Abstract
Purpose
The lack of training in personal protective equipment (PPE) donning and doffing is hindering the current fight against the COVID-19 worldwide. In order to enable medical staff to learn how to don and doff PPE faster and more effectively, we compared two training methods of PPE donning and doffing.
Methods
Participants in this study were 48 health care workers randomly divided into two groups. Group A watched a 10-minute demonstration (demo) video four times, while Group B watched the same 10-minute demo video twice and then watched a 10-minute live demo twice. The 40-minute learning time was the same for both groups. A 29-step examination was held after the training was completed. The examination scores of Groups A and B were recorded according to a checklist containing PPE donning and doffing steps . The time spent by the participants on PPE donning and doffing, their satisfaction with the training, and their confidence in donning and doffing PPE accurately were analyzed.
Results
The average score of Group B was higher than that Group A, with a mean (SD) of 94.92 (1.72) vs 86.63 (6.34), respectively (P<0.001). The average time spent by Group B was shorter than that spent by Group A, with a mean (SD) of 17.67 (1.01) vs 21.75 (1.82), respectively (P<0.001). The satisfaction and confidence of Group B were higher than those of Group A (P<0.001).
Conclusion
Compared with repeated video display, combined video display and live demonstration are more suitable training methods for donning and doffing PPE.
Abbreviations
PPE, personal protective equipment; COVID-19, coronavirus disease 2019; PAPR, powered air-purifying respirator.
Data Sharing Statement
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Ethics Approval and Informed Consent
The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine (no. ZYYEC-ERK[2020]029), and all participants gave written informed consent.
Consent for Publication
All participants had given consent for publication.
Author Contributions
All authors made substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; took part in drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; agreed to submit to the current journal; gave final approval of the version to be published; and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.
Disclosure
Yongxing Li and Yong Wang contributed equally to this study. The authors report no conflict of interest in this work.