Research Article

Facial Skin Injury Related to Personal Protective Equipment Among Healthcare Workers: Single Center Cross-Sectional Study

I Gusti Ayu Agung Bella Jayaningrum, Gede Benny Setia Wirawan , Anak Agung Ngurah Krisna Dwipayana, Anak Agung Ngurah Bagus Surya Darma, Lya Lusyana, Sang Nyoman Suriana

I Gusti Ayu Agung Bella Jayaningrum
Sanjiwani General Hospital, Gianyar, Bali, Indonesia

Gede Benny Setia Wirawan
Center for Public Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Udayana, Denpasar, Indonesia. Email: benny.wirawan007@gmail.com

Anak Agung Ngurah Krisna Dwipayana
Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Warmadewa, Bali, Indonesia

Anak Agung Ngurah Bagus Surya Darma
Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Warmadewa, Bali, Indonesia

Lya Lusyana
Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Kristen Maranatha, Bandung, Indonesia

Sang Nyoman Suriana
General Surgery Departement, Sanjiwani Hospital, Bali, Indonesia
Online First: October 27, 2021 | Cite this Article
Jayaningrum, I., Wirawan, G., Dwipayana, A., Surya Darma, A., Lusyana, L., Suriana, S. 2021. Facial Skin Injury Related to Personal Protective Equipment Among Healthcare Workers: Single Center Cross-Sectional Study. Intisari Sains Medis 12(3): 789-793. DOI:10.15562/ism.v12i3.990


Objective: Our study aimed to learn the phenomenon of facial skin injuries related to PPE use, their characteristics, as well as risk and protective factors.

Methods: We conducted a single-center cross-sectional study. Samples was collected consecutively by disseminating self-filled questionnaire to all departments in Sanjiwani General Hospital, Gianyar, Bali, Indonesia. Variables studied included demographic, characteristics of PPE usage, characteristics of facial skin injuries suffered, and preventive measures practiced by healthcare workers. We conducted multivariate analysis for independent determinants of more severe skin injuries and any injuries located on the nasal bridge, cheekbones, and behind the ears.

Results: Final analysis included 161 respondents. Male make up 26.7% of respondents, mean age was 35.00 (± 8.91). The majority was nurses (78.3%). Prevalence of skin injury was 90.7%, 39.1% of them being partial or full thickness skin injuries. Only 27.4% respondents practiced preventive measures, including application of polyester tape layering and emollient. The most frequently reported location of skin injury was nasal bridge (77%), followed by behind the ears (57.1%), and on the cheekbones (47.2%). Multivariate analyses discovered that KN95 respirator poses less risk for more severe injuries compared to N95. Protective measures were found effective to prevent skin injuries in all locations, including for more severe injuries.

Conclusions: We found high prevalence of facial skin injuries among healthcare workers accompanied by inadequate practice of preventive behaviors. These preventive behaviors have been found effective in other study as well and existing evidence support its promotion for more widespread practice.

 

References

World Health Organization. COVID-19 Weekly Epidemiological Update 22 [Internet]. Geneva; 2021. Available from: https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/weekly_epidemiological_update_22.pdf

WHO. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Situation Report - 41 [Internet]. Vol. 41. Jakarta; 2021. Available from: https://www.who.int/indonesia/news/novel-coronavirus/situation-reports

Wirawan GBS, Januraga PP. Correlation of Demographic, Health Care Availability, And COVID-19 Outcome: Indonesian Ecological Study. Front Public Heal. 2021;9(605290).

Wirawan A, Januraga PP. Forecasting COVID-19 Transmission and Healthcare Capacity in Bali, Indonesia. J Prev Med Public Heal. 2020;53(3):158–63.

OCHA. Situation Update Response to COVID-19 in Indonesia [Internet]. United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs; 2021. p. 1–4. Available from: https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/sites/www.humanitarianresponse.info/files/documents/files/20201109_situation_update_final.pdf

Sitanggang FP, Wirawan GBS, Wirawan IMA, Lesmana CBJ, Januraga PP. Determinants of mental health and practice behaviors of general practitioners during covid-19 pandemic in Bali, Indonesia: A cross-sectional study. Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2021;14:2055–64.

WHO. Health worker exposure risk assessment and management in the context of COVID-19 virus. [Internet]. Geneva; 2020. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/10665-336265

Tsilingiris D, Papatheodoridi M, Kapelios CJ. Providing evidence on the ongoing health care workers’ mask debate. Intern Emerg Med [Internet]. 2020;15(5):773–7. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-020-02382-4

Jiang Q, Song S, Zhou J, Liu Y, Chen A, Bai Y, et al. The Prevalence, Characteristics, and Prevention Status of Skin Injury Caused by Personal Protective Equipment among Medical Staff in Fighting COVID-19: A Multicenter, Cross-Sectional Study. Adv Wound Care. 2020;9(7):357–64.

Galehdar N, Toulabi T, Kamran A, Heydari H. Exploring nurses’ perception about the care needs of patients with COVID-19: a qualitative study. BMC Nurs. 2020;19(1):1–9.

Hu K, Fan J, Li X, Gou X, Li X, Zhou X. The adverse skin reactions of health care workers using personal protective equipment for COVID-19. Medicine (Baltimore). 2020;99(24):e20603.

Lan J, Song Z, Miao X, Li H, Li Y, Dong L, et al. Skin damage among health care workers managing coronavirus disease-2019. J Am Acad Dermatol [Internet]. 2020;82(5):1215–6. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2020.03.014

Lee HC, Goh CL. Occupational dermatoses from Personal Protective Equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic in the tropics – A Review. J Eur Acad Dermatology Venereol. 2020;

Yu J, Chen JK, Mowad CM, Reeder M, Hylwa S, Chisolm S, et al. Occupational dermatitis to facial personal protective equipment in health care workers: A systematic review. J Am Acad Dermatol [Internet]. 2021;84(2):486–94. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2020.09.074

Tang J, Zhang S, Chen Q, Li W, Yang J. Risk factors for facial pressure sore of healthcare workers during the outbreak of COVID-19. Int Wound J. 2020;17(6):2028–30.

3M Company. Comparison of FFP2 , KN95 , and N95 and Other Filtering Facepiece Respirator Classes 3M Personal Safety Division [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2021 Feb 5]. p. 2–4. Available from: https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/1791500O/comparison-ffp2-kn95-n95-filtering-facepiece-respirator-classes-tb.pdf

Asadi S, Cappa CD, Barreda S, Wexler AS, Bouvier NM, Ristenpart WD. Efficacy of masks and face coverings in controlling outward aerosol particle emission from expiratory activities. Sci Rep [Internet]. 2020;10(1):1–13. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-72798-7

O’Kelly E, Arora A, Pirog S, Ward J, Clarkson PJ. Comparing the Fit of N95, KN95, Surgical, and Cloth Face Masks and Assessing the Accuracy of Fit Checking. 2020;1–14. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.17.20176735

Del Castillo Pardo de Vera JL, Reina Alcalde S, Cebrian Carretero JL, Burgueño García M. The preventive effect of hydrocolloid dressing to prevent facial pressure and facial marks during use of medical protective equipment in COVID-19 pandemic. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020;58(6):723–5.

Pacis M, Azor-Ocampo A, Burnett E, Tanasapphaisal C, Coleman B. Prophylactic Dressings for Maintaining Skin Integrity of Healthcare Workers When Using N95 Respirators while Preventing Contamination Due to the Novel Coronavirus: A Quality Improvement Project. J Wound, Ostomy Cont Nurs. 2020;47(6):551–7.

Smart H, Opinion FB, Darwich I, Elnawasany MA, Kodange C. Preventing Facial Pressure Injury for Health Care Providers Adhering to COVID-19 Personal Protective Equipment Requirements. Adv Ski Wound Care. 2020;33(8):418–27.


No Supplementary Material available for this article.
Article Views      : 97
PDF Downloads : 37