The efficiency of precautions for pulmonary functions test laboratories during the COVID-19 pandemic: a real-life setting

H. Dirol, Halid Bal, O. Ozbudak
{"title":"The efficiency of precautions for pulmonary functions test laboratories during the COVID-19 pandemic: a real-life setting","authors":"H. Dirol, Halid Bal, O. Ozbudak","doi":"10.5604/01.3001.0015.9054","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Recommendations were developed for pulmonary function test (PFT) laboratories during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. However, it is unknown whether these recommendations are effective and safe. Aim of the study: To assess how effective and safe the recommendations for PFT laboratories were during the COVID-19 pandemic. Material and methods: This is a single-center, questionnaire-based study performed between June and August of 2020 at the Akdeniz University hospital. We performed the questionnaire over the phone with technicians from different centers in Turkey. We asked the age, gender, years on the job, routines performed during the pandemic, how many PFTs per day they performed, features of the test room, use of personnel protective equipment, whether they performed triage before the test, and the results of those who had a COVID polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test or a COVID antibody test. Results: A total of 74 technicians from 69 centers were included in the study. Of the centers, 67 (90.5%) were located in tertiary hospitals. At the beginning of the pandemic, 65 (94.2%) centers closed for an average of 2.15 months. The average number of tests performed per day was 14.41 ± 11.88. All centers triaged patients before performing the tests. In 19 (27.5%) centers, a transparent nylon separator was placed between the patient and the technician. Two (0.27 %) technicians tested positive for COVID using PCR testing. Among the 12 (16.2%) technicians screened for COVID-19 antibodies, none of them were found to have COVID-19 antibodies. Conclusion: The recommendations for PFT laboratories seemed to be effective and safe, and the adherence to these recommendations by the technicians was optimal.\n\n","PeriodicalId":32604,"journal":{"name":"Medical Science Pulse","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Science Pulse","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0015.9054","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: Recommendations were developed for pulmonary function test (PFT) laboratories during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. However, it is unknown whether these recommendations are effective and safe. Aim of the study: To assess how effective and safe the recommendations for PFT laboratories were during the COVID-19 pandemic. Material and methods: This is a single-center, questionnaire-based study performed between June and August of 2020 at the Akdeniz University hospital. We performed the questionnaire over the phone with technicians from different centers in Turkey. We asked the age, gender, years on the job, routines performed during the pandemic, how many PFTs per day they performed, features of the test room, use of personnel protective equipment, whether they performed triage before the test, and the results of those who had a COVID polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test or a COVID antibody test. Results: A total of 74 technicians from 69 centers were included in the study. Of the centers, 67 (90.5%) were located in tertiary hospitals. At the beginning of the pandemic, 65 (94.2%) centers closed for an average of 2.15 months. The average number of tests performed per day was 14.41 ± 11.88. All centers triaged patients before performing the tests. In 19 (27.5%) centers, a transparent nylon separator was placed between the patient and the technician. Two (0.27 %) technicians tested positive for COVID using PCR testing. Among the 12 (16.2%) technicians screened for COVID-19 antibodies, none of them were found to have COVID-19 antibodies. Conclusion: The recommendations for PFT laboratories seemed to be effective and safe, and the adherence to these recommendations by the technicians was optimal.
COVID-19大流行期间肺功能检测实验室预防措施的效率:现实环境
背景:在2019冠状病毒病(新冠肺炎)大流行期间,为肺功能测试(PFT)实验室制定了建议。然而,尚不清楚这些建议是否有效和安全。研究目的:评估在新冠肺炎大流行期间PFT实验室的建议的有效性和安全性。材料和方法:这是一项单中心、基于问卷的研究,于2020年6月至8月在阿克德尼兹大学医院进行。我们通过电话与土耳其不同中心的技术人员进行了问卷调查。我们询问了年龄、性别、工作年限、在疫情期间进行的常规检查、他们每天进行的PFT数量、检测室的特点、个人防护设备的使用、他们是否在检测前进行了分诊,以及接受新冠病毒聚合酶链反应(PCR)检测或新冠病毒抗体检测的人的结果。结果:共有来自69个中心的74名技术人员参与了这项研究。在这些中心中,67个(90.5%)位于三级医院。在疫情开始时,65个(94.2%)中心平均关闭2.15个月。平均每天进行的测试次数为14.41±11.88次。所有中心在进行测试前对患者进行了分流。在19个(27.5%)中心,在患者和技术人员之间放置了一个透明的尼龙分离器。两名(0.27%)技术人员通过PCR检测结果呈阳性。在接受新冠肺炎抗体筛查的12名(16.2%)技术人员中,没有发现他们有新冠肺炎抗体。结论:PFT实验室的建议似乎是有效和安全的,技术人员对这些建议的遵守是最佳的。
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
29
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信