A novel personal protective equipment coverall was rated higher than standard Ebola virus personal protective equipment in terms of comfort, mobility and perception of safety when tested by health care workers in Liberia and in a United States biocontainment unit

During the 2014-2016 Ebola virus epidemic, more than 500 health care workers (HCWs) died in spite of the use of personal protective equipment (PPE). The Johns Hopkins University Center for Bioengineering Innovation and Design (CBID) and Jhpiego, an international nongovernmental organization affiliat...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:American journal of infection control 2019-03, Vol.47 (3), p.298-304
Main Authors: Garibaldi, Brian T., Ruparelia, Chandrakant, Shaw-Saliba, Kathryn, Sauer, Lauren M., Maragakis, Lisa L., Glancey, Margaret, Subah, Marion, Nelson, Allyson R., Wilkason, Colby, Scavo, Laura, Litwin, Lindsay, Osei, Patience, Yazdi, Youseph
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Aged
Female
Health care worker safety
Health Personnel
High consequence pathogens
Humans
Infection prevention
Liberia
Male
Middle Aged
Patient Acceptance of Health Care - statistics & numerical data
Personal Protective Equipment
United States
Viral hemorrhagic fever
Young Adult
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:During the 2014-2016 Ebola virus epidemic, more than 500 health care workers (HCWs) died in spite of the use of personal protective equipment (PPE). The Johns Hopkins University Center for Bioengineering Innovation and Design (CBID) and Jhpiego, an international nongovernmental organization affiliate of Johns Hopkins, collaborated to create new PPE to improve the ease of the doffing process. HCWs in Liberia and a US biocontainment unit compared standard Médecins Sans Frontière PPE (PPE A) with the new PPE (PPE B). Participants wore each PPE ensemble while performing simulated patient care activities. Range of motion, time to doff, comfort, and perceived risk were measured. Overall, 100% of participants preferred PPE B over PPE A (P < .0001); 98.1% of respondents would recommend PPE B for their home clinical unit (P < .0001). There was a trend towards greater comfort in PPE B. HCWs at both sites felt more at risk in PPE A than PPE B (71.9% vs 25% in Liberia, P < .0001; 100% vs 40% in the US biocontainment unit, P < .0001). HCWs preferred a new PPE ensemble to Médecins Sans Frontière PPE for high-consequence pathogens. Further studies on the safety of this new PPE need to be conducted.
ISSN:0196-6553
1527-3296
DOI:10.1016/j.ajic.2018.08.014