• Safety and Health at Work
• /
• v.10 no.2
• /
• pp.166-171
• /
• 2019

Objective: This study explored personal protective equipment (PPE) availability and PPE utilization among interventionalists in the catheterization laboratory, which is a highly contextualized workplace. Methods: This is a cross-sectional study using mixed methods. Participants (108) completed a survey. A hyperlink was sent to the participants, or they were asked to complete a paper-based survey. Purposively selected participants (54) were selected for individual (30) or group (six) interviews. The interviews were conducted at conferences, or appointments were made to see the participants. Logistic regression analysis was performed. The qualitative data were analyzed thematically. Results: Lead glasses were consistently used 10.2% and never used 61.1% of the time. All forms of PPE were inconsistently used by 92.6% of participants. Women were 4.3 times more likely to report that PPE was not available. PPE compliance was related to fit and availability. Conclusions: PPE use was inconsistent and not always available. Improving the culture of radiation protection in catheterization laboratories is essential to improve PPE compliance with the aim of protecting patients and operators. This culture of radiation protection must include all those involved including the users of PPE and the administrators and managers who are responsible for supplying sufficient, appropriate, fitting PPE for all workers requiring such protection.

• Safety and Health at Work
• /
• v.8 no.1
• /
• pp.49-58
• /
• 2017

Background: This study determined current status of laboratory biosafety in Nigerian veterinary research facilities. Methods: A questionnaire was developed to obtain information from researchers across Nigeria from July 2014 to July 2015. Information regarding demographics, knowledge of laboratory biosafety, availability and proper use of personal protective equipment (PPE), any priority pathogens researched, attitude on and use of standard laboratory practices, and biosafety awareness was obtained using a numeric scoring system. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics, and univariate and multivariate logistic regression. Results: A total of 74 participants from 19 facilities completed the questionnaire. General knowledge scores ranged from 3 to 28 (out of 28 possible points), with 94.6% of respondents receiving low scores (scores < mean + 1 standard deviation). Very few (17.6%) reported availability or use PPE. Many participants (63.5%) reported no access to biosafety level (BSL)-1-3 facilities. None reported availability of a BSL-4 facility. Knowledge scores pertaining to biosafety management practices ranged from 0 to 14 (out of 14 possible points) with 47.3% of respondents receiving good scores (scores > mean + 1 standard deviation). Only 16.2% of respondents (from four facilities) reported having biosafety officers. Rabies virus was the most researched pathogen (31.1% of respondents). The majority (71.6%) were unaware of laws guiding biosafety. Researchers [odds ratio (OR) = 18.0; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.63, 198.5; p = 0.023], especially in BSL-2 (OR = 258.5; 95% CI: 12.71, 5256; p < 0.001) facility of research institute (OR = 25.0; 95% CI: 5.18, 120.6; p < 0.001), are more likely to have adequate access to and properly utilize biosafety devices and PPE. Conclusions: Current knowledge of laboratory biosafety is limited except among a few researchers.

• Clinical Endoscopy
• /
• v.55 no.2
• /
• pp.215-225
• /
• 2022

Background/Aims: The Thai Association for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy published recommendations on safe endoscopy during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This study aimed to assess the practicality and applicability of the recommendations and the perceptions of endoscopy personnel on them. Methods: A validated questionnaire was sent to 1290 endoscopy personnel globally. Of these, the data of all 330 responders (25.6%) from 15 countries, related to the current recommendations on proper personal protective equipment (PPE), case selection, scope cleaning, and safety perception, were analyzed. Ordinal logistic regression was used to determine the relationships between the variables. Results: Despite an overwhelming agreement with the recommendations on PPE (94.5%) and case selection (95.5%), their practicality and applicability on PPE recommendations and case selection were significantly lower (p=0.001, p=0.047, p<0.001, and p=0.032, respectively). Factors that were associated with lower sense of safety in endoscopy units were younger age (p=0.004), less working experience (p=0.008), in-training status (p=0.04), and higher national prevalence of COVID-19 (p=0.003). High prevalent countries also had more difficulty implementing the guidelines (p<0.001) and they considered the PPE recommendations less practical and showed lower agreement with them (p<0.001 and p=0.008, respectively). A higher number of in-hospital COVID-19 patients was associated with less agreement with PPE recommendations (p=0.039). Conclusions: Using appropriate PPE and case selection in endoscopic practice during a pandemic remains a challenge. Resource availability and local prevalence are critical factors influencing the adoption of the current guidelines.