Since the outbreak of COVID‐19 pandemic, clinicians have had to use personal protective equipment (PPE) for prolonged periods. This has been associated with detrimental effects, especially in relation to the skin health. The present study describes a comprehensive survey of healthcare workers (HCWs) to describe their experiences using PPE in managing COVID‐19 patients, with a particular focus on adverse skin reactions. A 24‐hour prevalence study and multi‐centre prospective survey were designed to capture the impact of PPE on skin health of hospital staff. Questionnaires incorporated demographics of participants, PPE type, usage time, and removal frequency. Participants reported the nature and location of any corresponding adverse skin reactions. The prevalence study included all staff in intensive care from a single centre, while the prospective study used a convenience sample of staff from three acute care providers in the United Kingdom. A total of 108 staff were recruited into the prevalence study, while 307 HCWs from a variety of professional backgrounds and demographics participated in the prospective study. Various skin adverse reactions were reported for the prevalence study, with the bridge of the nose (69%) and ears (30%) being the most affected. Of the six adverse skin reactions recorded for the prospective study, the most common were redness blanching (33%), itchiness (22%), and pressure damage (12%). These occurred predominantly at the bridge of the nose and the ears. There were significant associations ( P < .05) between the adverse skin reactions with both the average daily time of PPE usage and the frequency of PPE relief. The comprehensive study revealed that the use of PPE leads to an array of skin reactions at various facial locations of HCWs. Improvements in guidelines are required for PPE usage to protect skin health. In addition, modifications to PPE designs are required to accommodate a range of face shapes and appropriate materials to improve device safety.

IntroductionBlack, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) people are disproportionately affected by COVID-19. Respiratory protective equipment (RPE) has conventionally been developed for a predominantly white male population that does not represent the healthcare workforce. The literature was reviewed to determine the protection offered to female and BAME users.MethodsFive databases were searched. Eligible studies related to respirator fit in the context of anthropometrics, gender and ethnicity. Meta-analysis was performed for gender-based anthropometric differences. A priori protocol registration was not performed.Results32 studies were included and anthropometric data was extracted from 15 studies. Meta-analysis revealed 14 anthropometric measurements were significantly smaller for females. Mean differences ranged from 0.37 mm to 22.05 mm. Gender-based anthropometric differences did not always translate to lower fit factor scores, with 12 studies reporting worse performance and fit for females and 10 reporting no gender effect. No studies provided disaggregate anthropometric data by ethnic group. Pass rates (PR) were low or moderate in 12 BAME or mixed-ethnicity cohorts. 14 studies reported associations between facial dimensions (FD) and respirator fit. Three comparative studies showed lower PR among selective BAME people. 18 studies reported RPE performance differed with model and design. Most studies did not prespecify inclusion/exclusion criteria. Small sample size and lack of justification or power calculations was a concern. Significant heterogeneity in study designs limited comparisons, particularly relating to respirator selection or availability and defining study outcomes relating to RPE performance.ConclusionThe literature reports on largely Caucasian or single ethnic populations, and BAME people remain under-represented, limiting comparisons between ethnic groups. Facial anthropometrics vary between gender and likely between ethnicity, which may contribute to lower PR among females and ethnic minorities, particularly Asians. There is a need for studies including a broader spectrum of ethnicities and for consideration of female and BAME users during RPE development.

No abstract

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Background: Personal protective equipment, including respirator devices, has been used to protect healthcare workers (HCWs) during the COVID-19 pandemic. These are fitted to skin sites on the face to prevent airborne transmission but have resulted in reports of discomfort and adverse skin reactions from their continued usage. The present study addresses the objective changes in both the structural integrity and biological response of the skin following prolonged and consecutive use of respirators. Materials and methods:A longitudinal cohort study, involving 17 HCWs who wear respirators daily, was designed. Changes in the barrier properties and biological response of the skin were assessed at three facial anatomical sites, namely, the nasal bridge, left cheek and at a location outside the perimeter of respirator. Assessments were made on three different sessions corresponding to the first, second and third consecutive days of mask usage. Skin parameters included transepidermal water loss (TEWL), stratum corneum (SC) hydration and erythema, as well as cytokine biomarkers sampled from sebum using a commercial tape. Results:The cheek and the site outside the perimeter covered by the respirator presented minimal changes in skin parameters. By contrast, significant increases in both the TEWL (up to 4.8 fold) and SC hydration (up to 2.7 fold) were detected at the nasal bridge on the second consecutive day of respirator-wearing. There was a high degree of variation in the individual expression of pro-and anti-inflammatory cytokines. Increasing trends in nasal bridge TEWL values were associated with the body mass index (p < 0.05). Conclusions:The most sensitive objective parameter in detecting changes in the skin barrier proved to be the increase in TEWL at the nasal bridge, particularly on the second day of consecutive respirator usage. By contrast, other measures of skin were less able to detect remarkable variations in the barrier integrity. Consideration for protecting skin health is required for frontline workers, who continue to wear respirators for prolonged periods over consecutive days during the pandemic.

No abstract

Pressure Ulcers (PU) are a major burden for affected patients and healthcare providers. Current detection methods involve visual assessments of the skin by healthcare professionals. This has been shown to be subjective and unreliable, with challenges associated with identifying erythema in darker colour skin. Although there exists a number of promising non‐invasive biophysical techniques such as ultrasound, capacitance measurements, and thermography, the present study focuses on directly measuring the changes in the inflammatory status of the skin and underlying tissues. Therefore, in this study, we aim to analyse inflammatory cytokines collected through non‐invasive sampling techniques to detect early signs of skin damage. Thirty hospitalised patients presenting with Stage I PU were recruited to evaluate the inflammatory response of skin at the site of damage and an adjacent healthy control site. Sebutapes were collected over three sessions to investigate the temporal changes in the inflammatory response. The panel of cytokines investigated included high‐abundance cytokines, namely, IL‐1α and IL‐1RA, and low abundance cytokines; IL‐6, IL‐8, TNF‐α, INF‐γ, IL‐33, IL‐1β and G‐CSF. Spatial and temporal differences between sites were assessed and thresholds were used to determine the sensitivity and specificity of each biomarker. The results suggest significant (P < .05) spatial changes in the inflammatory response, with upregulation of IL‐1α, IL‐8, and G‐CSF as well as down‐regulation of IL‐1RA over the Stage I PU compared with the adjacent control site. There were no significant temporal differences between the three sessions. Selected cytokines, namely, IL‐1α, IL‐1RA, IL‐8, G‐CSF, and the ratio IL‐1α/IL‐1RA offered clear delineation in the classification of healthy and Stage‐I PU skin sites, with receiver operating characteristic curves demonstrating high sensitivity and specificity. There were limited influences of intrinsic and extrinsic factors on the biomarker response. Inflammatory markers provided a high level of discrimination between the sites presenting with Stage I PU and an adjacent healthy skin site, in a cohort of elderly inpatients. Indeed, the ratio of IL‐1α to IL‐1RA provided the highest sensitivity and specificity, indicative that inflammatory homeostasis is affected at the PU site. There was a marginal influence of intrinsic and extrinsic factors, demonstrating the localised effects of the inflammation. Further studies are required to investigate the potential of inflammatory cytokines incorporated within Point of Care technologies, to support routine clinical use.

In acute care facilities, the detection of pressure ulcers (PUs) relies on visual and manual examination of the patient's skin, which has been reported to be inconsistent and may lead to misdiagnosis. In skin and wound research, various biophysical parameters have been extensively employed to monitor changes in skin health. Nonetheless, the transition of these measures into care settings as part of a routine clinical assessment has been limited. This study was designed to examine the spatial and temporal changes in skin biophysical parameters over the site of a category I PU, in a cohort of hospitalised patients. Thirty patients, each presenting with a category I PU, were enrolled in the study. Skin integrity was assessed at the PU‐compromised site and two adjacent areas (5 and 10 cm away). Data was collected over three sessions to examine both temporal differences and longitudinal changes. Skin integrity was assessed using two biophysical parameters, namely, transepidermal water loss (TEWL) and stratum corneum (SC) hydration. In addition, the influence of intrinsic factors, namely, incontinence and mobility status, on the parameters was evaluated. TEWL values at the sites compromised by PU were statistically significantly greater (P < .001) than corresponding values at the adjacent control sites at 5 and 10 cm, which were consistent with a normative range (<20 g/h/m2). By contrast, SC hydration values did not reveal clear distinctions between the three sites, with high inter‐patient variation detected at the sites. Nevertheless, individual profiles were consistent across the three sessions, and the PU site was observed to be either abnormally dry or overhydrated in different individuals. No consistent temporal trend in either parameter was evident. However, intrinsic factors were shown to influence the parameters, with females, bedridden and incontinent patients presenting significantly higher TEWL and SC hydration values (P < .05). TEWL was able to identify differences in skin responses at skin sites compromised with a category I PU when compared to healthy adjacent skin sites. Accordingly, this parameter could be included in the clinical assessment for the identification of PU risk. Further studies are required to elucidate the role of hydration and skin barrier function in the development of PUs and their ability to monitor temporal changes in skin integrity.