Efficacy of remote audio‐visual system versus standard onsite buddy system to monitor the doffing of personal protective equipment during COVID‐19 pandemic: An observational study
Objectives Literature states a higher self‐contamination rate among healthcare workers (HCWs) while doffing personal protective equipment (PPE). During the Covid‐19 pandemic, onsite trained observers were not always available to monitor PPE compliance. The remote audio‐visual doffing surveillance (R...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | The International journal of health planning and management 2024-03, Vol.39 (2), p.530-540 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 540 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 530 |
| container_title | The International journal of health planning and management |
| container_volume | 39 |
| creator | Lazar, Michelle Shirin Ganesh, Venkata Naik B, Naveen Singh, Ajay Puri, G. D. Kaur, Sukhpal |
| description | Objectives
Literature states a higher self‐contamination rate among healthcare workers (HCWs) while doffing personal protective equipment (PPE). During the Covid‐19 pandemic, onsite trained observers were not always available to monitor PPE compliance. The remote audio‐visual doffing surveillance (RADS) system has the potential to overcome this limitation. We aimed to compare the efficacy of this real‐time RADS system against the onsite buddy system for monitoring the doffing of PPE.
Methods
This prospective, observational study was carried out at our tertiary care centre in northern India. 200 HCWs who cared for Covid‐19 patients in the intensive care units/operation theatres were included. Group A included HCWs who performed doffing with the help of an onsite trained observer and group B included HCWs who performed doffing with the RADS system. An independent observer noted the error at any step using the CDC doffing checklist, in both groups. An online questionnaire to analyse the level of satisfaction post‐doffing was also surveyed.
Results
The proportion of errors committed during doffing was significantly lower in group B compared to group A with a low relative risk of 0.34 (95% CI 0.22–0.51) (p |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1002/hpm.3754 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2909085969</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2933743768</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3104-832334e0d0f60893f27fd28d48fa819aee10710083f075d2cdd5262369db46ce3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kUtu1TAUhi0EopeCxAqQJSZMUvxIYptZdSm0UlEZANPINz6mrpI49eOizFgCu2E_rASnD5CQGJ3B-fz9R_4Rek7JESWEvb6cxyMumvoB2lCiVEVFQx-iDRG1qlrR8AP0JMYrQsqOqsfogEvacib5Bv08sdb1ul-wtzjA6BNgnY3zv77_2LuY9YDjEhOMeA8h5ohj0pPRwWA_RVfgXTZmuWeSx6OfXPIBp0vAxhf59HVVz-W1n4ptDiWiT24PGK6zm0eYEjY5rNz24svZ2xJMFZ5LCoyuf4OPJ-x3EcJeJ3djiCmb5Sl6ZPUQ4dndPESf35182p5W5xfvz7bH51XPKakryRnnNRBDbEuk4pYJa5g0tbRaUqUBKBHlCyW3RDSG9cY0rGW8VWZXtz3wQ_Tq1lvuvs4QUze62MMw6Al8jh1TRBHZqFYV9OU_6JXPoVy8UpyLmotW_hX2wccYwHZzcKMOS0dJt5bZlTK7tcyCvrgT5t0I5g94314Bqlvgmxtg-a-oO_344Ub4G7T0rVk</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2933743768</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Efficacy of remote audio‐visual system versus standard onsite buddy system to monitor the doffing of personal protective equipment during COVID‐19 pandemic: An observational study</title><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Lazar, Michelle Shirin ; Ganesh, Venkata ; Naik B, Naveen ; Singh, Ajay ; Puri, G. D. ; Kaur, Sukhpal</creator><creatorcontrib>Lazar, Michelle Shirin ; Ganesh, Venkata ; Naik B, Naveen ; Singh, Ajay ; Puri, G. D. ; Kaur, Sukhpal</creatorcontrib><description>Objectives
Literature states a higher self‐contamination rate among healthcare workers (HCWs) while doffing personal protective equipment (PPE). During the Covid‐19 pandemic, onsite trained observers were not always available to monitor PPE compliance. The remote audio‐visual doffing surveillance (RADS) system has the potential to overcome this limitation. We aimed to compare the efficacy of this real‐time RADS system against the onsite buddy system for monitoring the doffing of PPE.
Methods
This prospective, observational study was carried out at our tertiary care centre in northern India. 200 HCWs who cared for Covid‐19 patients in the intensive care units/operation theatres were included. Group A included HCWs who performed doffing with the help of an onsite trained observer and group B included HCWs who performed doffing with the RADS system. An independent observer noted the error at any step using the CDC doffing checklist, in both groups. An online questionnaire to analyse the level of satisfaction post‐doffing was also surveyed.
Results
The proportion of errors committed during doffing was significantly lower in group B compared to group A with a low relative risk of 0.34 (95% CI 0.22–0.51) (p < 0.001) (Figure 1A,B). In both groups, there was no difference in HCWs feedback regarding the ease of the system and fear of committing an error. Though the perceived quality of monitoring was felt better with onsite buddy, the overall confidence rating of being safe after doffing was better with the RADS system.
Conclusion
Real‐time RADS system may be more effective than the onsite buddy system for ensuring the safety of HCWs during doffing PPE. HCWs level of satisfaction related to the ease and anxiety with the monitoring systems were comparable. RADS system can reduce reliance on HCW resources and can integrate well into existing healthcare systems.
Highlights
Compares a novel system of remote surveillance (RADS) with the conventional standard doffing system.
Remote monitoring systems reduce breaches in biosafety with no difference in the subjective perception of ease and anxiety.
Reduce workload and exposure to occupational hazards.
Can be established easily with the existing infrastructure in a resource constraint healthcare facility.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0749-6753</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1099-1751</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/hpm.3754</identifier><identifier>PMID: 38163283</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Anxiety ; Biosafety ; Biosecurity ; Contamination ; COVID-19 ; Disease prevention ; doffing ; Effectiveness ; Efficacy ; Health care ; Health care facilities ; Health care industry ; Health facilities ; Hospitals ; Infrastructure ; Intensive care ; Intensive care units ; Medical personnel ; Monitoring systems ; Observation ; Observational studies ; Occupational exposure ; Occupational hazards ; Occupational health ; Onsite ; Pandemics ; Personal protective equipment ; PPE ; Protective equipment ; remote ; Remote monitoring ; Risk factors ; safety ; satisfaction ; Surveillance ; Surveillance systems ; system ; Telemedicine ; Visual system</subject><ispartof>The International journal of health planning and management, 2024-03, Vol.39 (2), p.530-540</ispartof><rights>2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3104-832334e0d0f60893f27fd28d48fa819aee10710083f075d2cdd5262369db46ce3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-3868-0473 ; 0000-0003-1526-5370 ; 0000-0001-8265-5198</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fhpm.3754$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fhpm.3754$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,30976,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38163283$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lazar, Michelle Shirin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ganesh, Venkata</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Naik B, Naveen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Singh, Ajay</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Puri, G. D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kaur, Sukhpal</creatorcontrib><title>Efficacy of remote audio‐visual system versus standard onsite buddy system to monitor the doffing of personal protective equipment during COVID‐19 pandemic: An observational study</title><title>The International journal of health planning and management</title><addtitle>Int J Health Plann Manage</addtitle><description>Objectives
Literature states a higher self‐contamination rate among healthcare workers (HCWs) while doffing personal protective equipment (PPE). During the Covid‐19 pandemic, onsite trained observers were not always available to monitor PPE compliance. The remote audio‐visual doffing surveillance (RADS) system has the potential to overcome this limitation. We aimed to compare the efficacy of this real‐time RADS system against the onsite buddy system for monitoring the doffing of PPE.
Methods
This prospective, observational study was carried out at our tertiary care centre in northern India. 200 HCWs who cared for Covid‐19 patients in the intensive care units/operation theatres were included. Group A included HCWs who performed doffing with the help of an onsite trained observer and group B included HCWs who performed doffing with the RADS system. An independent observer noted the error at any step using the CDC doffing checklist, in both groups. An online questionnaire to analyse the level of satisfaction post‐doffing was also surveyed.
Results
The proportion of errors committed during doffing was significantly lower in group B compared to group A with a low relative risk of 0.34 (95% CI 0.22–0.51) (p < 0.001) (Figure 1A,B). In both groups, there was no difference in HCWs feedback regarding the ease of the system and fear of committing an error. Though the perceived quality of monitoring was felt better with onsite buddy, the overall confidence rating of being safe after doffing was better with the RADS system.
Conclusion
Real‐time RADS system may be more effective than the onsite buddy system for ensuring the safety of HCWs during doffing PPE. HCWs level of satisfaction related to the ease and anxiety with the monitoring systems were comparable. RADS system can reduce reliance on HCW resources and can integrate well into existing healthcare systems.
Highlights
Compares a novel system of remote surveillance (RADS) with the conventional standard doffing system.
Remote monitoring systems reduce breaches in biosafety with no difference in the subjective perception of ease and anxiety.
Reduce workload and exposure to occupational hazards.
Can be established easily with the existing infrastructure in a resource constraint healthcare facility.</description><subject>Anxiety</subject><subject>Biosafety</subject><subject>Biosecurity</subject><subject>Contamination</subject><subject>COVID-19</subject><subject>Disease prevention</subject><subject>doffing</subject><subject>Effectiveness</subject><subject>Efficacy</subject><subject>Health care</subject><subject>Health care facilities</subject><subject>Health care industry</subject><subject>Health facilities</subject><subject>Hospitals</subject><subject>Infrastructure</subject><subject>Intensive care</subject><subject>Intensive care units</subject><subject>Medical personnel</subject><subject>Monitoring systems</subject><subject>Observation</subject><subject>Observational studies</subject><subject>Occupational exposure</subject><subject>Occupational hazards</subject><subject>Occupational health</subject><subject>Onsite</subject><subject>Pandemics</subject><subject>Personal protective equipment</subject><subject>PPE</subject><subject>Protective equipment</subject><subject>remote</subject><subject>Remote monitoring</subject><subject>Risk factors</subject><subject>safety</subject><subject>satisfaction</subject><subject>Surveillance</subject><subject>Surveillance systems</subject><subject>system</subject><subject>Telemedicine</subject><subject>Visual system</subject><issn>0749-6753</issn><issn>1099-1751</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kUtu1TAUhi0EopeCxAqQJSZMUvxIYptZdSm0UlEZANPINz6mrpI49eOizFgCu2E_rASnD5CQGJ3B-fz9R_4Rek7JESWEvb6cxyMumvoB2lCiVEVFQx-iDRG1qlrR8AP0JMYrQsqOqsfogEvacib5Bv08sdb1ul-wtzjA6BNgnY3zv77_2LuY9YDjEhOMeA8h5ohj0pPRwWA_RVfgXTZmuWeSx6OfXPIBp0vAxhf59HVVz-W1n4ptDiWiT24PGK6zm0eYEjY5rNz24svZ2xJMFZ5LCoyuf4OPJ-x3EcJeJ3djiCmb5Sl6ZPUQ4dndPESf35182p5W5xfvz7bH51XPKakryRnnNRBDbEuk4pYJa5g0tbRaUqUBKBHlCyW3RDSG9cY0rGW8VWZXtz3wQ_Tq1lvuvs4QUze62MMw6Al8jh1TRBHZqFYV9OU_6JXPoVy8UpyLmotW_hX2wccYwHZzcKMOS0dJt5bZlTK7tcyCvrgT5t0I5g94314Bqlvgmxtg-a-oO_344Ub4G7T0rVk</recordid><startdate>202403</startdate><enddate>202403</enddate><creator>Lazar, Michelle Shirin</creator><creator>Ganesh, Venkata</creator><creator>Naik B, Naveen</creator><creator>Singh, Ajay</creator><creator>Puri, G. D.</creator><creator>Kaur, Sukhpal</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3868-0473</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1526-5370</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8265-5198</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202403</creationdate><title>Efficacy of remote audio‐visual system versus standard onsite buddy system to monitor the doffing of personal protective equipment during COVID‐19 pandemic: An observational study</title><author>Lazar, Michelle Shirin ; Ganesh, Venkata ; Naik B, Naveen ; Singh, Ajay ; Puri, G. D. ; Kaur, Sukhpal</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3104-832334e0d0f60893f27fd28d48fa819aee10710083f075d2cdd5262369db46ce3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Anxiety</topic><topic>Biosafety</topic><topic>Biosecurity</topic><topic>Contamination</topic><topic>COVID-19</topic><topic>Disease prevention</topic><topic>doffing</topic><topic>Effectiveness</topic><topic>Efficacy</topic><topic>Health care</topic><topic>Health care facilities</topic><topic>Health care industry</topic><topic>Health facilities</topic><topic>Hospitals</topic><topic>Infrastructure</topic><topic>Intensive care</topic><topic>Intensive care units</topic><topic>Medical personnel</topic><topic>Monitoring systems</topic><topic>Observation</topic><topic>Observational studies</topic><topic>Occupational exposure</topic><topic>Occupational hazards</topic><topic>Occupational health</topic><topic>Onsite</topic><topic>Pandemics</topic><topic>Personal protective equipment</topic><topic>PPE</topic><topic>Protective equipment</topic><topic>remote</topic><topic>Remote monitoring</topic><topic>Risk factors</topic><topic>safety</topic><topic>satisfaction</topic><topic>Surveillance</topic><topic>Surveillance systems</topic><topic>system</topic><topic>Telemedicine</topic><topic>Visual system</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lazar, Michelle Shirin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ganesh, Venkata</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Naik B, Naveen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Singh, Ajay</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Puri, G. D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kaur, Sukhpal</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The International journal of health planning and management</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lazar, Michelle Shirin</au><au>Ganesh, Venkata</au><au>Naik B, Naveen</au><au>Singh, Ajay</au><au>Puri, G. D.</au><au>Kaur, Sukhpal</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Efficacy of remote audio‐visual system versus standard onsite buddy system to monitor the doffing of personal protective equipment during COVID‐19 pandemic: An observational study</atitle><jtitle>The International journal of health planning and management</jtitle><addtitle>Int J Health Plann Manage</addtitle><date>2024-03</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>39</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>530</spage><epage>540</epage><pages>530-540</pages><issn>0749-6753</issn><eissn>1099-1751</eissn><abstract>Objectives
Literature states a higher self‐contamination rate among healthcare workers (HCWs) while doffing personal protective equipment (PPE). During the Covid‐19 pandemic, onsite trained observers were not always available to monitor PPE compliance. The remote audio‐visual doffing surveillance (RADS) system has the potential to overcome this limitation. We aimed to compare the efficacy of this real‐time RADS system against the onsite buddy system for monitoring the doffing of PPE.
Methods
This prospective, observational study was carried out at our tertiary care centre in northern India. 200 HCWs who cared for Covid‐19 patients in the intensive care units/operation theatres were included. Group A included HCWs who performed doffing with the help of an onsite trained observer and group B included HCWs who performed doffing with the RADS system. An independent observer noted the error at any step using the CDC doffing checklist, in both groups. An online questionnaire to analyse the level of satisfaction post‐doffing was also surveyed.
Results
The proportion of errors committed during doffing was significantly lower in group B compared to group A with a low relative risk of 0.34 (95% CI 0.22–0.51) (p < 0.001) (Figure 1A,B). In both groups, there was no difference in HCWs feedback regarding the ease of the system and fear of committing an error. Though the perceived quality of monitoring was felt better with onsite buddy, the overall confidence rating of being safe after doffing was better with the RADS system.
Conclusion
Real‐time RADS system may be more effective than the onsite buddy system for ensuring the safety of HCWs during doffing PPE. HCWs level of satisfaction related to the ease and anxiety with the monitoring systems were comparable. RADS system can reduce reliance on HCW resources and can integrate well into existing healthcare systems.
Highlights
Compares a novel system of remote surveillance (RADS) with the conventional standard doffing system.
Remote monitoring systems reduce breaches in biosafety with no difference in the subjective perception of ease and anxiety.
Reduce workload and exposure to occupational hazards.
Can be established easily with the existing infrastructure in a resource constraint healthcare facility.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><pmid>38163283</pmid><doi>10.1002/hpm.3754</doi><tpages>11</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3868-0473</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1526-5370</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8265-5198</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0749-6753 |
| ispartof | The International journal of health planning and management, 2024-03, Vol.39 (2), p.530-540 |
| issn | 0749-6753 1099-1751 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2909085969 |
| source | Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
| subjects | Anxiety Biosafety Biosecurity Contamination COVID-19 Disease prevention doffing Effectiveness Efficacy Health care Health care facilities Health care industry Health facilities Hospitals Infrastructure Intensive care Intensive care units Medical personnel Monitoring systems Observation Observational studies Occupational exposure Occupational hazards Occupational health Onsite Pandemics Personal protective equipment PPE Protective equipment remote Remote monitoring Risk factors safety satisfaction Surveillance Surveillance systems system Telemedicine Visual system |
| title | Efficacy of remote audio‐visual system versus standard onsite buddy system to monitor the doffing of personal protective equipment during COVID‐19 pandemic: An observational study |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-28T13%3A57%3A39IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Efficacy%20of%20remote%20audio%E2%80%90visual%20system%20versus%20standard%20onsite%20buddy%20system%20to%20monitor%20the%20doffing%20of%20personal%20protective%20equipment%20during%20COVID%E2%80%9019%20pandemic:%20An%20observational%20study&rft.jtitle=The%20International%20journal%20of%20health%20planning%20and%20management&rft.au=Lazar,%20Michelle%20Shirin&rft.date=2024-03&rft.volume=39&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=530&rft.epage=540&rft.pages=530-540&rft.issn=0749-6753&rft.eissn=1099-1751&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/hpm.3754&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2933743768%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2933743768&rft_id=info:pmid/38163283&rfr_iscdi=true |