search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
PE RSONAL PROT ECT IVE EQUIPMENT


Lessons learned from the ‘first wave’


As we enter a second phase of the pandemic, the lessons learned from managing the challenges of the ‘first wave’ will be crucial. Experts speaking at the Central Sterilising Club’s virtual study day shared their insights into strategies to manage shortages of PPE and important lessons learned on the building of field hospitals, to meet demand in a crisis.


Shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) hit the headlines during the height of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. As the crisis escalated, Trusts were forced to consider strategies around the potential reuse of single-use PPE. A recent virtual study day, by the Central Sterilising Club, looked at the evidence to support reuse of PPE, strategies for decontamination and reflected on some of the efforts Trusts have made to address staff fears around the transmission of the virus. Colin Brown, a consultant in infectious diseases and medical microbiology, from Public Health England and the Royal Free Hospital NHS Trust, gave an overview of ‘PPE guidance’, ‘what went well’ and ‘what lessons were learnt’, during the first wave. Brown explained that he had been actively involved in developing clinical guidance, since January 2020. During the early stages of the pandemic, the infection prevention and control (IP&C) guidance around PPE was based on the assertion that it was a high consequence infectious disease. However, as experience and knowledge of the disease developed, the guidance changed in April 2020. Brown commented that most of the pandemic plans had initially been for influenza, but it became clear there was a need for more dedicated and specific COVID plans, taking into consideration the risk of asymptomatic carriage and transmission within closed environments. The guidance was changed in line with awareness of generalised transmission in the community and highlighted the need to wear PPE in health and social care, for each patient encounter, regardless of whether the individual presented with symptoms. This rapidly increased the amount of PPE that was used and led to a stressor on the stockpile – prompting the publication of


JANUARY 2021


a rationale document, by the Government, on ‘considerations for acute PPE shortages’, which looked at the reuse of PPE, other types of PPE that might be used, and whether other single-use equipment could also be reused.


Brown explained that the evidence base, at this time was very limited, so the guidance relied heavily on expert opinion and was developed in close collaboration with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), in order to formulate decisions on what would be practical and safe. The resulting PHE guidance document on IP&C had over 1.5 million views online, while a guidance document on considerations for acute PPE shortages had nearly 100,000. “It was clear that there was a lot of interest in the guidance and what it had to say. There was a paradigm shift in IP&C practice. Although the notion of reuse of PPE


goes against what we have been taught and usual practice, that is not say that it isn’t safe or cannot be looked into,” he commented. In June 2020, Elaine Toomey and Yvonne Conway et al, published a rapid evidence review for ‘extended use or reuse of single-use surgical masks and filtering facepiece respirators’ (Centre for Evidence- Based Medicine).1


The main findings of the review were:


1 While extended use or re-use of single- use surgical masks or respirators (with or without reprocessing) is generally not recommended, guidance from various organisations supports such measures (preferably extended use rather than re-use) as a last-resort measure during critical shortage.


2 Comparisons across guidance documents and systematic reviews highlight limited evidence, varying levels of detail, and


WWW.CLINICALSERVICESJOURNAL.COM l 19





2020 Evelien Doosje


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80