Personal protective equipment and adverse dermatological reactions among healthcare workers: Survey observations from the COVID-19 pandemic
- PMID: 35244077
- PMCID: PMC8896487
- DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000029003
Personal protective equipment and adverse dermatological reactions among healthcare workers: Survey observations from the COVID-19 pandemic
Abstract
The pandemic of the 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has caused an unprecedented mobilization of the United States' healthcare workforce. In addition to working extended hours under increased duress, healthcare professionals (HCP) of all stations have been making use of various types of personal protective equipment (PPE) with greatly increased frequency and duration. Current data regarding adverse skin reactions as a possible consequence of PPE use are, particularly in the United States, largely insufficient for policy-makers to make informed decisions regarding daily PPE use among HCP.The research vehicle employed by this study is a cross-sectional 25-item survey distributed via email to workers currently employed by a five-hospital system in southcentral Kentucky. This survey was used to collect information from hospital workers of all professional roles about their experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on reports of adverse dermatological reactions and associated risk factors.Out of 879 respondents, 54.4% reported some type of skin irritation reaction. Skin irritation was significantly more prevalent among medical and medical support staff than non-medical hospital workers, with the highest prevalence among Certified Nurse Assistant (CNAs). Among clinical workers, those in dedicated COVID-19 units reported the highest prevalence of adverse skin reaction. The most common complaint was dryness/scaling of the skin (306 out of 439, 69.7%), and the most common location was the facial cheeks (305 out of 516, 59.1%). Among those who reported skin irritation, the average self-reported severity of skin reaction (on a scale of 1-5) was 2.00 ± 0.05, and the mean total days of skin reaction per month was 11.70 ± 0.39 days. Total days of irritation per month was found to be significantly related to "total days of PPE use per month," "hours of PPE use per day," "frequency of hand washing," and "use of disinfecting UV irradiation." Severity of skin reaction was found to be significantly related to "hours per day of PPE use," "consecutive days of PPE use," and "female sex."Clinical workers that put in the most face-to-face time with patients, and those in dedicated COVID-19 units, had the highest risk of adverse skin reaction. Overall, skin reactions were found to be mild, even in those hospital workers with the heaviest PPE use. Because the widespread and consistent use of facial masks in public settings has become a key tool in our protracted struggle with SARS-CoV-2, these findings may help to ameliorate concerns that everyday facial mask and/or other PPE usage contributes to significant dermatologic morbidity among both medical professionals and public citizens.
Copyright © 2022 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors have no conflicts of interests to disclose.
Figures
Similar articles
-
Personal protective equipment related skin reactions in healthcare professionals during COVID-19.Int Wound J. 2021 Jun;18(3):312-322. doi: 10.1111/iwj.13534. Epub 2021 Jan 28. Int Wound J. 2021. PMID: 33507634 Free PMC article.
-
Headaches Associated With Personal Protective Equipment - A Cross-Sectional Study Among Frontline Healthcare Workers During COVID-19.Headache. 2020 May;60(5):864-877. doi: 10.1111/head.13811. Epub 2020 Apr 12. Headache. 2020. PMID: 32232837
-
Skin problems related to personal protective equipment among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic (online research).Cutan Ocul Toxicol. 2021 Sep;40(3):207-213. doi: 10.1080/15569527.2021.1902340. Epub 2021 Jul 5. Cutan Ocul Toxicol. 2021. PMID: 34047217
-
[Provisioning of personal protective equipment in hospitals in preparation for a pandemic].Anaesthesist. 2020 Dec;69(12):909-918. doi: 10.1007/s00101-020-00843-1. Anaesthesist. 2020. PMID: 32936348 Free PMC article. Review. German.
-
Best-practices for preventing skin injury beneath personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic: A position paper from the National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel.J Clin Nurs. 2023 Feb;32(3-4):625-632. doi: 10.1111/jocn.15682. Epub 2021 Jun 13. J Clin Nurs. 2023. PMID: 33534939 Free PMC article.
Cited by
-
The Use of Single-Use Medical Gloves in Doctors' Practices and Hospitals.Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2024 Oct 18;121(21):715-724. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.m2024.0159. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2024. PMID: 39262118 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Impacts for health and care workers of Covid-19 and other public health emergencies of international concern: living systematic review, meta-analysis and policy recommendations.Hum Resour Health. 2024 Jan 25;22(1):10. doi: 10.1186/s12960-024-00892-2. Hum Resour Health. 2024. PMID: 38273317 Free PMC article.
-
Prevalence of burnout and mental health problems among medical staff during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ Open. 2023 Jul 20;13(7):e061945. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-061945. BMJ Open. 2023. PMID: 37474193 Free PMC article.
-
Facial dermatoses induced by face masks: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.Contact Dermatitis. 2022 Dec;87(6):473-484. doi: 10.1111/cod.14203. Epub 2022 Sep 2. Contact Dermatitis. 2022. PMID: 35980367 Free PMC article.
-
Physical discomforts, feeling of the high work intensity and the related risk factors of the frontline medical staff during COVID-19 epidemic: an early-outbreak, national survey in China.Front Public Health. 2023 Oct 12;11:1270366. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1270366. eCollection 2023. Front Public Health. 2023. PMID: 37900046 Free PMC article.
References
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous