Although health-care workers don protective clothing to stave-off infection from disease threats like SARS, other emerging infectious diseases//, and bio-terrorism, they are still vulnerable to contamination, according to a study by the Queen's University.
"The strengths and limitations of each protective system need to be considered when recommendations are made about which choice of system, donning and removal procedures and decontamination procedures are optimal," says Queen's University anesthesiologist Jorge E. Zamora, lead author of the study.
Released today in the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ http://www.cmaj.ca/ ), the study compares two kinds of recommended protective clothing systems and found that one kind of protective gear leaves health-care workers prone to contamination at their forearms, wrists, hands and necks. Another more elaborate ensemble, while proving more protective, was time-consuming for these workers to don and remove without making procedural errors – an important consideration, as workers must change after performing specific procedures on patients.
The studied protective gear is recommended by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care and the US Centre for Disease Control and Prevention to protect health-care workers performing high-risk procedures in patients affected by diseases, such as SARS, that are transmitted via aerosols or respiratory droplets.
"This study provides us with a valuable first step in the examination of the relative effectiveness of protective clothing systems used by health-care workers. Future attempts to optimize health-care workers' protective clothing should involve efforts to find a solution to the different levels of protection associated with specific systems and to improve decontamination procedures," says Dr. Zamora.
He and fellow Queen's researchers John Murdoch, Brian Simchison, and Andrew G. Day, had the study's 50 par
ticipants from Kingston General Hospital put on the respective outfits and then contaminated them with an ultraviolet light-detectable spray and paste. The participants were timed and video-taped as they put on and removed their gear and any procedural violations were noted.
The enhanced respiratory and contact precautions (E-RCP) outfit, consisting of hair cover, goggles, face-shield, breathing mask, gloves and surgical gown, left participants more vulnerable to contamination particularly on the front of their necks, hands and wrists, but was easier to put on and take off. All but two of the participants donning the E-RCP experienced some contamination.
An outfit incorporating a powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR), included two protective layers adding a hood, more gloves, hooded coveralls, and boot covers to the ensemble. This outfit did offer superior protection but required more time and more procedural steps to don. Although participants were coached through both donning and removing this outfit, 15 participants made violations during the more than six minutes it took to put it on.
Source: EurekalerRelated medicine news :1
. Protective effects of tomatoes in prostate cancer2
. Olive Oil Found To Offer A Protective Effect Against Breast Cancer3
. Protective regimen for acute Graft-versus-host disease4
. Bird Flu: Orissa Initiates Protective Measures5
. Skin Cancer Cream Has A Protective Effect On Prematurely Aged Skin?6
. High Demand For Protective Suit in Afghan: Culling Would Have To Wait7
. Protective Protein Could Hold The Key In Fight Against Tuberculosis8
. Antibiotic Proved Protective against Heart Tissue Damage and Cell Death – Research Find9
. Protective Intestinal Antibiotic Protein Discovered10
. Athletic Gear in Youth Not Protective Against Near Fatal Blows to chest11
. Know the Protective Face of the Sun