Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 30, 2025
Determining Viral Disinfection Efficacy of Hot Water Laundering
Published on: June 21, 2022
Removal of Contaminated Personal Protective Equipment With and Without Supervision. A Randomized Crossover
Mostafa Somri1, Ohad Hochman, Lina Somri-Gannam
1From the Department of Anesthesia (M.S., L.S.-G., L.G.), Bnai Zion Medical Center, Haifa, Israel; Faculty of Medicine (M.S., L.G.), Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel; Bnai Zion Medical Center (O.H.), Haifa, Israel; Infectious Disease and Infection Control Unit (A.P., T.B.), Bnai Zion Medical Center, Haifa, Israel; Department of Anesthesia and Perioperative Medicine (M.A.G.-R.), Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de A Coruña, A Coruña, Galicia, Spain; and Spanish Difficult Airway Group (GEVAD) (M.A.G.-R.), A Coruña Spain.
Introduction:
Personal protective equipment (PPE) reduces the risk of pathogens reaching the skin and clothing of health care personnel. We hypothesize that doffing PPE following verbal instructions by a supervisor is more effective in reducing contamination compared with doffing without verbal instructions. Our primary aim was to determine contamination rates with and without supervised doffing. The secondary aim was to determine the number and localization of contaminated body sites and PPE removal times in both groups.
Methods:
Staff members of Bnai Zion Medical Center participated in this single-center, randomized simulation study (NCT05008627). Using a crossover design, all participants donned and doffed the PPE twice, once under guidance from a trained supervisor and then independently without supervision (group A), or vice versa (group B). Participants were randomized to either group A or B using a computer-generated random allocation sequence. The PPE was "contaminated" with Glo Germ on the thorax, shoulders, arms, hands, legs, and face shield. After doffing the PPE, the participant was examined under ultraviolet light to detect traces of contamination. The following variables were collected: contamination rates, the number and localization of contaminated body sites, and PPE doffing time.
Results:
Forty-nine staff members were included. In group A, the contamination rate was significantly lower (8% vs. 47%; χ 2 = 17.19; p < 0.001). The sites most frequently contaminated were the neck and hands. Mean PPE doffing time under verbal instructions was significantly longer [mean (SD): 183.98 (3.63) vs. 68.43 (12.75) seconds, P < 0.001] compared with unsupervised doffing.
Conclusions:
In a simulated setting, PPE doffing following step-by-step verbal instructions from a trained supervisor reduces the rate of contamination but prolongs doffing time. These findings could have important implications for clinical practice and could further protect health care workers against contamination from emerging and high-consequence pathogens.
Related Concept Videos
01:10PPE Use in Healthcare Settings II: Doffing
01:20Personal Protective Equipment
01:22PPE Use in Healthcare Settings I: Donning
01:26Standard Precaution
Hand hygiene is the most crucial means to prevent the transmission of disease. Employers are legally required to provide their workers with personal protective equipment (PPE) to minimize exposure or contact with...
01:25Transmission-based Precautions II: Airborne and Protective Environment
Airborne precautions:
Use airborne precautions when treating patients known or suspected to have diseases that spread through the air—for example, tuberculosis or measles. These organisms are present in smaller droplets expelled by an infected person and...
01:16Crossover Experiments
Crossover designs are performed even with smaller sample sizes since the samples can act as their controls. These are better than simple randomized trials since patients are exposed to all the treatments.