Self-Contamination Risk and Failure Modes During High-Level PPE Doffing: A Comparison of Two Powered Air Purifying Respirator (PAPR) Hoods: A Pilot Study.

IF 3.8 3区医学 Q2 INFECTIOUS DISEASES

American journal of infection control Pub Date : 2025-01-09 DOI:10.1016/j.ajic.2025.01.002

Kimberly Erukunuakpor, Jill Morgan, Colleen S Kraft, David Grimm, Alexandra Nguyen, Joel M Mumma, Lisa M Casanova

{"title":"Self-Contamination Risk and Failure Modes During High-Level PPE Doffing: A Comparison of Two Powered Air Purifying Respirator (PAPR) Hoods: A Pilot Study.","authors":"Kimberly Erukunuakpor, Jill Morgan, Colleen S Kraft, David Grimm, Alexandra Nguyen, Joel M Mumma, Lisa M Casanova","doi":"10.1016/j.ajic.2025.01.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Personal protective equipment (PPE) doffing protocols can reduce risks of pathogen self-contamination. Powered air purifying respirators (PAPRs) may increase these risks. This study compares viral contamination and errors during simulated doffing of single layer vs double layer hood PAPRs.Methods: Eight participants performed two simulations (video recorded for failure modes and effects analysis): one single-layer hood (laid over Tyvek suit), and one double-layer hood (top laid over and bottom tucked into suit). Hoods were contaminated with viruses. After doffing, inner gloves, face, hands, and scrubs were sampled.Results: Virus contaminated least one site in 6/8 single and 5/8 double layer simulations. Virus contaminated inner gloves in single (six participants, median 5.42×104 PFU) and double-layer (two participants, median 7.23×102 PFU) simulations, and hands of two participants in single-layer simulations. Single layer doffing had 13 failure modes; double had 31.Discussion: Double-layer doffing reduced inner glove contamination. The double-layer protocol may reduce glove-face shield contact but allow more opportunities for error. Double-layer doffing errors may less frequently lead to contamination than single-layer.Conclusions: Contamination and failure modes may differ between double and single-layer doffing. Although inner glove contamination was reduced, double-layer doffing may need redesign to reduce failure modes and contamination.","PeriodicalId":7621,"journal":{"name":"American journal of infection control","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of infection control","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2025.01.002","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Personal protective equipment (PPE) doffing protocols can reduce risks of pathogen self-contamination. Powered air purifying respirators (PAPRs) may increase these risks. This study compares viral contamination and errors during simulated doffing of single layer vs double layer hood PAPRs.

Methods: Eight participants performed two simulations (video recorded for failure modes and effects analysis): one single-layer hood (laid over Tyvek suit), and one double-layer hood (top laid over and bottom tucked into suit). Hoods were contaminated with viruses. After doffing, inner gloves, face, hands, and scrubs were sampled.

Results: Virus contaminated least one site in 6/8 single and 5/8 double layer simulations. Virus contaminated inner gloves in single (six participants, median 5.42×10⁴ PFU) and double-layer (two participants, median 7.23×10² PFU) simulations, and hands of two participants in single-layer simulations. Single layer doffing had 13 failure modes; double had 31.

Discussion: Double-layer doffing reduced inner glove contamination. The double-layer protocol may reduce glove-face shield contact but allow more opportunities for error. Double-layer doffing errors may less frequently lead to contamination than single-layer.

Conclusions: Contamination and failure modes may differ between double and single-layer doffing. Although inner glove contamination was reduced, double-layer doffing may need redesign to reduce failure modes and contamination.

查看原文本刊更多论文

高水平个人防护装备降落过程中的自污染风险和失效模式：两种动力空气净化呼吸器（PAPR）罩的比较：一项试点研究。

背景：个人防护装备（PPE）脱布方案可以降低病原体自我污染的风险。电动空气净化呼吸器（papr）可能会增加这些风险。本研究比较了单层和双层遮光罩模拟落纱过程中的病毒污染和误差。方法：8名参与者进行了两次模拟（记录故障模式和影响分析的视频）：一个单层兜帽（铺在Tyvek防护服上），一个双层兜帽（顶部铺在防护服上，底部塞进防护服）。头罩被病毒污染了。落纱后，对内手套、面部、手部和磨砂取样。结果：在6/8次单层模拟和5/8次双层模拟中，病毒至少污染了一个位点。单层模拟（6名参与者，中位数5.42×104 PFU）和双层模拟（2名参与者，中位数7.23×102 PFU）中病毒污染的内手套，以及单层模拟中2名参与者的手。单层落纱有13种破坏模式；Double有31个。讨论：双层落纱减少手套内污染。双层协议可能会减少手套和面罩的接触，但会增加出错的机会。双层落纱误差比单层落纱误差更少导致污染。结论：双层和单层落纱的污染和失效模式可能不同。虽然手套内部污染减少了，但双层落纱可能需要重新设计，以减少失效模式和污染。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

American journal of infection control 医学-传染病学

CiteScore

7.40

自引率

4.10%

发文量

479

审稿时长

24 days

期刊介绍： AJIC covers key topics and issues in infection control and epidemiology. Infection control professionals, including physicians, nurses, and epidemiologists, rely on AJIC for peer-reviewed articles covering clinical topics as well as original research. As the official publication of the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC)