Analysis of the Protective Effect of Infection Controllers Supervising Third-Party Personnel Entering and Leaving Shanghai Fangcang Shelter Hospital

Figures & data

Figure 1 The third-party personnel take off the protective clothing. (A) Using the traditional supervision and management methods; (B) Using the new supervision and management methods.

Figure 2 The process of procedures for management the third-party personnel with the new supervision and management method.

Table 1 Analysis of Risk Factors for Infection in Third-Party Personnel

Factors		Number of Cases	Infection Cases	Infection Rate (%)	χ^2 value	P value
Gender	Male	153	32	20.92	3.784	0.053
	Female	47	4	8.51
Age (years)	18–30	96	18	18.75	14.811	0.001
	31–40	59	15	25.42
	41–50	36	0	0.00
	>50	9	3	33.33
Education level	University and above	48	1	2.08	35.691	<0.001
	High school level	117	17	0.00
	Below high school level	35	18	51.43
Whether worked in the epidemic	Yes	24	0	0.00	4.681	0.030
	No	176	36	20.45

Figure 3 Comparison the errors frequency of two different methods with supervision and management of removal the protective equipment.

Table 2 Analysis of Infection of Third-Party Personnel with Different Supervision and Management Model

Supervision and Management Model	Total Cases	Number of Cases of Infection	Infection Rate (%)	χ^2 value	P value
Traditional method	200	36	18%	25.690	<0.001
New supervision method	156	2	1.28%

Table 3 Results of Errors in the Removal of Protective Equipment with Logistic Regression Analysis with Variables in the Equation (n = 356)

Wrong Method	Sig.	Odds Ratio	95% C.I. for Exp (B)
1	0.000	0.099	0.032, 0.300
2	0.013	0.259	0.089, 0.755
3	0.014	0.087	0.013, 0.607
4	0.000	0.051	0.016, 0.163
5	0.000	0.007	0.001, 0.065
Constant	0.000	23.763

Notes: 1=Wrong way to detach the face screen. 2=Wrong way to remove goggles. 3=Wrong way to undress protective clothing. 4=Wrong way to take off the shoe cover. 5=Hand washing steps omitted.