English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Objectives Health care workers (HCWs) adopted several protective measures, including hand hygiene and wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) during the COVID-19 outbreak. However, the frequent use of these preventive measures can lead to skin reactions. Our study aimed to determine the frequency of these reactions in Northern Morocco. In addition, we also looked at the risk factors and the consequences of these injuries on work efficiency and performance. Materials and Methods An anonymous online survey was used to collect data, which was sent to 500 health workers in the study region. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyze the data on IBM SPSS software. Results In total, 273/500 responded to the questionnaire (55%). For the participants’ profession, 41% were doctors, 32% were nursing staff, and 26% held other jobs. The general prevalence rate of adverse reactions for all health workers was (80%), including skin problems: after wearing goggles (58%), after wearing surgical masks and respirators (57%), after handwashing and wearing gloves (45%), after wearing a face shield (23%), and after wearing protective clothing (11%). Bleach immersion was highly significantly associated with hand reaction (OR: 2.9, 95% CI: 1.77–4.90; P &amp;lt; 0.001). Moreover, we found a statistically significant association between hand cream use more than twice daily and fewer reactions (OR: 1.9, 95% CI: 0.98–3.77; P = 0.038). The skin reactions related to goggles use were also significantly associated with use duration (OR: 1.7, 95% CI: 0.988–3.12; P = 0.05). Similarly, wearing masks and N95 respirators and their related adverse reactions were significantly associated with use duration (OR: 0.5, 95% CI: 0.20–0.7; P = 0.02). In addition, adverse reactions of regular use of protective clothing were related to the frequency of its use per shift (OR: 3.5, 95% CI: 1.47–8.54; P = 0.05). Conclusions Our survey-based study showed that the prevalence of these skin reactions in our context should not be neglected. The length of daily wearing time and the frequency of PPE uses were the most implicated factors. More attention must be paid to these reactions for better care of HCWs during these critical times.

Skin Reactions to Personal Protective Equipment among First-Line COVID-19 Healthcare Workers: A Survey in Northern Morocco