Personal Protective Equipment

Ebola virus disease presents a unique occupational health challenge to healthcare institutions, and Ebola readiness and response can drain al-ready-scarce infection prevention resources. This is reflected in a recent survey of infection preventionists at U.S. hospitals conducted by the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC) in which only 6 percent of healthcare institutions are well-prepared to receive a patient with the Ebola virus. Infection preventionists everywhere are hoping that the Ebola crisis can shed new light on the importance of a properly funded and resourced department.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has ordered $2.7 million in personal protective equipment (PPE) to increase Strategic National Stockpile (SNS) supplies to assist U.S. hospitals caring for Ebola patients. Products are being configured into 50 kits that can be rapidly delivered to hospitals. Each kit can provide the PPE needed by clinical teams to manage the care of one Ebola patient for up to five days.

In the days of home births, hot water and clean towels - gloves for use during patient exams began during the 1760s when physicians used obstetric gloves made from sheep intestines for vaginal exams in Germany. It wasn’t until the 1840s when Charles Goodyear patented his “vulcanized” rubber that surgical gloves became flexible enough to wear and in some iteration were used en mass by nurses at Johns Hopkins Hospital in the 1890s after surgeon Dr. William Halstead published his paper, “The Treatment of Wounds.”

A recent study has found that patients placed in contact precautions were twice as likely to report perceived problems with care compared to patients without contact precautions, placing the common infection control practice at odds with hospital interests. These patient complaints are often reflected in diminished scores on the HCAHPS (Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems) Survey, a standardized survey instrument and data collection methodology for measuring patients' perspectives on hospital care developed by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) along with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ).

When it comes to improving patient and healthcare safety, many factors are considered: time to treatment, antimicrobials and increased reporting standards to name a few. However, a small device the needleless connector for intravenous systems can have a big impact, particularly on protecting healthcare workers from needlestick injuries and in reducing bacterial contamination. There are numerous options for these devices, and there may be confusion on current guidelines, as well as protocols for appropriate disinfection and use. With all the variables and increasing time constraints, how can healthcare professionals such as critical care nurses and infection preventionists improve patient care and safety, as well as protect themselves? By understanding the differences between the device options, healthcare professionals can more easily tailor their patient care, improve adherence to clinical best practice and ensure their safety.

The Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act became Public Law 106-430 on November 6, 2000. In 2001, in response to the Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act, OSHA revised the Bloodborne Pathogens Standard (29 CFR 1910.1030) to contain language designed to prevent needlestick injuries to healthcare workers. In 2013 publications are still full of advice on preventing needlestick injuries for healthcare workers.