Beliefs, preferences, and acceptance of personal protective equipment for a shock room team in a tertiary care center.

Autor:	Ott M; Department of Interdisciplinary Emergency and Intensive Care Medicine, Klinikum Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany., Hein AS; Department of Interdisciplinary Emergency and Intensive Care Medicine, Klinikum Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany., Krohn A; Department of Interdisciplinary Emergency and Intensive Care Medicine, Klinikum Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany., Jaki C; Simulation Center STUPS, Klinikum Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany., Dengler F; Department of Interdisciplinary Emergency and Intensive Care Medicine, Klinikum Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany., Schilling T; Department of Interdisciplinary Emergency and Intensive Care Medicine, Klinikum Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany., Heymer J; Department of Interdisciplinary Emergency and Intensive Care Medicine, Klinikum Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Medicine [Medicine (Baltimore)] 2024 Aug 16; Vol. 103 (33), pp. e39317.
DOI:	10.1097/MD.0000000000039317
Abstrakt:	Background: During coronavirus disease of 2019 pandemic a standard usage of personal protective equipment (PPE) in healthcare was mandatory, while actually the usage of PPE is currently decreasing. This raises the question about the further use of PPE in the clinical setting because healthcare workers (HCW) are at greater risk of being infected with SARS-CoV-2 than the general population. The primary objective of this study is to determine the proportion of shock room team members approving the further use of PPE including a FFP2 respirator in simulation training and reality. The secondary objectives are to describe the expertise and difficulties faced while using PPE in the shock room care. Methods: Fifty-four HCW participated in a shock room simulation training at a large urban tertiary care hospital in Germany, utilizing a PPE comprising an FFP2 mask, gloves, goggles, and gown. Subsequently, participants completed an online questionnaire featuring 15 questions presented on a 5-point Likert scale or as multiple-choice questions with predefined answers. Results: Sixty-eight point five percent of our participants voted for an established standard PPE in shock room care. The largest fraction of our participants (40.7%) favors a standard PPE consisting of FFP2 mask, gown, and gloves. Less HCW (31.5%) want to wear PPE in shock room simulation training. Except for goggles we could not detect relevant difficulties faced while using PPE in the shock room environment. Incorrect use of PPE was observed in 14.8%. Conclusion: A majority of our participants favored a standard PPE including a FFP2 respirator in shock room care. In addition, we recommend the use of PPE in shock room simulation training, while further awareness of and training in proper use of PPE seems to be necessary to reduce risk of infectious diseases for HCW. Competing Interests: The authors have no funding and conflicts of interest to disclose. (Copyright © 2024 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu