Show simple item record

FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorGullapalli, Navyaen_AU
dc.contributor.authorLim, Zheng Jieen_AU
dc.contributor.authorRamanathan, Kollengodeen_AU
dc.contributor.authorBihari, Shaileshen_AU
dc.contributor.authorHaji, Jumanaen_AU
dc.contributor.authorShekar, Kiranen_AU
dc.contributor.authorWong, Wai Taten_AU
dc.contributor.authorRajamani, Arvinden_AU
dc.contributor.authorSubramaniam, Ashwinen_AU
dc.date.accessioned2021-04-06T00:55:31Z
dc.date.available2021-04-06T00:55:31Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2123/24836
dc.description.abstractBackground Personal-protective equipment (PPE)-preparedness, defined as adherence to guidelines, healthcare worker (HCW) training, procuring PPE stocks and responding appropriately to suspected cases, is crucial to prevent HCW-infections. Objective To perform a follow-up survey to assess changes in PPE-preparedness across six Asia-Pacific countries during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design Prospective follow-up cross-sectional, web-based survey between 10/08/2020 to 01/09/2020, five months after the initial Phase 1 survey. Setting The same six Asia-Pacific countries (Australia, Hong Kong, India, New Zealand, Philippines, and Singapore) that participated in Phase 1. Participants Intensivists from 231 ICUs across these six countries. Main outcome measures Changes in PPE-preparedness between Phases 1 and 2. Results Phase 2 had responses from 132 ICUs (57%). Compared to Phase 1 respondents reported increased use of PPE-based practices such as powered air-purifying respirator (40.2% vs. 6.1%), N95-masks at all times (86.4% vs. 53.7%) and double-gloving (87.9% vs. 42.9%). The reported awareness of PPE stocks (85.6% vs. 51.9%), mandatory showering policies following PPE-breach (31.1% vs. 6.9%) and safety perception amongst HCWs (60.6% vs. 28.4%) improved significantly during Phase 2. Despite reported statistically similar adoption rate of the buddy system in both phases (42.4% vs. 37.2%), there was a reported reduction in donning/doffing training in Phase 2 (44.3% vs. 60.2%). There were no reported differences HCW training in other areas, such as tracheal intubation, intra-hospital transport and safe waste disposal, between the 2 phases. Conclusions Overall reported PPE-preparedness improved between the two survey periods, particularly in PPE use, PPE inventory and HCW perceptions of safety. However, the uptake of HCW training and implementation of low-cost safety measures continued to be low and the awareness of PPE breach management policies were suboptimal. Therefore, the key areas for improvement should focus on regular HCW training, implementing low-cost buddy-system and increasing awareness of PPE-breach management protocols.en_AU
dc.language.isoenen_AU
dc.subjectCOVID-19en_AU
dc.subjectCoronavirusen_AU
dc.titlePersonal protective equipment preparedness in intensive care units during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: An Asia-Pacific follow-up surveyen_AU
dc.typeArticleen_AU
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.aucc.2021.02.007


Show simple item record

Associated file/s

There are no files associated with this item.

Associated collections

Show simple item record

There are no previous versions of the item available.