Assessing PPE donning and doffing competence in healthcare workers: A utility-based structured narrative review.

Thomas Bond, Yan Chen, Marcus Henning
{"title":"Assessing PPE donning and doffing competence in healthcare workers: A utility-based structured narrative review.","authors":"Thomas Bond, Yan Chen, Marcus Henning","doi":"10.1016/j.idh.2026.100617","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Healthcare workers remain at high risk of infection when performing personal protective equipment (PPE) donning and doffing, particularly when procedures are executed incorrectly. Despite their importance, assessment methods vary substantially, and few have been evaluated. This review synthesised and examined published hospital-based PPE assessment methods and evaluated their educational utility using van der Vleuten's framework, encompassing validity, reliability, educational impact, acceptability, and cost.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A structured narrative review was undertaken to capture heterogeneous study designs related to the topic area. Searches across CINAHL, PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar (February-April 2026) were conducted. Inclusion criteria consisted of empirical studies assessing donning and doffing performance among hospital-based healthcare workers (2014 - 2026). A best-fit framework approach was used to map each assessment method to van der Vleuten's utility framework.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-two studies met inclusion criteria, representing five assessment approaches: checklists (n = 15), video review (n = 6), fluorescent marker contamination (n = 7), MS2 bacteriophage (n = 1), and artificial intelligence-assisted (AI) assessment (n = 1). Checklist-based assessment demonstrated the strongest overall utility due to feasibility, low cost, and broad acceptability, though evidence for validity and reliability was limited. Fluorescent markers provided high educational impact through visible contamination feedback but had reduced ecological validity. Video review and bacteriophage methods showed moderate utility, while AI-assisted approaches offered emerging promise. Methodological inconsistencies across studies limited comparability.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>No single optimal method exists for assessing PPE competence in hospital settings. Checklists remain the most feasible option for routine infection-control practice but require stronger validation. Multimodal approaches incorporating real-time contamination-feedback tools may enhance educational impact and overall utility.</p>","PeriodicalId":94040,"journal":{"name":"Infection, disease & health","volume":"31 4","pages":"100617"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Infection, disease & health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idh.2026.100617","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Healthcare workers remain at high risk of infection when performing personal protective equipment (PPE) donning and doffing, particularly when procedures are executed incorrectly. Despite their importance, assessment methods vary substantially, and few have been evaluated. This review synthesised and examined published hospital-based PPE assessment methods and evaluated their educational utility using van der Vleuten's framework, encompassing validity, reliability, educational impact, acceptability, and cost.

Method: A structured narrative review was undertaken to capture heterogeneous study designs related to the topic area. Searches across CINAHL, PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar (February-April 2026) were conducted. Inclusion criteria consisted of empirical studies assessing donning and doffing performance among hospital-based healthcare workers (2014 - 2026). A best-fit framework approach was used to map each assessment method to van der Vleuten's utility framework.

Results: Twenty-two studies met inclusion criteria, representing five assessment approaches: checklists (n = 15), video review (n = 6), fluorescent marker contamination (n = 7), MS2 bacteriophage (n = 1), and artificial intelligence-assisted (AI) assessment (n = 1). Checklist-based assessment demonstrated the strongest overall utility due to feasibility, low cost, and broad acceptability, though evidence for validity and reliability was limited. Fluorescent markers provided high educational impact through visible contamination feedback but had reduced ecological validity. Video review and bacteriophage methods showed moderate utility, while AI-assisted approaches offered emerging promise. Methodological inconsistencies across studies limited comparability.

Conclusion: No single optimal method exists for assessing PPE competence in hospital settings. Checklists remain the most feasible option for routine infection-control practice but require stronger validation. Multimodal approaches incorporating real-time contamination-feedback tools may enhance educational impact and overall utility.

评估卫生保健工作者的个人防护装备穿戴能力:基于效用的结构化叙事回顾。
背景:卫生保健工作者在穿戴和脱下个人防护装备(PPE)时,特别是在程序执行不正确的情况下,仍然面临很高的感染风险。尽管评估方法很重要,但差异很大,很少有评估方法。本综述综合并检查了已发表的基于医院的PPE评估方法,并使用van der Vleuten的框架评估了其教育效用,包括有效性、可靠性、教育影响、可接受性和成本。方法:进行结构化的叙述性回顾,以捕获与主题领域相关的异质研究设计。检索了CINAHL、PubMed、Scopus和b谷歌Scholar(2026年2 - 4月)。纳入标准包括评估医院卫生保健工作者(2014 - 2026)穿戴和脱衣性能的实证研究。采用最佳拟合框架方法将每种评估方法映射到van der Vleuten的效用框架。结果:22项研究符合纳入标准,代表5种评估方法:检查表(n = 15)、视频回顾(n = 6)、荧光标记污染(n = 7)、MS2噬菌体(n = 1)和人工智能辅助(AI)评估(n = 1)。基于检查表的评估由于可行性、低成本和广泛的可接受性而显示出最强的整体效用,尽管有效性和可靠性的证据有限。荧光标记通过可见污染反馈提供了很高的教育影响,但降低了生态效度。视频审查和噬菌体方法显示出中等效用,而人工智能辅助方法提供了新的希望。研究方法的不一致性限制了可比性。结论:不存在评估医院环境中个人防护装备能力的单一最佳方法。检查清单仍然是常规感染控制实践中最可行的选择,但需要更有力的验证。结合实时污染反馈工具的多模式方法可以增强教育影响和整体效用。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书