Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:02:09.836Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impact of Clinician Personal Protective Equipment on Medical Device Use During Public Health Emergency: A Review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 August 2019

Hanniebey D. Wiyor ,
James C. Coburn  and
Karen L. Siegel Open the ORCID record for Karen L. Siegel [Opens in a new window]
Hanniebey D. Wiyor*
Affiliation:
Office of Device Evaluation, Center for Device and Radiological Health, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Maryland
James C. Coburn
Affiliation:
Office of Device Evaluation, Center for Device and Radiological Health, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Maryland Human-Device Interaction Lab, Division of Biomedical Physics, Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories, Center for Device and Radiological Health, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Maryland
Karen L. Siegel
Affiliation:
Office of Research and Development, Department of Veterans Affairs, WashingtonDC
*
Correspondence and reprint requests to LT Hanniebey D. Wiyor, PhD, United States Food and Drug Administration, White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Avenue, CDRH Building 66, Room 2563, Silver Spring, MD 20993 (e-mail: [email protected]).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the impact of personal protective equipment (PPE) on medical device use during public health emergency responses. We conducted a systematic literature search of peer-reviewed journals in PubMed, Web of Science, and EBSCO databases. Twenty-nine of 92 articles published between 1984 and 2015 met the inclusion criteria for the review. Although many medical device use impacts were reported, they predominantly fell into 3 categories: airway management, drug administration, and diagnostics and monitoring. Chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN)-PPE increased completion times for emergency clinical procedures by as much as 130% and first attempt failure rates by 35% (anesthetist) versus 55% (non-anesthetist). Effects of CBRN-PPE use depend on device, CBRN-PPE level, and clinician experience and training. Continuous clinical training of responders in CBRN-PPE and device modifications can improve safety and effectiveness of medical device use during public health emergency response.

Keywords

medical deviceemergency responsepublic healthpersonal protective equipmentCBRN
Type
Systematic Review
Information
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , April 2020 , pp. 273 - 283
Copyright
© 2019 Society for Disaster Medicine and Public Health, Inc.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Nakajima, T, Sato, S, Morita, H, Yanagisawa, N.Sarin poisoning of a rescue team in the Matsumoto sarin incident in Japan. Occup Environ Med. 1997;54(10):697‐701.Google ScholarPubMed
Suzuki, T, Morita, H, Ono, K, et al. Sarin poisoning in Tokyo subway. Lancet. 1995;345(8955):980‐981.Google ScholarPubMed
Diamond, D. Ebola has killed more than 200 doctors, nurses, and other healthcare workers since June. 2015. https://www.forbes.com/sites/dandiamond/2014/10/15/ebola-has-already-killed-more-than-200-doctors-nurses-and-other-healthcare-workers/#6a85fb03640e. Accessed June 14, 2014.Google Scholar
Ramesh, AC, Kumar, S. Triage, monitoring, and treatment of mass casualty events involving chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear agents. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2010;2(3):239‐247.Google ScholarPubMed
Gershon, RR, Vandelinde, N, Magda, LA, et al. Evaluation of a pandemic preparedness training intervention for emergency medical services personnel. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2009;24(6):508‐511.Google ScholarPubMed
Scott, JA, Miller, GT, Issenberg, SB, et al. Skill improvement during emergency response to terrorism training. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2006;10(4):507‐514.Google ScholarPubMed
Tavares, W.Impact of terrorist attacks on hospitals. J Emerg Nurs. 2018;44(2):188‐190.Google ScholarPubMed
McIsaac, JH.Hospital Preparation for Bioterror: A Medical and Biomedical Systems Approach. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2010.Google Scholar
National Standards Authority of Ireland. SR CWA 16106 : 2010: PPE for chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) hazards. https://infostore.saiglobal.com/en-us/Standards/SR-CWA-16106-2010-874408_SAIG_NSAI_NSAI_2078872/2010. Accessed June 9, 2019.Google Scholar
British Standard Institute. BS 8467:2006 Protective clothing. Personal protective ensembles for use against chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) agents. Categorization, performance requirements and test methods. https://shop.bsigroup.com/ProductDetail/?pid=000000000030127794. Accessed June 9, 2019.Google Scholar
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSAH). OSHA best practices for hospital-based first receivers of victims from mass casualty incidents involving the release of hazardous substances. https://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/bestpractices/html/hospital_firstreceivers.html. Accessed June 9, 2019.Google Scholar
Goldfrank, L, Manning, FJ.Preparing for Terrorism: Tools for Evaluating the Metropolitan Medical Response System Program. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2002.Google Scholar
Reilly, MJ, Markenson, D, DiMaggio, C.Comfort level of emergency medical service providers in responding to weapons of mass destruction events: Impact of training and equipment. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2007;22(4):297‐303.Google ScholarPubMed
Kollek, D, Welsford, M, Wanger, K.Chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear preparedness training for emergency medical services providers. Can J Emerg Med. 2009;11(4):337‐342.Google Scholar
Suyama, J, Knutsen, CC, Northington, WE, et al. IO versus IV access while wearing personal protective equipment in a HazMat scenario. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2007;11(4):467‐472.Google Scholar
Krueger, GP.Psychological and performance effects of chemical-biological protective clothing and equipment. Mil Med. 2001;166(Suppl 2):41‐43.Google ScholarPubMed
Hsu, EB, Jenckes, MW, Catlett, CL, et al. Effectiveness of hospital staff mass-casualty incident training methods: A systematic literature review. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2004;19(3):191‐199.Google ScholarPubMed
Liberati, A, Altman, DG, Tetzlaff, J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000100.Google ScholarPubMed
Castle, N, Bowen, J, Spencer, N.Does wearing CBRN-PPE adversely affect the ability for clinicians to accurately, safely, and speedily draw up drugs? Clin Toxicol. 2010;48(6):522‐527.Google ScholarPubMed
Brinker, A, Gray, S, Michel, S, et al. Vascular access skills during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in hazardous environments: 13AP2‐4. Eur J Anaesthesiol (EJA). 2012;29:191‐192.Google Scholar
Brinker, A, Gray, SA, Schumacher, J.Influence of air-purifying respirators on the simulated first response emergency treatment of CBRN victims. Resuscitation. 2007;74(2):310‐316.Google ScholarPubMed
Castle, N, Pillay, Y, Spencer, N.Insertion of six different supraglottic airway devices whilst wearing chemical, biological, radiation, nuclear‐personal protective equipment: A manikin study. Anaesthesia. 2011;66(11):983‐988.Google ScholarPubMed
Castle, N, Owen, R, Hann, M, et al. Impact of chemical, biological, radiation, and nuclear personal protective equipment on the performance of low-and high-dexterity airway and vascular access skills. Resuscitation. 2009;80(11):1290‐1295.Google ScholarPubMed
Castle, N.Care after chemical, biological, radiation or nuclear events. Emerg Nurse. 2010;18(7):26‐36.Google ScholarPubMed
Castle, N, Pillay, Y, Spencer, N. What is the optimal position of an intubator wearing CBRN-PPE when intubating on the floor: A manikin study. Resuscitation. 2011;82(5):588‐592.Google ScholarPubMed
Coates, MJ, Jundi, AS, James, MR.Chemical protective clothing; a study into the ability of staff to perform lifesaving procedures. J Accid Emerg Med. 2000;17(2):115‐118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schumacher, J, Runte, J, Brinker, A, et al. Respiratory protection during high‐fidelity simulated resuscitation of casualties contaminated with chemical warfare agents. Anaesthesia. 2008;63(6):593‐598.Google ScholarPubMed
Schumacher, J, Gray, SA, Michel, S, et al. Respiratory protection during simulated emergency pediatric life support: A randomized, controlled, crossover study. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2013;28(01):33‐38.Google ScholarPubMed
Ben-Abraham, R, Gur, I, Vater, Y, et al. Intraosseous emergency access by physicians wearing full protective gear. Acad Emerg Med. 2003;10(12):1407‐1410.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ben-Abraham, R, Weinbroum, AA.Laryngeal mask airway control versus endotracheal intubation by medical personnel wearing protective gear. Am J Emerg Med. 2004;22(1):24‐26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ben-Abraham, R, Flaishon, R, Sotman, A, et al. Cuffed oropharyngeal airway (COPA) placement is delayed by wearing antichemical protective gear. Emerg Med J. 2008;25(12):847‐850.Google ScholarPubMed
Flaishon, R, Sotman, A, Ben-Abraham, R, et al. Antichemical protective gear prolongs time to successful airway management: A randomized, crossover study in humans. Anesthesiology. 2004;100(2):260‐266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldik, Z, Bornstein, J, Eden, A, et al. Airway management by physicians wearing anti-chemical warfare gear: Comparison between laryngeal mask airway and endotracheal intubation. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2002;19(03):166‐169.Google ScholarPubMed
Berkenstadt, H, Arad, M, Nahtomi, O, et al. The effect of a chemical protective ensemble on intravenous line insertion by emergency medical technicians. Mil Med. 1999;164(10):737‐739.Google ScholarPubMed
Borron, SW, Arias, JC, Bauer, CR, et al. Intraosseous line placement for antidote injection by first responders and receivers wearing personal protective equipment. Am J Emerg Med. 2011;29(4):373‐381.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burns, JB Jr, Branson, R, Barnes, SL, et al. Emergency airway placement by EMS providers: Comparison between the King LT supralaryngeal airway and endotracheal intubation. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2010;25(1):92‐95.Google Scholar
King, JM, Frelin, AJ.Impact of the chemical protective ensemble on the performance of basic medical tasks. Mil Med. 1984;149(9):496.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wedmore, IS, Talbo, T, Cuenca, PJ.Intubating laryngeal mask airway versus laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation in the nuclear, biological, and chemical environment. Mil Med. 2003;168(11):876‐879.Google ScholarPubMed
Greenland, K, Tsui, D, Goodyear, P, et al. Personal protection equipment for biological hazards: Does it affect tracheal intubation performance? Resuscitation. 2007;74(1):119‐126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Udayasiri, R, Knott, J, McD Taylor, D, et al. Emergency department staff can effectively resuscitate in level C personal protective equipment. Emerg Med Australas. 2007;19(2):113‐121.Google ScholarPubMed
Garner, A, Laurence, H, Lee, A.Practicality of performing medical procedures in chemical protective ensembles. Emerg Med. 2004;16(2):108‐113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Castle, N, Owen, R, Clark, S, et al. Comparison of techniques for securing the endotracheal tube while wearing chemical, biological radiological or nuclear protection: A manikin study. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2010;25(6):589‐594.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Castle, N, Owen, R, Clarke, S, et al. Does position of the patient adversely affect successful intubation whilst wearing CBRN-PPE? Resuscitation. 2010;81(9):1166‐1171.Google ScholarPubMed
MacDonald, RD, LeBlanc, V, McArthur, B, et al. Performance of resuscitation skills by paramedic personnel in chemical protective suits. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2006;10(2):254‐259CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lamhaut, L, Dagron, C, Apriotesei, R, et al. Comparison of intravenous and intraosseous access by pre-hospital medical emergency personnel with and without CBRN protective equipment. Resuscitation. 2010;81(1):65‐68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shin, DH, Choi, PC, Na, JU, et al. Utility of the Pentax-AWS in performing tracheal intubation while wearing chemical, biological, radiation and nuclear personal protective equipment: A randomised crossover trial using a manikin. Emerg Med J. 2013;30(7):527‐531.Google ScholarPubMed
Tucker, JB.Historical trends related to bioterrorism: An empirical analysis. Emerg Infect Dis. 1999;5(4):498.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bowonder, B, Linstone, HA.Notes on the Bhopal accident: Risk analysis and multiple perspectives. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 1987;32(2):183‐202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Paliament. Directorate-general for internal policies, Policies Department C: Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/note/join/2011/453181/IPOL-LIBE_NT%282011%29453181_EN.pdf. 2011. Accessed January 13, 2015.Google Scholar
Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Guidance on Personal Protective Equipment To Be Used by Healthcare Workers During Management of Patients with Ebola Virus Disease in U.S. Hospitals, Including Procedures for Putting On (Donning) and Removing (Doffing). http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/healthcare-us/ppe/guidance.html. Vol 20152014. Accessed June 9, 2019.Google Scholar
Willms, K, Wells, R, Carnahan, H.Glove attributes and their contribution to force decrement and increased effort in power grip. Hum Factors. 2009;51(6):797–812.Google ScholarPubMed
Hur, P, Motawar, B, Seo, NJ.Hand breakaway strength model—Effects of glove use and handle shapes on a person’s hand strength to hold onto handles to prevent fall from elevation. J Biomech. 2012;45(6):958‐964.Google ScholarPubMed
Burgert, JM.Intraosseous vascular access in disasters and mass casualty events: A review of the literature. Am J Disaster Med. 2016;11(3):149‐166.Google ScholarPubMed
Northington, WE, Suyama, J, Goss, FL, et al. Physiological responses during graded treadmill exercise in chemical-resistant personal protective equipment. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2007;11(4):394‐398.Google ScholarPubMed
Blacker, SD, Carter, JM, Wilkinson, DM, et al. Physiological responses of police officers during job simulations wearing chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear personal protective equipment. Ergonomics. 2013;56(1):137‐147.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hostler, D, Bednez, JC, Kerin, S, et al. Comparison of rehydration regimens for rehabilitation of firefighters performing heavy exercise in thermal protective clothing: A report from the Fireground Rehab Evaluation (FIRE) trial. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2010;14(2):194‐201.Google ScholarPubMed
Hanson, M.Development of a draft British standard: The assessment of heat strain for workers wearing personal protective equipment. Ann Occup Hyg. 1999;43(5):309‐319.Google ScholarPubMed
Teixeira, RA, Bensel, CK.The Effects of Chemical Protective Gloves and Glove Liners on Manual Dexterity. Natick, MA: Army Natick Research Development and Engineering Center; 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scanlan, S, Roberts, W, McCallum, R, et al. A dexterity and tactility evaluation of the Australian Nuclear Biological Chemical (NBC) glove. Fairbairn, Camberra: Defence Science and Technology Organisation Victoria (Australia) Platform; 2004.Google Scholar
Magalhães, MJ, de Magalhães, ST, Revett, K, et al. Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) protective clothing–A review. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Global Security, Safety, and Sustainability. ICGS3 2017: Global Security, Safety and Sustainability - The Security Challenges of the Connected World , London, UK, January 18-20, 2017, pp 331‐341.Google Scholar
Gorji, M, Bagherzadeh, R, Fashandi, H.Electrospun nanofibers in protective clothing. Electrospun Nanofibers. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2017:571‐598.Google Scholar
Chen, P-Y, Zhang, M, Liu, M, et al. Ultrastretchable graphene-based molecular barriers for chemical protection, detection, and actuation. ACS Nano. 2017;12(1):234‐244.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moseman, J.Are these the right gloves? Solubility & maximum protection. Prof Saf. 2016;61(04):40‐47.Google Scholar