Bell Todd, Smoot John, Patterson Justin, Smalligan Roger, Jordan Richard
Center for Tropical Medicine and Infectious Diseases, Texas Tech University Health Science Center, 1400 Coulter Road, Amarillo, TX 79106, USA.
SiMCentral, Texas Tech University Health Science Center, 1600 Wallace Blvd, Amarillo, TX 79106, USA.
IDCases. 2014 Dec 24;2(1):27-30. doi: 10.1016/j.idcr.2014.12.003. eCollection 2015.
The recent Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreak has created interest in personal protective equipment (PPE) content and usage. PPE testing has historically been done by individual component, rather than as a bundle for contact isolation. Fluorescent agents are commonly used in training for infection control techniques. The purpose of our study was to compare 2 PPE bundles and to evaluate the feasibility of fluorescent markers as an assessment tool for PPE effectiveness. Eight healthcare providers volunteered for this preliminary study. Participants were randomized to 1 of 2 PPE bundles that meet current (October 20, 2014) CDC recommendations. One PPE bundle utilized commercial EVD-recommended components. The other PPE bundle used components already available at local hospitals or retail stores. Participants were also randomized to standard or high volume exposures (HVE) to simulate fluid splash. Each participant was assisted in PPE donning and doffing by an experienced trainer. A training mannequin was contaminated with fluorescent agents to simulate bodily fluids. Participants were then given clinical tasks to care for the EVD "patient." De-gowned participants were examined under "black light" for fluorescence indicative of contamination. One participant in each PPE arm had evidence of contamination. One of the contamination events was suspected during the patient care exercise. The other contamination event was not suspected until black light examination. In spite of a large difference in cost of PPE, the two bundle arms performed similarly. Bundle testing using fluorescent markers could help identify optimal PPE systems.
近期埃博拉病毒病(EVD)的爆发引发了人们对个人防护装备(PPE)内容和使用的关注。历史上,PPE测试是针对单个组件进行的,而非作为用于接触隔离的一套装备进行测试。荧光剂常用于感染控制技术培训。我们研究的目的是比较两套PPE装备,并评估荧光标记作为PPE有效性评估工具的可行性。八名医护人员自愿参与了这项初步研究。参与者被随机分配到符合当前(2014年10月20日)美国疾病控制与预防中心(CDC)建议的两套PPE装备中的一套。一套PPE装备使用了商业推荐的EVD组件。另一套PPE装备使用了当地医院或零售店已有的组件。参与者还被随机分配到标准暴露或高容量暴露(HVE)组,以模拟液体飞溅。在穿戴和脱卸PPE过程中,每位参与者都由一名经验丰富的培训师协助。一个训练人体模型被荧光剂污染,以模拟体液。然后让参与者执行护理EVD“患者”的临床任务。对已脱卸防护服的参与者在“黑光”下进行检查,查看是否有表明污染的荧光。每个PPE组中有一名参与者有污染迹象。其中一次污染事件在患者护理练习期间被怀疑。另一次污染事件直到黑光检查时才被发现。尽管两套PPE装备的成本差异很大,但两组表现相似。使用荧光标记进行成套装备测试有助于确定最佳的PPE系统。