Search

We observed 354 hand hygiene instances across 41 healthcare workers doffing personal protective equipment at 4 hospital-based biocontainment units. We measured the duration and thoroughness of each hand hygiene instance. Both parameters varied substantially, with systematic differences between hospitals and differences between healthcare workers accounting for much of the variance., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: The safe removal of personal protective equipment (PPE) can limit transmission of serious communicable diseases, but this process poses challenges to healthcare workers (HCWs)., Methods: We observed 41 HCWs across 4 Ebola treatment centers in Georgia doffing PPE for simulated patients with serious communicable diseases. Using human factors methodologies, we obtained the details, sequences, and durations of doffing steps; identified the ways each step can fail (failure modes [FMs]); quantified the riskiness of FMs; and characterized the workload of doffing steps., Results: Eight doffing steps were common to all hospitals-removal of boot covers, gloves (outer and inner pairs), the outermost garment, the powered air purifying respirator (PAPR) hood, and the PAPR helmet assembly; repeated hand hygiene (eg, with hand sanitizer); and a final handwashing with soap and water. Across hospitals, we identified 256 FMs during the common doffing steps, 61 of which comprised 19 common FMs. Most of these common FMs were above average in their riskiness at each hospital. At all hospitals, hand hygiene, removal of the outermost garment, and removal of boot covers were above average in their overall riskiness. Measurements of workload revealed that doffing steps were often mentally demanding, and this facet of workload correlated most strongly with the effortfulness of a doffing step., Conclusions: We systematically identified common points of concern in protocols for doffing high-level PPE. Addressing FMs related to hand hygiene and the removal of the outermost garment, boot covers, and PAPR hood could improve HCW safety when doffing high-level PPE.We identified ways that doffing protocols for high-level personal protective equipment may fail to protect healthcare workers. Hand hygiene, removing the outermost garment, boot covers, and respirator hood harbored the greatest risk and failed in similar ways across different hospitals., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Personal protective equipment (PPE) protects healthcare workers (HCWs) caring for patients with Ebola virus disease (EVD), and PPE doffing is a critical point for preventing viral self-contamination. We assessed contamination of skin, gloves, and scrubs after doffing Ebola-level PPE contaminated with surrogate viruses: bacteriophages MS2 and Φ6., Methods: In a medical biocontainment unit, HCWs (n = 10) experienced in EVD care donned and doffed PPE following unit protocols that incorporate trained observer guidance and alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR). A mixture of Φ6 (enveloped), MS2 (nonenveloped), and fluorescent marker was applied to 4 PPE sites, approximating body fluid viral load (Φ6, 105; MS2, 106). They performed a patient care task, then doffed. Inner gloves, face, hands, and scrubs were sampled for virus, as were environmental sites with visible fluorescent marker., Results: Among 10 HCWs there was no Φ6 transfer to inner gloves, hands, or face; 1 participant had Φ6 on scrubs at low levels (1.4 × 102). MS2 transfer (range, 101-106) was observed to scrubs (n = 2), hands (n = 1), and inner gloves (n = 7), where it was highest. Most (n = 8) had only 1 positive site. Environmental samples with visible fluorescent marker (n = 21) were negative., Conclusions: Among experienced HCWs, structured, observed doffing using ABHR protected against hand contamination with enveloped virus. Nonenveloped virus was infrequent on hands and scrubs but common on inner gloves, suggesting that inner gloves, but not necessarily ABHR, protect against hand contamination. Optimizing doffing protocols to protect against all types of viruses may require reinforcing careful handling of scrubs and good glove/hand hygiene with effective agents.

Background: Doffing protocols for personal protective equipment (PPE) are critical for keeping healthcare workers (HCWs) safe during care of patients with Ebola virus disease. We assessed the relationship between errors and self-contamination during doffing., Methods: Eleven HCWs experienced with doffing Ebola-level PPE participated in simulations in which HCWs donned PPE marked with surrogate viruses (ɸ6 and MS2), completed a clinical task, and were assessed for contamination after doffing. Simulations were video recorded, and a failure modes and effects analysis and fault tree analyses were performed to identify errors during doffing, quantify their risk (risk index), and predict contamination data., Results: Fifty-one types of errors were identified, many having the potential to spread contamination. Hand hygiene and removing the powered air purifying respirator (PAPR) hood had the highest total risk indexes (111 and 70, respectively) and number of types of errors (9 and 13, respectively). ɸ6 was detected on 10% of scrubs and the fault tree predicted a 10.4% contamination rate, likely occurring when the PAPR hood inadvertently contacted scrubs during removal. MS2 was detected on 10% of hands, 20% of scrubs, and 70% of inner gloves and the predicted rates were 7.3%, 19.4%, 73.4%, respectively. Fault trees for MS2 and ɸ6 contamination suggested similar pathways., Conclusions: Ebola-level PPE can both protect and put HCWs at risk for self-contamination throughout the doffing process, even among experienced HCWs doffing with a trained observer. Human factors methodologies can identify error-prone steps, delineate the relationship between errors and self-contamination, and suggest remediation strategies.

The development of medical care for U.S. military families and retirees was serendipitous, a fortunate accident. The formal development of military family medical care required the evolution of three factors: the emergence of a standing army, frontiers to guard, and a peace to defend. These factors were first realized in the late 19th Century, and beginning at that point in U.S. history, seven key years highlight major milestones in the history of military family member medical care. At the same time, these years exemplify changing ideas of disease and of health care and how the physical design of clinics and hospitals reflects and impacts these ideas. The Fort Belvoir Community Hospital, which opens in 2011, exemplifies the Nation's best example of green hospital construction, patient and family centered care, and evidence-based design in a Culture of Excellence that demonstrates that military family medical care is finally "deliberate by design."