2018-09-01 12:00 - Messages

ASTM F2010 / F2010M - 18 - Standard Test Method for Evaluation of Glove Effects on Wearer Finger Dexterity Using a Modified Pegboard Test

Scope: This test method is used for evaluating finger dexterity while wearing gloves.
This test method covers procedures in which the wearer picks up small objects between the thumb and index finger.
This test method is suitable for evaluating gloves and other forms of hand protection that allow the wearer to pick up small objects between their thumb and index finger.
This test method does not address all effects of glove use on hand function. Other methods should be considered to evaluate the effects of gloves on grip, tactility, and other hand functions of interest.
The values stated in SI units or in other units shall be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system must be used independently of the other, without combining values in any way.

Source: https://www.astm.org/Standards/F2010.htm

Risk of self-contamination during doffing of personal protective equipment

Background: The aim of this study was to describe the risk of self-contamination associated with doffing of personal protective equipment (PPE) and to compare self-contamination with various PPE protocols.
Methods: We tested 10 different PPE donning and doffing protocols, recommended by various health organizations for Ebola. Ten participants were recruited for this study and randomly assigned to use 3 different PPE protocols. After donning of PPE, fluorescent lotion and spray were applied on the external surface of the PPE to simulate contamination, and ultraviolet light was used to count fluorescent patches on the skin.
Results: After testing 30 PPE sequences, large fluorescent patches were recorded after using “WHO coverall and 95” and “North Carolina coverall and N95” sequences, and small patches were recorded after using “CDC coverall and N95” and “Health Canada gown and N95” sequences. Commonly reported problems with PPE use were breathing difficulty, suffocation, heat stress, and fogging-up glasses. Most participants rated PPE high (18/30) or medium (11/30) for ease of donning/doffing and comfort. PPE sequences with powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs) and assisted doffing were generally associated with fewer problems and were rated the highest.
Conclusion: This study confirmed the risk of self-contamination associated with the doffing of PPE. PAPR-containing protocols and assisted doffing should be preferred whenever possible during the outbreak of highly infectious pathogens.

Source: Chughtai, A. A., Chen, X. et Macintyre, C. R. (2018). American journal of infection control.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2018.06.003

Identification and Characterization of Failures in Infectious Agent Transmission Precaution Practices in Hospitals

A Qualitative Study
Importance: Using personal protective equipment (PPE) and transmission-based precautions are primary strategies for reducing the transmission of infectious agents.
Objective: To identify and characterize failures in transmission-based precautions, including PPE use, by health care personnel that could result in self-contamination or transmission during routine, everyday hospital care.
Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study involved direct observation inside and outside patient rooms on clinical units from March 1, 2016, to November 30, 2016. Observations occurred in the medical and/or surgical units and intensive care units at an academic medical center and a Veterans Affairs hospital, as well as the emergency department of the university hospital. Trained observers recorded extensive field notes while personnel provided care for patients in precautions for a pathogen transmitted through contact (eg, Clostridium difficile, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) or respiratory droplet (eg, influenza). Specific occurrences involving potential personnel self-contamination were identified through a directed content analysis. These occurrences were further categorized, using a human factors model of human error, as active failures, such as violations, mistakes, or slips.
Conclusions and Relevance: Active failures in PPE use and transmission-based precautions, potentially leading to self-contamination, were commonly observed. The factors that contributed to these failures varied widely, suggesting the need for a range of strategies to reduce potential transmission risk during routine hospital care.

Source: Krein, S. L., Mayer, J., Harrod, M., Weston, L. E., Gregory, L., Petersen, L., ... et Drews, F. A. (2018). JAMA Intern Med., 178(8), 1051-1057. http://dx.doi.org/0.1001/jamainternmed.2018.1898

NFPA 1999 - Standard on Protective Clothing and Ensembles for Emergency Medical Operations

This standard specifies requirements for EMS protective clothing to protect personnel performing patient care during emergency medical operations from contact with blood and body fluid-borne pathogens. It also includes additional requirements that provide limited protection from specified CBRN terrorism agents.

Source: https://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/all-codes-and-standards/list-of-codes-and-standards/detail?code=1999

NF EN ISO 27065 - Habillement de protection - Exigences de performance pour les vêtements de protection portés par les opérateurs appliquant des pesticides et pour les travailleurs de rentrée

Le présent document établit les exigences de performance minimale, de classification et de marquage pour les vêtements de protection portés par les opérateurs manipulant des pesticides ainsi que par les travailleurs de rentrée. Aux fins du présent document, le terme "pesticide" s'applique aux insecticides, herbicides, fongicides et autres substances appliquées sous forme liquide qui sont destinés à prévenir, détruire, repousser ou contenir les organismes nuisibles ou les mauvaises herbes en milieu agricole, dans les espaces verts, sur les bords de routes, etc. Il ne couvre pas les produits biocides utilisés en milieu agricole et non agricole. La manipulation des pesticides inclut les opérations de mélange et chargement et d'application, et d'autres activités telles que le nettoyage des équipements et récipients contaminés. Les pesticides concentrés font généralement l'objet de manipulations lors du mélange et du chargement. Les vêtements de protection concernés par le présent document comprennent, entre autres, les chemises, vestes, pantalons, combinaisons, tabliers, manchettes de protection, casquettes/chapeaux et autres couvre-chefs (exclusion faite des casques de protection constitués de matériaux rigides, par exemple les casques portés par les travailleurs du bâtiment) , ainsi que les accessoires utilisés en dessous des pulvérisateurs à dos. Le présent document ne traite pas des articles utilisés pour la protection des voies respiratoires, des mains et des pieds. Il ne traite pas de la protection contre les fumigants.

Source: https://www.boutique.afnor.org/norme/nf-en-iso-27065/habillement-de-protection-exigences-de-performance-pour-les-vetements-de-protection-portes-par-les-operateurs-appliquant-des-pes/article/822857/fa176009

ASTM F2412 - 18a - Standard Test Methods for Foot Protection

These test methods contain requirements to evaluate the performance of footwear for the following:
- Impact resistance for the toe area of footwear (I),
- Compression resistance for the toe area of footwear (C),
- Metatarsal protection that reduces the chance of injury to the metatarsal bones at the top of the foot (Mt),
- Conductive properties which reduce hazards that may result from static electricity buildup, and reduce the possibility of ignition of explosives and volatile chemicals (Cd),
- Electric hazard to protect the wearer when accidentally stepping on live electric wires (EH),
- Static dissipative properties to reduce hazards that result from a build up of static charge where there is an underlying risk of accidental contact with live electrical circuits (SD), and
- Puncture resistance footwear devices (PR).

Source: https://www.astm.org/Standards/F2412.htm

Preventing falls: Choosing compatible Fall Protection Supplementary Devices (FPSD) for bridge maintenance work using virtual prototyping

Apart from struck-by safety incidents, fall-related injuries are a major concern in bridge maintenance work. To protect against falls from bridge decks, maintenance workers largely rely on existing bridge guardrails. However, a large number of bridge guardrails do not comply with the regulatory height requirement of 42 ± 3 in. for sufficient fall protection – although appropriate for vehicular traffic. To address this fall protection issue, a few departments of transportation (DOTs) have adopted Fall Protection Supplementary Devices (FPSDs). These devices are temporarily installed on existing bridge guardrails to sufficiently increase the barrier height while work is performed on bridge decks. However, not all FPSDs are compatible with every bridge guardrail. Therefore, to provide sufficient protection, DOT decision makers are tasked with identifying FPSDs that are compatible for each guardrail application. This generally has involved physically installing FPSDs and assessing compatibility on a trial-and-error basis. The use of such inefficient techniques have resulted in significant errors, wasted resources, productivity losses, and an increased likelihood of struck-by safety incidents. To address this issue, the objective of this study is to propose an efficient, cost-effective, and safe approach to assessing compatibility using virtual prototyping methods. In addition, to illustrate the use of the proposed method, a case example of the compatibility testing between two bridge guardrails in North Carolina and three separate FPSDs is presented. It is expected that the proposed method will provide a useful mechanism for DOTs to select suitable FPSDs to protect their workforce.

Source: Zuluaga, C. M. et Albert, A. (2018). Safety science, 108, 238-247.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.08.006

Abonnement courriel

Messages récents

Catégories

Mots-Clés (Tags)

Blogoliste

Archives