Literature DB >> 28251618

A randomised crossover simulation study comparing the impact of chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear substance personal protection equipment on the performance of advanced life support interventions.

J Schumacher1, J Arlidge1, F Garnham2, I Ahmad1.   

Abstract

Recent incidents involving chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear substances have stressed the importance of sufficient personal protection equipment for medical first-responders. Modern lightweight, battery-independent, suit ensembles may prove superior to the current protective suit used in the UK. This study compared the powered respiratory protective suit (PRPS ensemble) with a lightweight suit consisting of a SARATOGA® Multipurpose CBRN Protective Coverall Polyprotect 12 in conjunction with the Avon C50 Respirator/Avon CBRNF12CE filter canister and butyl rubber protective gloves (Polyprotect 12 ensemble). Thirty anaesthetists carried out a standardised resuscitation scenario either unprotected (control) or wearing the PRPS or Polyprotect 12 ensembles in a randomised, crossover simulation study. Treatment times for five simulated advanced life support interventions (application of monitoring; bag/mask ventilation; tracheal intubation; drug and fluid administration; and external pacing) were measured. Wearer comfort was also assessed for the two protective suits by questionnaire. All participants accomplished the treatment objectives of all study arms without adverse events. Total mean (SD) completion time for the five interventions was significantly longer for the PRPS compared with the Polyprotect 12 ensemble (204 (53) s vs. 149 (36) s, respectively; p < 0.0001). Participants rated mobility, noise, heat, vision, dexterity and speech intelligibility significantly better in the Polyprotect 12 ensemble compared with the PRPS ensemble. The combination of a lightweight Polyprotect 12 suit and an Avon C50 air-purifying respirator is preferable to the powered respiratory protective suit during simulated emergency life support, due to a combination of shorter task completion times and improved mobility, communication and dexterity.
© 2017 The Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland.

Entities:  

Keywords:  zzm321990CBRNzzm321990; medical simulation; respiratory protection; resuscitation

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28251618     DOI: 10.1111/anae.13842

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anaesthesia        ISSN: 0003-2409            Impact factor:   6.955


  7 in total

1.  Predicting Health Care Workers' Tolerance of Personal Protective Equipment: An Observational Simulation Study.

Authors:  Francisco Martín-Rodríguez; Ancor Sanz-García; Raúl López-Izquierdo; Juan F Delgado Benito; José L Martín-Conty; Miguel A Castro Villamor; Guillermo J Ortega
Journal:  Clin Simul Nurs       Date:  2020-09-02       Impact factor: 2.391

2.  Resuscitation of the patient with suspected/confirmed COVID-19 when wearing personal protective equipment: A randomized multicenter crossover simulation trial.

Authors:  Marek Malysz; Marek Dabrowski; Bernd W Böttiger; Jacek Smereka; Klaudia Kulak; Agnieszka Szarpak; Milosz Jaguszewski; Krzysztof J Filipiak; Jerzy R Ladny; Kurt Ruetzler; Lukasz Szarpak
Journal:  Cardiol J       Date:  2020-05-18       Impact factor: 2.737

Review 3.  The Multiple Casualty Scenario: Role of the Anesthesiologist.

Authors:  Christopher M Lam; Michael James Murray
Journal:  Curr Anesthesiol Rep       Date:  2020-06-29

Review 4.  Use of powered air-purifying respirator(PAPR) as part of protective equipment against SARS-CoV-2-a narrative review and critical appraisal of evidence.

Authors:  Ana Licina; Andrew Silvers
Journal:  Am J Infect Control       Date:  2020-11-10       Impact factor: 2.918

5.  Risk of Dehydration Due to Sweating While Wearing Personal 2 Protective Equipment in COVID-19 Clinical Care: A Pilot Study.

Authors:  Andrés Rojo-Rojo; Maria José Pujalte-Jesús; Encarna Hernández-Sánchez; Rafael Melendreras-Ruiz; Juan Antonio García-Méndez; Gloria María Muñoz-Rubio; César Leal-Costa; José Luis Díaz-Agea
Journal:  Healthcare (Basel)       Date:  2022-01-29

6.  Personal protective equipment, airway management, and systematic reviews. Comment on Br J Anaesth 2020; 125: e301-5.

Authors:  Massimiliano Sorbello; Kariem El-Boghdadly; Jan Schumacher; Imran Ahmad
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2020-06-30       Impact factor: 9.166

7.  Use of powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR) by healthcare workers for preventing highly infectious viral diseases-a systematic review of evidence.

Authors:  Ana Licina; Andrew Silvers; Rhonda L Stuart
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2020-08-08
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.