Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Frontline healthcare workers’ experiences with personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: a rapid qualitative appraisal

View ORCID ProfileKatarina Hoernke, View ORCID ProfileNehla Djellouli, View ORCID ProfileLily Jay Andrews, View ORCID ProfileSasha Lewis-Jackson, View ORCID ProfileLouisa Manby, View ORCID ProfileSam Martin, View ORCID ProfileSamantha Vanderslott, View ORCID ProfileCecilia Vindrola-Padros
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.12.20211482
Katarina Hoernke
1UCL Institute for Global Health; 30 Guilford St, London, WC1 NEH; MSc Student
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Katarina Hoernke
  • For correspondence: katarina.hoernke.19@ucl.ac.uk
Nehla Djellouli
2UCL Institute for Global Health and Rapid Research Evaluation and Appraisal Lab (RREAL); 30 Guilford St London WC1 NEH; Research Fellow
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Nehla Djellouli
Lily Jay Andrews
3UCL Institute of Epidemiology and Healthcare; 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 7HB; MSc Student
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Lily Jay Andrews
Sasha Lewis-Jackson
4UCL Department of Anthropology; 14 Taviton Street London WC1H 0BW; MSc Student
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Sasha Lewis-Jackson
Louisa Manby
3UCL Institute of Epidemiology and Healthcare; 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 7HB; MSc Student
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Louisa Manby
Sam Martin
5Oxford Vaccine Group, Churchill Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7LE; University Research Lecturer
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Sam Martin
Samantha Vanderslott
5Oxford Vaccine Group, Churchill Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7LE; University Research Lecturer
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Samantha Vanderslott
Cecilia Vindrola-Padros
6Department of Targeted Intervention and Rapid Research Evaluation and Appraisal Lab (RREAL); London, W1W 7TY; Senior Research Fellow
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Cecilia Vindrola-Padros
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Objectives To report frontline healthcare workers’ (HCWs) experiences with personal protective equipment (PPE) during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. To understand HCWs’ fears and concerns surrounding PPE, their experiences following its guidance and how these affected their perceived ability to deliver care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods A rapid qualitative appraisal study combining three sources of data: semi-structured in-depth telephone interviews with frontline HCWs (n=46), media reports (n=39 newspaper articles and 145,000 social media posts) and government PPE policies (n=25). HCWs interviewed were from secondary care, primary care and specialist community clinics. Media and policy data were from across the UK.

Results A major concern was running out of PPE, putting HCWs and patients at risk of infection. Following national-level guidance was often not feasible when there were shortages, leading to re-use and improvisation of PPE. Frequently changing guidelines generated confusion and distrust. PPE was reserved for high-risk secondary care settings and this translated into HCWs outside these settings feeling inadequately protected. Participants were concerned about inequitable access to PPE for community, lower seniority, female and ethnic minority HCWs. Participants continued delivering care despite the physical discomfort, practical problems and communication barriers associated with PPE use.

Conclusion This study found that frontline HCWs persisted in caring for their patients despite multiple challenges including inappropriate provision of PPE, inadequate training and inconsistent guidance. In order to effectively care for patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, frontline HCWs need appropriate provision of PPE, training in its use, as well as comprehensive and consistent guidance. These needs must be addressed in order to protect the health and well-being of the most valuable healthcare resource in the COVID-19 pandemic: our HCWs.

What is already known?

What is already known?

  • – PPE is an important component of infection prevention and control to protect HCWs delivering care on the frontline of an infectious disease outbreak.

  • – Frontline HCWs have reported challenges delivering care in PPE during the COVID-19 pandemic.

  • – Research understanding how HCWs responded to these challenges are lacking.

What are the new findings?

What are the new findings?

  • – HCWs faced multiple challenges delivering care including inadequate provision of PPE, inconsistent guidance and lack of training in its use.

  • – HCWs persisted delivering care despite the negative physical effects, practical problems, lack of protected time for breaks and communication barriers associated with wearing PPE.

  • – In the face of training, guidance and procurement gaps, HCWs improvised by developing their own informal communication channels to share information, they trained each other and bought their own PPE.

  • – HCWs reported inequalities accessing PPE based on the healthcare sector, gender, level of seniority and ethnicity.

What do the new findings imply?

What do the new findings imply?

  • – To feel safe and confident caring for patients, frontline HCWs need to be provided with appropriate size, quality and level of PPE, as well as training in its use.

  • – PPE guidance should be consistent, clearly communicated, and reflect the most up-to-date evidence-base for the safest level of PPE.

  • – Regular breaks for staff working in full PPE should be prioritised even in contexts of understaffing and PPE shortages as these are key aspects of well-being.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

This study received no external funding.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

This study was approved by the Health Research Authority (HRA) and Health and Care Research Wales (HCRW) and the R&D offices of the hospitals where the study took place. IRAS project ID: 282069

All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

Data Availability

Raw data in the form of interview quotes has been shared and the interview topic guide has been shared.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted October 14, 2020.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Frontline healthcare workers’ experiences with personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: a rapid qualitative appraisal
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Frontline healthcare workers’ experiences with personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: a rapid qualitative appraisal
Katarina Hoernke, Nehla Djellouli, Lily Jay Andrews, Sasha Lewis-Jackson, Louisa Manby, Sam Martin, Samantha Vanderslott, Cecilia Vindrola-Padros
medRxiv 2020.10.12.20211482; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.12.20211482
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Frontline healthcare workers’ experiences with personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: a rapid qualitative appraisal
Katarina Hoernke, Nehla Djellouli, Lily Jay Andrews, Sasha Lewis-Jackson, Louisa Manby, Sam Martin, Samantha Vanderslott, Cecilia Vindrola-Padros
medRxiv 2020.10.12.20211482; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.12.20211482

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Public and Global Health
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (70)
  • Allergy and Immunology (168)
  • Anesthesia (51)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (453)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (83)
  • Dermatology (55)
  • Emergency Medicine (158)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (191)
  • Epidemiology (5275)
  • Forensic Medicine (3)
  • Gastroenterology (197)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (759)
  • Geriatric Medicine (80)
  • Health Economics (213)
  • Health Informatics (700)
  • Health Policy (361)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (224)
  • Hematology (99)
  • HIV/AIDS (164)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (5904)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (363)
  • Medical Education (105)
  • Medical Ethics (25)
  • Nephrology (83)
  • Neurology (769)
  • Nursing (43)
  • Nutrition (132)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (144)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (234)
  • Oncology (481)
  • Ophthalmology (152)
  • Orthopedics (39)
  • Otolaryngology (95)
  • Pain Medicine (39)
  • Palliative Medicine (20)
  • Pathology (141)
  • Pediatrics (223)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (136)
  • Primary Care Research (99)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (865)
  • Public and Global Health (2028)
  • Radiology and Imaging (350)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (158)
  • Respiratory Medicine (287)
  • Rheumatology (94)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (74)
  • Sports Medicine (77)
  • Surgery (110)
  • Toxicology (25)
  • Transplantation (29)
  • Urology (39)