Personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 crisis: a snapshot and recommendations from the frontline of a university teaching hospital

Aims The adequate provision of personal protective equipment (PPE) for healthcare workers has come under considerable scrutiny during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to evaluate staff awareness of PPE guidance, perceptions of PPE measures, and concerns regarding PPE use while caring for COVID-19 patients. In addition, responses of doctors, nurses, and other healthcare professionals (OHCPs) were compared. Methods The inclusion criteria were all staff working in clinical areas of the hospital. Staff were invited to take part using a link to an online questionnaire advertised by email, posters displayed in clinical areas, and social media. Questions grouped into the three key themes - staff awareness, perceptions, and concerns - were answered using a five-point Likert scale. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare results across all three groups of staff. Results Overall, 315 staff took part in our study. There was a high awareness of PPE guidance at 84.4%, but only 52.4% of staff reported adequate PPE provision. 67.9% were still keen to come to work, despite very high levels of anxiety relating to contracting COVID-19 despite wearing PPE. Doctors had significantly higher ratings for questions relating to PPE awareness compared to other staff groups, while nursing staff and OHCPs had significantly higher levels of anxiety compared to doctors in relation to PPE and contracting COVID-19 (p < 0.05 using a Kruskal-Wallis test). Conclusion We believe four recommendations are key to improve PPE measures and decrease anxiety: 1) nominated ward/department PPE champions; 2) anonymized reporting for PPE concerns; 3) formal PPE education sessions; and 4) drop-in counselling sessions for staff. We hope the insight and recommendations from this study can improve the PPE situation and maintain the health and wellbeing of the clinical work force, in order to care for COVID-19 patients safely and effectively

Cost-utility analysis of surgical fixation with Kirschner wire versus casting after fracture of the distal radius

Aims: The aim of this study was to compare the cost- effectiveness of surgical fixation with Kirschner (K-) wire ersus moulded casting after manipulation of a fracture of the distal radius in an operating theatre setting. Methods: An economic evaluation was conducted based on data collected from the Distal Radius Acute Fracture Fixation Trial 2 (DRAFFT2) multicentre randomized controlled trial in the UK. Resource use was collected at three, six, and 12 months post-randomization using trial case report forms and participant-completed questionnaires. Cost-effectiveness was reported in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained from an NHS and personal social services perspective. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine the robustness of cost-effectiveness estimates, and decision uncertainty was handled using confidence ellipses and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Results: In the base case analysis, surgical fixation with K-wire was more expensive (£29.65 (95% confidence interval (CI) -94.85 to 154.15)) and generated lower QALYs (0.007 (95% CI -0.03 to 0.016)) than moulded casting, but this difference was not statistically significant. The probability of K-wire being cost-effective at a £20,000 per QALY cost-effectiveness threshold was 24%. The cost-effectiveness results remained robust in the sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: The findings suggest that surgical fixation with K-wire is unlikely to be a cost-effective alternative to a moulded cast in adults, following manipulation of a fracture of the distal radius in a theatre setting.</p