Introduction

Healthcare workers are at an increased risk of infectious disease transmission through occupational exposure. Despite this, rates of personal protective equipment (PPE) use vary among healthcare personnel. This cross-sectional study surveyed healthcare workers at a single academic center to determine how the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic affected the perceptions and behaviors of PPE usage.

Methods

An anonymous online survey through the SurveyMonkey® tool (Zendesk Inc., San Francisco, California) was sent to the University of California, Irvine, Medical Center department listserv of nurses on March 20, 2021, and was closed on June 20, 2021.

Results

Of 311 respondents, 23% admitted to suffering a splash injury to the face during a procedure. When compared to one year ago prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, PPE was more important (93% vs. 80%) and more frequently used (80% vs. 54%) by respondents. The recent COVID-19 pandemic had the strongest impact on increasing respondents' perception of the importance of PPE (44%).

Conclusion

The COVID-19 pandemic positively impacted rates of PPE usage and perceptions of the importance of PPE among healthcare workers at a single academic institution. Implementing clear and effective education and training programs, ensuring adequate access to protective gear, and promoting a positive safety climate can help improve adherence to safety protocols and appropriate use of PPE.

BACKGROUND:Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has become increasingly integrated into the practice of emergency medicine. A common application is the extended focused assessment with sonography in trauma (eFAST) exam. The American College of Emergency Physicians has guidelines regarding the scope of ultrasound in the emergency department and the appropriate documentation. The objective of this study was to conduct a review of performed, documented and billed eFAST ultrasounds on trauma activation patients. METHODS:This was a retrospective review of all trauma activation patients during a 10-month period at an academic level-one trauma center. A list comparing all trauma activations was cross-referenced with a list of all billed eFAST scans. Medical records were reviewed to determine whether an eFAST was indicated, performed, and appropriately documented. RESULTS:We found that 1,507 of 1,597 trauma patients had indications for eFAST, but 396 (27%) of these patients did not have a billed eFAST. Of these 396 patients, 87 (22%) had documentation in the provider note that an eFAST was performed but there was no separate procedure note. The remaining 309 (78%) did not have any documentation of the eFAST in the patient's chart although an eFAST was recorded and reviewed during ultrasound quality assurance. CONCLUSION:A significant proportion of trauma patients had eFAST exams performed but were not documented or billed. Lack of documentation was multifactorial. Emergency ultrasound programs require appropriate reimbursement to support training, credentialing, equipment, quality assurance, and device maintenance. Our study demonstrates a significant absence of adequate documentation leading to potential revenue loss for an emergency ultrasound program.