Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31517982›Full record

ArticleClinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America2019

Design Strategies for Biocontainment Units to Reduce Risk During Doffing of High-level Personal Protective Equipment.

Maria F Wong, Zorana Matić, Gabrielle C Campiglia, Craig M Zimring, Joel M Mumma, Colleen S Kraft, Lisa M Casanova, Francis T Durso, Victoria L Walsh, Puja Y Shah and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Maria F WongSimTigrate Design Lab, Georgia State University, and College of Design.
Zorana MatićSimTigrate Design Lab, Georgia State University, and College of Design.
Gabrielle C CampigliaSimTigrate Design Lab, Georgia State University, and College of Design.
Craig M ZimringSimTigrate Design Lab, Georgia State University, and College of Design.
Joel M MummaSchool of Psychology, Georgia State University, and Georgia Institute of Technology.
Colleen S KraftDivision of Infectious Diseases, Georgia State University, and Department of Medicine.
Lisa M CasanovaSchool of Public Health, Georgia State University.
Francis T DursoSchool of Psychology, Georgia State University, and Georgia Institute of Technology.
Victoria L WalshDivision of Infectious Diseases, Georgia State University, and Department of Medicine.
Puja Y ShahDivision of Infectious Diseases, Georgia State University, and Department of Medicine.
Andi L ShaneDivision of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, Department of Pediatrics, Emory University School of Medicine, and Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, Georgia.
Jesse T JacobDivision of Infectious Diseases, Georgia State University, and Department of Medicine.
Jennifer R DuboseSimTigrate Design Lab, Georgia State University, and College of Design.

Funding

Atlanta Clinical and Translational Science Institute (ACTSI) RenewalUL1TR000454 · NCATS · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI STEPHENS, DAVID S · 2012 to 2016
$25.8M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000454NCEZID CDC HHS U54 CK000164
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFew data exist to guide the physical design of biocontainment units, particularly the doffing area. This can impact the contamination risk of healthcare workers (HCWs) during doffing of personal protective equipment (PPE).

methodsIn phase I of our study, we analyzed simulations of a standard patient care task with 56 trained HCWs focusing on doffing of high-level PPE. In phase II, using a rapid cycle improvement approach, we tested different balance aids and redesigned doffing area layouts with 38 students. In phase III, we tested 1 redesigned layout with an additional 10 trained HCWs. We assessed the effectiveness of design changes on improving the HCW performance (measured by occurrence and number of risky behaviors) and reducing the physical and cognitive load by comparing the results from phase I and phase III.

resultsThe physical load was highest when participants were removing their shoe covers without any balance aid; the use of a chair required the lowest physical effort, followed by horizontal and vertical grab bars. In the revised design (phase III), the overall performance of participants improved. There was a significant decrease in the number of HCW risky behaviors (P = .004); 5 risky behaviors were eliminated and 2 others increased. There was a significant decrease in physical load when removing disposable shoe covers (P = .04), and participants reported a similar workload in the redesigned doffing layout (P = .43).

conclusionsThrough optimizing the design and layout of the doffing space, we reduced risky behaviors of HCWs during doffing of high-level PPE.

Indexed as

Equipment DesignPersonal Protective EquipmentContainment of BiohazardsGloves, ProtectiveHealth PersonnelHumansInfection ControlOccupational HealthSimulation Trainingbiocontainment unit designdesign improvementsdoffing personal protective equipmentEbolaoccupational health

Identifiers

PMID31517982
PMCPMC6743504

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.