Self-Contamination While Doffing Personal Protective Equipment. (October 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Silva, Jaqueline Pereira da; Pennathur, Priyadarshini; Salehi, Hugh; Chasco, Emily; Baloh, Jure; Dukes, Kimberly; Ward, Melissa; Reisinger, Heather; Abbott, Loreen Herwaldt
• Is Part Of: Infection control and hospital epidemiology. Volume 41(2020)Supplement 1
• Page Start: s385
• Page End: s386
• Publication Date: 2020-10
• Subjects: Nosocomial infections -- Epidemiology -- Periodicals; Health facilities -- Sanitation -- Periodicals; Hospital buildings -- Sanitation -- Periodicals; Cross Infection -- Periodicals; Epidemiology -- Periodicals; Hospitals -- Periodicals; Infection Control -- Periodicals; 614.44
• DOI: 10.1017/ice.2020.1020
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0899-823X

Abstract

Abstract : Background: Personal protective equipment (PPE) effectiveness can be undermined by inappropriate doffing methods. Objective: We used human factors engineering methods to evaluate self-contamination during PPE doffing. Methods: In this study, 30 participants at a Midwestern academic hospital (A) donned and doffed 3 mask styles (n = 10), 2 gown styles (n = 10), and 2 glove styles (n = 10; the Doffy glove has a tab to facilitate doffing). Also, 30 additional participants at hospital A (residents or fellows, nurses, special isolation trained staff [SITS]) and 10 SITS at academic hospital B doffed a surgical mask, a breakaway neck gown, and exam gloves (PPE ensemble) twice: once while distracted with conversation and once when not distracted. We randomized the order in which participants used different PPE styles or they did the doffing scenario. We collected demographic data. We applied Glo Germ Mist (1.5 dilution in water) with a mucosal atomizer to participants' PPE before they doffed. We video-recorded participants as they doffed, and we photographed their scrubs and exposed skin before and after each donning and doffing episode. We reviewed videos for doffing errors and photographs for fluorescent spots. We counted fluorescent spots and noted their locations. Results: Overall, 45 (64.3%) participants were women, 31 (44.3%) were nurses, 24 (34.3%) were physicians. Among the participants, 25 (35.7%) had >15 years of experience and 61 (87.1%) had some training in doffing. Participants frequently contaminated their skin or clothing while doffing (Table 1). For all scenarios, hands followed by the torso were contaminated most frequently. Analysis of the videos found that touching the gown front with bare hands was the most common doffing error. Fewer participants self-contaminated when using the Doffy glove without training than when using the standard exam glove. Although most participants in the glove trial indicated that they did not need to watch the Doffy glove training video again, most had difficulty doffing the Doffy glove with the beak method. Many participants stopped doffing to answer questions when they doffed the PPE ensemble during the interruption scenario. Conclusions: Self-contamination was very common with all PPE styles and during all scenarios. Distraction did not increase the risk of contamination. However, participants often stopped doffing to answer questions, which they rarely do in practice. Watching a video was inadequate training for the beak glove-doffing method. The Doffy glove, which decreased contamination compared with the standard glove in the untrained scenario, may have advantages over standard exam gloves and should be evaluated further. Funding: None Disclosures: None