ABSTRACT
Background Current PPE practices in UK intensive care units involve “sessional” gown use. This protects staff, but puts patients at risk of nosocomial infection via PPE gowns. Anecdotal reports of such infections in ITUs during Covid are frequent. We therefore explored the use of short-sleeved gowns with hand and arm hygiene as an alternative to sessional gowns.
Methods ITU Staff were invited for simulation suite training in Covid intubation and proning. They were trained in a specific hand and arm washing technique before performing simulated tasks using both standard and modified (short sleeved) PPE. Fluorescent powder was used to simulate micro-organisms, and detected using standardised photos under U/V light. Teams of staff were randomised to use standard or modified PPE first. Individuals were questioned about their feeling of personal safety, comfort and the patient’s safety at 4 intervals.
Results 68 staff and 17 proning volunteers were studied in 17 sessions. Modified PPE completely prevented staff contamination during Covid intubation, which occurred in 30/67 staff wearing standard PPE (p = 0.0029, McNemar). Conversely, proning volunteers were contaminated by staff in 15/17 sessions with standard PPE and in 1/17 with modified PPE (P = 0.0227 McNemar). Impressions of staff comfort were superior with modified PPE (p< 0.001, t-test); personal safety scored higher with standard PPE, but the difference decreased during the session (p<0.001 start, 0.068 end). Impressions of patient safety were initially similar (p=0.87) but finished strongly in favour of modified PPE (p<0.001).
Conclusions Modified PPE using short sleeves and hand/arm cleansing appears superior to standard PPE with sessional gowns in preventing transfer of contamination between staff and patients. A clinical trial of this strategy is merited.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
NCT04712045 ClinicalTrials.Gov
Funding Statement
This study was supported by the Oxford University Covid Response Fund. Dr Ibrahim is supported by a Maimonides Research Fellowship. No other funding or payment to any of the authors was involved
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethical approval for this trial was obtained from Oxford University Research Ethics Committee (CUREC) (Reference: R72882/RE001).
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
This study was supported by the Oxford University Covid Response Fund., Dr Ibrahim is supported by a Maimonides Research Fellowship.
Data Availability
Once the article has been accepted by a peer reviewed journal, all relevant data will be deposited in the Oxford University Research Archive (ORA) at https://ora.ox.ac.uk/
