations showing most doffing tasks occurring around the patient room door and PPE support stations. Behaviors perceived as most risky included touching contaminated items and inadequate hand hygiene. Doffing space layout and types of PPE storage and work surfaces were often associated with inadequate cleaning and improper storage of PPE. Focus groups and the design charrette provided insights on how design affording standardization, accessibility, and flexibility can support PPE doffing safety and efficiency in this context.

There is a need to define, organize and standardize PPE doffing spaces in healthcare settings and to understand the environmental implications of COVID-19–specific issues related to supply shortage and staff workload. Low-effort and low-cost design adaptations of the layout and design of PPE doffing spaces may improve HCW safety and efficiency in existing healthcare facilities.

Protecting frontline health care workers with personal protective equipment (PPE) is critical during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Through an online survey, we demonstrated variable adherence to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) PPE guidelines among health care personnel (HCP).

CDC guidelines for optimal and acceptable PPE usage in common situations faced by frontline health care workers were referenced to create a short online survey. The survey was distributed to national, statewide, and local professional organizations across the United States and to HCP, using a snowball sampling technique. Responses were collected between June 15 and July 17, 2020.

Responses totaling 2245 were received from doctors, nurses, midwives, paramedics, and medical technicians in 44 states. Eight states with n > 20 (Arizona, California, Colorado, Louisiana, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, and Washington) and a total of 436 responses are included in the quantitative analysis. Adherence to CDC guidelines was observed to be highest in the scenario of patient contact when COVID-19 was not suspected (86.47%) and lowest when carrying out aerosol generating procedures (AGPs) (42.47%).

Further research is urgently needed to identify the reasons underlying variability between professions and regions to pinpoint strategies for maximizing adherence and improving the safety of HCPs.

Nurses and paramedics by being the frontline workers of the health-care profession need to be equipped with the relevant knowledge, skills, and protective gears against different forms of infection, including coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Although the governments and concerned stakeholders have provided personal protective equipment (PPE), training and information to protect the health-care professionals; however, until now the scientific literature has virtually not reported the impact of PPE availability, training, and practices on the COVID-19 sero-prevalence among the nurses and paramedics. This study aimed to assess the impact of PPE availability, training, and practices on COVID-19 sero-prevalence among nurses and paramedics in teaching hospitals of Peshawar, Pakistan.

A cross-sectional survey was conducted with a total of 133 nurses and paramedics as subjects of the study.

A univariate analysis was done for 4 variables. The findings indicate that the health-care professionals (nurses and paramedics) who have received PPE on time at the start of COVID-19 emergence have fewer chances of contracting the COVID-19 infection (odds ratio = 0.96); while the odds for PPE supplies was 0.73, and the odds of hand hygiene training was 0.95.

The study concluded that the availability of the PPE, COVID-19–related training, and compliance with World Health Organization recommended practices against COVID-19 were instrumental in protection against the infection and its spread.

Personal protective equipment (PPE) are essential for medical personnel responding to hazardous materials (HAZMAT) incidents. However, their impermeable design causes increased physiological strain and reduced thermoregulation, limiting work times and causing heat-related illnesses (HRI). Use of wearable cooling devices slow heat accumulation and have been shown to reduce thermal and cardiovascular strain in such situations.

This was a prospective clinical evaluation to determine the tolerability and effectiveness of the CarbonCool cooling system – a half-body cooling vest – in participants undergoing a HAZMAT decontamination recertification. Physiological measurements (heart rate [HR], weight, temperature, and blood pressure) and participant feedback were obtained. The main outcome of interest was participants’ tolerability of the cooling vest.

A total of 23 healthy participants were recruited, with 10 randomized to the intervention group and 13 in the control group. Mean age in the control and intervention group was 35.5 years old (SD = 7.8) and 30.0 years old (SD = 6.2), respectively. Qualitative feedback obtained from participants regarding safety, mobility, and cooling efficacy was largely positive. Difference of before-after temperature and HR was 0.3°C (SD = 0.8) and 11.5bpm (SD = 13.6) in the control group compared to 0.0°C (SD = 0.5) and 0.0bpm (SD = 6.4) for the intervention group.

This clinical evaluation showed that the CarbonCool cooling vest is safe and tolerable in participants wearing PPE. Further trials with sample size powered to detect physiological outcomes are needed to assess the effect of the cooling vest on a subject’s endurance to heat stress.

An adequate level of personal protective equipment (PPE) is necessary when treating patients with highly infectious diseases or those contaminated with hazardous substances.

Following National Institute for Health Research’s Research Centre (London, United Kingdom) approval, the authors of this study conducted a survey of specialist registrars’ knowledge of the respiratory and skin protection requirements needed during a resuscitation scenario with Advanced Life Support. Participant responses were compared to UK national recommendations and to a previous survey in 2009.

A total of 98 specialist registrars (in Anesthesiology, n=51; in Emergency Medicine (EM), n=21; and in Intensive Care Medicine (ICM) n=26) completed hand-delivered surveys. The best knowledge of PPE requirements (76%) was found for severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), with less knowledge about PPE requirements for anthrax, plague, Ebola virus disease (EVD), and smallpox (60%). The results show limited knowledge of PPE requirements (20%-30%) for various chemical warfare agents. Personal protective equipment knowledge regarding treatment of sarin-contaminated casualties was over-rated by 80%, and for patients with EVD, it was over-rated by up to 67% of participants.

The results of the tested cohort indicate that current knowledge regarding PPE for chemical warfare agents remains very limited.

SchumacherJ, BondAR, WoodhamV, BuckinghamA, GarnhamF, BrinkerA. Survey of UK Health Care First Responders’ Knowledge of Personal Protective Equipment Requirements. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2015;30(3):15