Protecting healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: Australian results from the PPE-SAFE survey

  1. Mahesh Ramanan
  2. Kevin B Laupland
  3. Alexis Tabah

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to global shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE). Healthcare workers (HCW) have comprised a significant proportion of COVID-19 cases in many countries. The PPE-SAFE survey was conducted to study current practices, availability, shortages, training and confidence in PPE amongst intensive care HCWs around the world. Herein, we describe the results of the Australian respondents to the PPE-SAFE survey. 29% of respondents reported that at least one item of usually available PPE was missing, and 12% reported reuse of single-use items. Only 40% felt that the PPE available to them offered adequate protection. Fit-testing of respirators had never been performed for 47% of respondents, and 49% reported at least one adverse effect from the use of PPE.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.08.11.20172148: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.08.11.20172148v1 on medRxiv