Enrique Casalino1, Eugenio Astocondor2, Juan Carlos Sanchez3, David Enrique Díaz-Santana4, Carlos Del Aguila2, Juan Pablo Carrillo5. 1. Emergency Department, University Hospital Bichat-Claude Bernard, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France; EA 7334, Recherche clinique coordonnée ville-hôpital, Méthodologies et Société, Université Paris Diderot, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France. Electronic address: enrique.casalino@bch.aphp.fr. 2. Instituto Nacional del Niño, Lima, Peru; Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Nacional Federico Villareal, Lima, Peru. 3. Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Nacional Federico Villareal, Lima, Peru; Hospital Hipólito Unanue, El Agustino, Lima, Peru. 4. Hospital General del Occidente, Guadalajara, Mexico. 5. Dirección de Prevención y Control de Enfermedades, Secretaría de Salud Jalisco, Guadalajara, Mexico.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Personal protective equipment (PPE) for preventing Ebola virus disease (EVD) includes basic PPE (B-PPE) and enhanced PPE (E-PPE). Our aim was to compare conventional training programs (CTPs) and reinforced training programs (RTPs) on the use of B-PPE and E-PPE. METHODS: Four groups were created, designated CTP-B, CTP-E, RTP-B, and RTP-E. All groups received the same theoretical training, followed by 3 practical training sessions. RESULTS: A total of 120 students were included (30 per group). In all 4 groups, the frequency and number of total errors and critical errors decreased significantly over the course of the training sessions (P < .01). The RTP was associated with a greater reduction in the number of total errors and critical errors (P < .0001). During the third training session, we noted an error frequency of 7%-43%, a critical error frequency of 3%-40%, 0.3-1.5 total errors, and 0.1-0.8 critical errors per student. The B-PPE groups had the fewest errors and critical errors (P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that both training methods improved the student's proficiency, that B-PPE appears to be easier to use than E-PPE, that the RTP achieved better proficiency for both PPE types, and that a number of students are still potentially at risk for EVD contamination despite the improvements observed during the training.
BACKGROUND: Personal protective equipment (PPE) for preventing Ebola virus disease (EVD) includes basic PPE (B-PPE) and enhanced PPE (E-PPE). Our aim was to compare conventional training programs (CTPs) and reinforced training programs (RTPs) on the use of B-PPE and E-PPE. METHODS: Four groups were created, designated CTP-B, CTP-E, RTP-B, and RTP-E. All groups received the same theoretical training, followed by 3 practical training sessions. RESULTS: A total of 120 students were included (30 per group). In all 4 groups, the frequency and number of total errors and critical errors decreased significantly over the course of the training sessions (P < .01). The RTP was associated with a greater reduction in the number of total errors and critical errors (P < .0001). During the third training session, we noted an error frequency of 7%-43%, a critical error frequency of 3%-40%, 0.3-1.5 total errors, and 0.1-0.8 critical errors per student. The B-PPE groups had the fewest errors and critical errors (P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that both training methods improved the student's proficiency, that B-PPE appears to be easier to use than E-PPE, that the RTP achieved better proficiency for both PPE types, and that a number of students are still potentially at risk for EVD contamination despite the improvements observed during the training.
Authors: Jennie H Kwon; Carey-Ann D Burnham; Kimberly A Reske; Stephen Y Liang; Tiffany Hink; Meghan A Wallace; Angela Shupe; Sondra Seiler; Candice Cass; Victoria J Fraser; Erik R Dubberke Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2017-06-13 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Jos H Verbeek; Blair Rajamaki; Sharea Ijaz; Christina Tikka; Jani H Ruotsalainen; Michael B Edmond; Riitta Sauni; F Selcen Kilinc Balci Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-07-01
Authors: Allison Gossen; Beth Mehring; Brian S Gunnell; Karen S Rheuban; David C Cattell-Gordon; Kyle B Enfield; Costi D Sifri Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2020-06
Authors: B Poller; S Hall; C Bailey; S Gregory; R Clark; P Roberts; A Tunbridge; V Poran; B Crook; C Evans Journal: J Hosp Infect Date: 2018-02-05 Impact factor: 3.926
Authors: Jos H Verbeek; Blair Rajamaki; Sharea Ijaz; Riitta Sauni; Elaine Toomey; Bronagh Blackwood; Christina Tikka; Jani H Ruotsalainen; F Selcen Kilinc Balci Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2020-04-15