Abstract
Objectives To evaluate PPE-preparedness across intensive care units (ICUs) in 6 Asia-Pacific countries. PPE-preparedness was defined as the adherence to guidelines, training HCWs, procuring PPE stocks and responding appropriately to a suspected case (transportation and admission to hospital).
Design Cross-sectional web-based survey.
Setting ICUs in Australia, New Zealand (NZ), Singapore, Hong Kong (HK), India and Philippines with a 24/7 Emergency/Casualty Department, and capable of mechanically ventilating patients for >24 hours.
Interventions Questionnaire sent to intensivists in 633 Level ll/lll ICUs in 6 Asia-Pacific countries by email, WhatsApp™ and text messaging.
Main outcome measures 263 intensivists responded, of whom 231 were eligible for analysis. Response rates were 68%-100% in all countries except India, where it was 24%. 97% either conformed to or exceeded WHO recommendations for PPE-practice. 59% employed airborne precautions irrespective of aerosol-generation-procedures. There were variations in negative-pressure room use (highest in HK/Singapore), training (best in NZ), and PPE stock-awareness (best in HK/Singapore/NZ). High-flow-nasal-oxygenation and non-invasive ventilation were not options in most HK (66.7%, 83.3% respectively) and Singapore ICUs (50%, 80% respectively), but were considered in other countries to a greater extent. 38% reported not having specialized airway teams. Showering and “buddy-systems” were underutilized. Clinical waste disposal training was suboptimal (38%).
Conclusions Most intensivists from six Asia-Pacific countries appeared to be aware of the WHO PPE-guidelines by either conforming to/exceeding the recommendations. Despite this, there were widespread variabilities across ICUs and countries in several domains, particularly related to PPE-training and preparedness. Standardising PPE guidelines may translate to better training, better compliance and policies that improve HCW safety. Adopting low-cost approaches such as buddy-systems should be encouraged. More importantly, better pandemic preparedness and building systems with deeply embedded culture of safety is essential to ensure the safety and well-being of HCWs during such pandemics.
What is already known on this topic
Personal-protective equipment (PPE) is the cornerstone to preventing HCW- infections. A search was done on March 23, 2020 on PubMed, Embase or Google Scholar using the mesh terms “personal protective equipment”, “PPE”, “preparedness OR practice OR training”. It revealed no previous studies on PPE preparedness in intensive care units (ICUs). No filters were used for the search.
Several guidelines/recommendations issued by health organisations on PPE practice exist
What are the new findings
As the first study to evaluate PPE-preparedness in ICUs, it demonstrated major concerns on PPE-preparedness across several ICUs, particularly in Australia, India and Philippines. There was suboptimal PPE-training, under-utilisation of low-cost interventions such as buddy-systems/team-training, and stock-awareness.
The guidelines by health organisations on PPE practice have several conflicting recommendations.
How might it impact on clinical practice in the foreseeable future
Standardising PPE guidelines by health organisations may translate to better training, better compliance and policies that improve HCW safety.
To ensure the safety and well-being of HCWs, urgent measures are needed to improve PPE-preparedness and building systems with deeply embedded culture of safety. By helping ICUs evaluate and improve their current state of PPE preparedness, the study may help prevent healthcare worker infections and save lives.
Main Manuscript
Introduction
The Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has caused an unprecedented rise in the number of hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) admissions worldwide. Between 5-32% of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) patients may require critical care support.[1,2] Asia-Pacific countries are preparing for an anticipated surge in ICU admissions.[1,3,4] Due to its high transmissibility,[5] ICU healthcare workers (HCWs) are at particular risk of infection.[6]
Adequate preparedness with personal-protective equipment (PPE) is the cornerstone to preventing HCW-infections.[7,8] PPE-preparedness for pandemics was defined as the adherence to guidelines, training HCWs, procuring PPE stocks and responding appropriately to a suspected case (transportation and admission to hospital).[9] Suboptimal PPE-preparedness may cause PPE breaches, thereby exposing HCWs to SARS-CoV-2 infection.[10] Reports in India and Australia suggest a rising rate of HCW infections despite a low overall caseload,[11,12] raising concerns about the effectiveness of PPE practice and stocks.[13,14] Moreover, there are conflicting recommendations from international, national, and regional organisations.[5,15] For example, the World Health Organisation (WHO) recommends a tiered approach of using droplet precautions for non-aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs), and using airborne precautions only for AGPs. However, the Australia-New Zealand Intensive Care Society (ANZICS)[15] recommends that ICU-HCWs must routinely use airborne precautions, irrespective of the AGP-risk. HCW-infection rates vary between countries,[16,17] with reports suggesting a lower incidence with advanced PPE measures and good PPE-practice bundles.[18-20]
While HCWs deserve the highest level of PPE-protection, inappropriate PPE usage driven by anxiety rather than clinical requirements, may deplete already scarce stocks. PPE availability must be accompanied by rigorous training systems in every ICU.[21-27] Since there is no literature on PPE-preparedness for the COVID-19 pandemic, we conducted a multinational cross-sectional survey of intensivists in 6 Asia-Pacific countries to comprehensively evaluate PPE-preparedness and compliance with WHO PPE-recommendations.
Methods
Study Design
Cross-sectional web-based survey of intensivists to evaluate PPE-preparedness in Asia-Pacific ICUs. The survey remained open for completion between 25/03/2020 and 06/04/2020.
Development of the survey
Established standards and guidelines were utilized to design and validate the survey prior to dissemination.[28,29] The broad research topic (PPE-preparedness in Asia-Pacific ICUs) and the questionnaire were developed after several rounds of consensus-building process between intensive care and infectious diseases specialists, based on data from the EuroNHID project.[7] Since it was a multinational survey, the WHO recommendations9 were chosen as the reference standard to evaluate PPE-preparedness in each country. After a process of item-generation and item-reduction, the questionnaire was piloted using 6 intensivists to evaluate completeness and clarity, and then administered to 12 intensivists from participating countries to assess its ability to discriminate among responses, ease of use and content validity (Table 1).
Participant population and distribution of the survey
Following ethical approval (approval number 2020/ETH00705) from local Human Research Ethics Committee, the survey weblink was distributed by email, text message and WhatsApp™ to qualified intensivists in Australia, New Zealand (NZ), Singapore, Hong Kong (HK), India and Philippines. The target participants were intensivists from hospitals with a 24/7 Emergency/Casualty Department, having an ICU capable of supporting mechanically ventilated patients for >24 hours.[30,31] Two reminders were sent 3 days apart. One response per ICU was allowed. If multiple responses per site were received, the first response was chosen. Participation was voluntary, with no incentives offered, financial or otherwise.
Results
The survey was administered to 633 intensivists from Australia (n=99), NZ (n=14), HK (n=13), Singapore (n=6), India (n=481) and Philippines (n=20). The response rate was 100% in NZ and Singapore, 92.3% in HK (12/13), 69% (68/99) in Australia, 80% in Philippines (16/20) and 24% in India (115/481). Overall, 263/633 intensivists responded (42%). After exclusion of duplicates and responses from ineligible institutions, 231 (37%) valid responses were included in the final analysis (CONSORT diagram, Figure 1). Except in Philippines, responses in each country had wide geographical spread across states/territories/regions.
PPE-training (Table 2 and Table 3)
Regular team-training on tracheal intubation was provided in 79% NZ ICUs, 59% in Australia, 50% in Singapore, and 19%-33% in the other countries. Overall, 66% reported establishing special intubation teams of senior anaesthetists (4%), senior intensivists (10%), or a combination of both (52%), ranging from 33% in Singapore to 93% in NZ.
Regular training in donning/doffing was provided in all NZ ICUs, 79% in Australia, 75% in HK, 67% in Singapore, 62% in Philippines and 42% in India. Regular training for intra-hospital transport of COVID-19 patients ranged between 8% (HK) to 50% (NZ). Regular training on waste disposal for ICU cleaners ranged between 33% (HK/Singapore) and 56% (Philippines).
PPE Practice (i.e., choice of equipment) - Table 2, Figure 2 and sFigure 1
224/231 (97%) either conformed to/exceeded the WHO recommendations. 3% did not report wearing masks. 38% conformed to the WHO recommendations of using medical masks for non-AGPs (“droplet precautions”) and limiting N95/P2 masks (i.e., airborne precautions) to AGPs alone. 59% used airborne precautions routinely, irrespective of AGP risk (range 48% in Australia to 92% in HK) (Figure 2).
Only 6% used personal-air-purifying-respirators (PAPR), except in Singapore where half the ICUs used PAPR for AGPs. 35% ICUs used full body suits, with variations between countries – not used in NZ to 94% in Philippines.
sFigure 1 summarizes the use of head-covers/caps (71%), shoe-covers (45%), neck- covers (37%), hospital scrubs (58%) and impervious gowns (58%). Showering/shampooing hair were routine practice in 60% ICUs, typically after the shift (46%), and/or after PPE breach (15%) (Table 1).
27% ICUs performed N95/P2-mask fit-testing with quantitative/qualitative methods. There was wide inter-country variability, from 100% (HK, Singapore), 64% (NZ) to 11%-44% in the others.
Observers to monitor/checking on colleagues while donning/doffing PPE (“buddy- system”)[32] was mandatory practice in 64% in NZ ICUs, 51% in Australia and 50% in Singapore, and less common in other countries, ranging between 16%-31%.
Disposition of COVID-19 patients in the ICU and modes of oxygen-therapy for non-intubated patients
There were variations on where the different ICUs countries managed COVID-19 patients (Table 3). Respondents from 37% ICUs (especially in HK and Singapore) stated using negative-pressure rooms exclusively. Overall, 58% were prepared to use non-negative-pressure rooms if necessary (i.e. neutral-pressure single rooms, dedicated/cohorted COVID-19 area). Only 1 respondent each from HK and Singapore reported using non-negative-pressure rooms.
Low-flow oxygen-therapy, high-flow nasal oxygenation (HFNO) and non-invasive ventilation (NIV) were reported as “not an option in COVID-19 patients” by 14%, 26% and 45% respondents respectively, particularly in Singapore and HK, where 80% avoided NIV, and 50% and 67% avoided HFNO respectively (Figure 3). Other respondents were prepared to use low-flow oxygen (39%), HFNO (45%) and NIV (34%) for patients in negative-pressure rooms or dedicated/cohorted areas.
Other aspects
Awareness of institutional PPE stocks being adequate to manage three COVID-19 patients for 1 week ranged from 41% (Australia) to 92% (HK) (Table 2).
Overall, 70% of respondents curbed family visits to the ICU (Table 2). Family communications were either by phone or videoconferencing. NZ, HK and Singapore ICUs all had reduced visiting rights, compared with 12-28% in other countries where policies were unchanged.
Overall, 28% of respondents reported feeling safe, many of them in NZ, Singapore and HK. 29% felt unsafe, and the remainder were neutral. Between 64%-83% of Singaporean, HK and NZ intensivists expressed confidence in their PPE-preparedness, while most intensivists in Australia, India and Philippines felt that their PPE-preparedness were suboptimal (sTable
Discussion
Statement of principal findings
To our knowledge, this multinational survey is the first to systematically evaluate ICU PPE- preparedness for the COVID-19 pandemic. Although the overwhelming majority of ICUs conformed to the WHO recommendations for PPE-usage, there were marked variations in the level of PPE-preparedness. ICUs in NZ, HK and Singapore appeared to have the most well-developed systems, training and/or practice compared to ICUs across Australia, India and Philippines, which had inconsistent systems. There were variations between countries in every aspect of PPE-preparedness namely, PPE-training, PPE stock-awareness, negative-pressure room use, use of HFNO/NIV for non-intubated patients, “buddy-systems”, team-training exercises and showering practices.
Variations in PPE-training
The most important and immediately remediable concern identified was the suboptimal training for ICU-HCWs, which may lead to suboptimal PPE-practice. Although regular training on PPE donning and doffing was offered in most ICUs, training for other aerosol-generating activities was inconsistent in all countries, with NZ being better than the others. Such ICUs may aim to emulate the PPE-training reported by NZ respondents, and immediately initiate training sessions on N95/P2 mask fit-testing, donning/doffing PPE, AGP-minimisation strategies, specialised intubation teams, transport, cleaning/waste disposal, and low-cost but effective mechanisms such as buddy-systems. These will improve safety and team-bonding.[8,26,32]
Disposition of COVID-19 patients in the ICU and Modes of Oxygen-Therapy for Non-Intubated Patients
Compared to other countries, more intensivists from HK and Singapore reported that they would exclusively use negative-pressure rooms to manage COVID-19 patients. This may reflect the increased availability of such rooms in their ICUs, in turn demonstrating better pandemic-preparedness following the SARS-CoV-1 pandemic. Despite this, respondents from these 2 countries commonly avoided using HFNO and NIV, while intensivists in other countries used them more commonly. The use of HFNO and NIV in negative-pressure rooms or cohorted areas is recommended by several PPE guidelines, provided HCWs employ PPE with airborne-precautions.[15,33] Inappropriate avoidance of these therapies may result in unnecessary intubation or palliation of patients, hence needs reconsideration.
Variations in PPE-practice across countries; Potential effects of conflicting PPE-recommendations
The variations in ICU PPE-practice across the countries surveyed may partly be due to the startling multitude of international, national, regional, local/institutional and even departmental PPE guidelines, sometimes making contradictory recommendations (sTable 1). For instance, when managing COVID-19 patients, one-third of respondents followed the WHO “Rational Use of PPE” recommendations[5] of reserving airborne precautions (i.e., N95/P2 masks) exclusively for AGPs, while 60% were in line with the ANZICS recommendations of routinely using N95/P2 masks, irrespective of AGPs. There were variations between and within countries, with airborne precautions being more common in HK and Singapore. There is pre-COVID-19 evidence that routine airborne precautions may be more protective than targeted airborne-precautions.[19,20,34] However, the optimal strategy to strike a balance between conserving N95/P2 masks and ensuring ICU-HCW safety is unclear. Regardless, since conflicting PPE-recommendations have the potential to cause confusion and errors, [35] health administrators in a region/state/country must ensure a clear and consistent guideline across their jurisdiction to promote consistency in training/practice and build staff confidence. Health advisory organisations may attempt to unify their PPE recommendations to minimise practice-variation.
Other aspects
It is concerning that many intensivists were unaware of their PPE stock adequacy. This demands urgent attention. Administrators may consider implementing innovative solutions to keep track of each hospital’s current and future PPE stock, as has been done in Australia/NZ.[36]
Our survey found that very few respondents reported using neck and shoe covers. Also, most PPE-guidelines do not incorporate these in their recommendations. As the soles of HCWs’ shoes might function as carriers in spreading the virus, ICU-HCWs may consider stricter protective measures (e.g., caps, shoe and neck covers).[37]
Regarding family visitation, almost one-third of ICUs reported unchanged practices, which may potentially deplete PPE stocks, but also expose family members to infection.[37] As employed by NZ, HK and Singapore ICUs, phone or video-conferencing communication solutions may be suitable alternatives.
Finally, it was clear that good PPE-preparedness resulted in better perceptions of ICU-HCW safety. More intensivists from ICUs with homogeneous PPE-practices (HK, Singapore and NZ) felt safer, compared to intensivists from the other countries.
Strengths and weaknesses
The strengths of this survey included a robust process to develop the questionnaire. Responses were limited to one intensivist/ICU; non-medical respondents were excluded to keep the respondents homogeneous. Both well-resourced and less-resourced countries were included. Even in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, the response rate in all countries was high, except India, where responses were obtained widely from 23/27 states.
Our study has several limitations. Inherent to any survey, the submissions were self-declared statements without independent corroboration. Given the rapid evolution of PPE-preparedness, it is possible that the issues identified during the survey have already been addressed. The random selection of participants, coupled with the exclusion of non-medical HCWs, may induce reporting bias. The survey did not evaluate other AGPs like prone positioning, cardiac arrest, tracheostomy and bronchoscopies, partly due to unresolved ethical dilemmas (cardiac arrest) and partly to ensure feasibility of completion. The choice of the broad and pragmatic WHO guideline over ICU-specific guidelines (ANZICS) as the reference standard for ICU PPE practice is questionable but was done since it is more applicable to a multinational setting and does have a section on PPE for AGPs. Finally, despite the wide geographical spread of respondents, the low response rate in India and the small number of Philippines ICUs may limit the applicability of the results in those countries.
Unanswered questions and future research
Although the link between PPE-preparedness and ICU-HCW infections is plausible, the association/causal link may be better evaluated using case-control or retrospective cohort studies to compare HCW-infection rates between countries with variable training/practices. A follow-up survey may help evaluate any changes in PPE-practice/training in the ICUs that were surveyed.
Meaning of the study
The survey identified several deficiencies in PPE-preparedness across Asia-Pacific ICUs that demand the urgent attention of administrators and policymakers to institute corrective steps to ensure HCW safety.
Conclusions
The survey found that most intensivists from six Asia-Pacific countries showed good awareness of the WHO PPE-guidelines by either conforming to/exceeding the recommendations. Despite this, there were widespread variabilities across ICUs and countries in several domains, particularly related to PPE-training and preparedness. Standardising PPE guidelines may translate to better training, better compliance and policies that improve HCW safety. Adopting low-cost approaches such as buddy-systems should be encouraged. More importantly, better pandemic preparedness and building systems with deeply embedded culture of safety is essential to ensure the safety and well-being of HCWs during such pandemics.
Data Availability
Data available on request by email
Competing interest (conflict of interest)
All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. No funding received.
Author Contributions
Listed in Title Page
Copyright/license for publication
The Corresponding Author has the right to grant on behalf of all authors and does grant on behalf of all authors, a worldwide license to the Publishers and its licensees in perpetuity, in all forms, formats and media (whether known now or created in the future), to i) publish, reproduce, distribute, display and store the Contribution, ii) translate the Contribution into other languages, create adaptations, reprints, include within collections and create summaries, extracts and/or, abstracts of the Contribution, iii) create any other derivative work(s) based on the Contribution, iv) to exploit all subsidiary rights in the Contribution, v) the inclusion of electronic links from the Contribution to third party material where—ever it may be located; and, vi) license any third party to do any or all of the above.
Transparency Declaration
The lead author and the manuscript’s guarantor, Dr Arvind Rajamani, affirms that the manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study being reported; that no important aspects of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as originally planned (and, if relevant, registered) have been explained.
Funding source – Nil
Patient and Public Involvement
Patients or the public WERE NOT involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of our research
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Dr Adam Howard, Intensivist, Royal Perth Hospital, Western Australia, Dr Ross Freebairn, Intensivist, Hawkes Bay Hospital, New Zealand and Dr Paul Young, Wellington Hospital, New Zealand for their valuable inputs. Dr Shekar acknowledges research support from Metro North Hospital and Health Service. Dr Haji would like to acknowledge Dr. Prashant Kumar Editor ‘Critical Care WA articles’ HOD Critical Care, KHNI, Delhi - NCR for his help with the distribution of the survey in India.
Footnotes
Funding - no funding received
Competing interests - No competing interests.