OBJECTIVE: ED staff are expected to perform resuscitation of trauma victims of chemical, biological and radiation incidents while wearing level C personal protective equipment (PPE). The present project assessed the subjective discomfort, physiological impact and performance of staff wearing PPE. METHODS: A paired intervention study of ED staff in a resuscitation scenario comparing task performance wearing gown and gloves with PPE. Data were collected using a structured self-administered questionnaire and by objective and subjective measurements. RESULTS: Seven ED doctors and 11 ED nurses were enrolled. Nine had previous PPE training although only one had used PPE clinically. Overall, ED staff felt that PPE did not affect their ability to perform trauma resuscitation. For individual tasks, staff felt that PPE impaired assessment of pulse, i.v. cannulation, i.v. line attachment, use of a mini-jet, bag and mask ventilation, and communication. However, the only objective difference in task performance was time to control haemorrhage (increase from 38 to 47 s, P = 0.02). PPE was well tolerated, with minimal physiological or psychological impact. Staff wore PPE for a median of 37 min (interquartile range: 33-38) and estimated that PPE could be worn for a further 30 min if required. CONCLUSIONS: ED staff are able to perform resuscitation procedures in PPE without adverse physiological effects or impact on performance. Subjective concerns regarding task performance were not reflected in objective measurements. This might indicate that appropriate training and feedback could reduce the negative impression associated with activities undertaken while wearing PPE.
OBJECTIVE: ED staff are expected to perform resuscitation of trauma victims of chemical, biological and radiation incidents while wearing level C personal protective equipment (PPE). The present project assessed the subjective discomfort, physiological impact and performance of staff wearing PPE. METHODS: A paired intervention study of ED staff in a resuscitation scenario comparing task performance wearing gown and gloves with PPE. Data were collected using a structured self-administered questionnaire and by objective and subjective measurements. RESULTS: Seven ED doctors and 11 ED nurses were enrolled. Nine had previous PPE training although only one had used PPE clinically. Overall, ED staff felt that PPE did not affect their ability to perform trauma resuscitation. For individual tasks, staff felt that PPE impaired assessment of pulse, i.v. cannulation, i.v. line attachment, use of a mini-jet, bag and mask ventilation, and communication. However, the only objective difference in task performance was time to control haemorrhage (increase from 38 to 47 s, P = 0.02). PPE was well tolerated, with minimal physiological or psychological impact. Staff wore PPE for a median of 37 min (interquartile range: 33-38) and estimated that PPE could be worn for a further 30 min if required. CONCLUSIONS: ED staff are able to perform resuscitation procedures in PPE without adverse physiological effects or impact on performance. Subjective concerns regarding task performance were not reflected in objective measurements. This might indicate that appropriate training and feedback could reduce the negative impression associated with activities undertaken while wearing PPE.
Authors: Christopher M Watson; Jordan M Duval-Arnould; Michael C McCrory; Stephan Froz; Cheryl Connors; Trish M Perl; Elizabeth A Hunt Journal: Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf Date: 2011-11