1Division of Infectious Diseases,Washington University School of Medicine,St Louis,Missouri.
2Department of Pathology and Immunology,Washington University School of Medicine,St Louis,Missouri.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2017 Sep;38(9):1077-1083. doi: 10.1017/ice.2017.121. Epub 2017 Jun 13.
OBJECTIVE To evaluate healthcare worker (HCW) risk of self-contamination when donning and doffing personal protective equipment (PPE) using fluorescence and MS2 bacteriophage. DESIGN Prospective pilot study. SETTING Tertiary-care hospital. PARTICIPANTS A total of 36 HCWs were included in this study: 18 donned/doffed contact precaution (CP) PPE and 18 donned/doffed Ebola virus disease (EVD) PPE. INTERVENTIONS HCWs donned PPE according to standard protocols. Fluorescent liquid and MS2 bacteriophage were applied to HCWs. HCWs then doffed their PPE. After doffing, HCWs were scanned for fluorescence and swabbed for MS2. MS2 detection was performed using reverse transcriptase PCR. The donning and doffing processes were videotaped, and protocol deviations were recorded. RESULTS Overall, 27% of EVD PPE HCWs and 50% of CP PPE HCWs made ≥1 protocol deviation while donning, and 100% of EVD PPE HCWs and 67% of CP PPE HCWs made ≥1 protocol deviation while doffing (P=.02). The median number of doffing protocol deviations among EVD PPE HCWs was 4, versus 1 among CP PPE HCWs. Also, 15 EVD PPE protocol deviations were committed by doffing assistants and/or trained observers. Fluorescence was detected on 8 EVD PPE HCWs (44%) and 5 CP PPE HCWs (28%), most commonly on hands. MS2 was recovered from 2 EVD PPE HCWs (11%) and 3 CP PPE HCWs (17%). CONCLUSIONS Protocol deviations were common during both EVD and CP PPE doffing, and some deviations during EVD PPE doffing were committed by the HCW doffing assistant and/or the trained observer. Self-contamination was common. PPE donning/doffing are complex and deserve additional study. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:1077-1083.
目的 使用荧光和 MS2 噬菌体评估医护人员(HCW)在穿戴和脱下个人防护设备(PPE)时自我污染的风险。
设计 前瞻性试点研究。
地点 三级保健医院。
参与者 共有 36 名 HCW 参与了这项研究:18 名穿戴/脱下接触预防(CP)PPE,18 名穿戴/脱下埃博拉病毒病(EVD)PPE。
干预措施 HCW 按照标准协议穿戴 PPE。将荧光液和 MS2 噬菌体应用于 HCW。然后 HCW 脱下 PPE。脱下后,对 HCW 进行荧光扫描和 MS2 拭子取样。使用逆转录 PCR 检测 MS2。对穿戴和脱下过程进行录像,并记录协议偏差。
结果 总体而言,在穿戴过程中,有 27%的 EVD PPE HCW 和 50%的 CP PPE HCW 出现≥1 项协议偏差,而在脱下过程中,100%的 EVD PPE HCW 和 67%的 CP PPE HCW 出现≥1 项协议偏差(P=.02)。EVD PPE HCW 的脱卸协议偏差中位数为 4 项,而 CP PPE HCW 为 1 项。此外,15 项 EVD PPE 协议偏差是由脱卸助手和/或经过培训的观察员造成的。在 8 名 EVD PPE HCW(44%)和 5 名 CP PPE HCW(28%)上检测到荧光,最常见于手部。从 2 名 EVD PPE HCW(11%)和 3 名 CP PPE HCW(17%)中回收了 MS2。
结论 在 EVD 和 CP PPE 脱下过程中,常见协议偏差,而在 EVD PPE 脱下过程中,一些偏差是由 HCW 脱下助手和/或经过培训的观察员造成的。自我污染很常见。PPE 的穿戴/脱下过程很复杂,值得进一步研究。感染控制与医院流行病学 2017;38:1077-1083.