Over the past few months, numerous people have contacted me to ask where they can purchase a face shield. I've assembled a list of some companies below. I'm sure there are many more, which I'm happy to add if you send me an email.
Three weeks ago, I wrote a piece on the lessons I learned from the beginning weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic in Iowa. You can see that here. If any of you feel like I do, three weeks in COVID time seems like a year. It has the feeling of a chapter from Einstein's Dreams. In ordinary time my week has a rhythm to it, with different meetings and activities on different days. Certain nights we go out for dinner. Now, every day is nearly the same at work and after work. It's all COVID, all the time. I sometimes wonder what normal life will be like but it seems so distant that I find it hard to imagine. I know that at some point this will end but it doesn't seem near enough to be real. It's like being in a surreal time warp that could have been an episode from the Twilight Zone. OK, enough weirdness. Here are my latest lessons:
Working at home truly increases efficiency. For the first time ever, I worked at home for an entire week. Previously, I had never worked at home for more than a day, and only if I had a project that required intense focus or a need to get it completed quickly. I had multiple Zoom meetings every day and gave four lectures by Zoom. What I now realize is that the many interruptions in my work day, with all the starting and stopping and the re-start after every interruption really reduce efficiency. At the hospital most of my meetings involve a 5-10 minute walk each way and when you have numerous meetings that adds up. And along the way you stop for unplanned chats that increase walking time. I also feel the need to check in with people that I work with and discuss current work issues. That's a good thing, but I now have a better view of how all of this impacts my workflow.
Medical care doesn't necessarily need to be face-to-face. Last week I had my first telemedicine clinic. I had done telemedicine inpatient infectious diseases consults for small community hospitals in the past but never outpatient clinic. It worked very smoothly. For most patients, particularly those with known problems, auscultation, palpation, and percussion don't add all that much. Once the outbreak is over, it will be interesting to see how many clinic visits return onsite. With advances in technology, patients can have BP cuffs that transmit readings, pulse oximieters, and even wireless stethoscopes at relatively low cost, making good assessment in the patient's home much more achievable.
Determining what is and is not an aerosol-generating procedure (AGP) needs to be thoroughly explored in future research. See these two excellent posts by Tom Talbot here and here to read more about AGPs.
In times of crisis, healthcare workers' risk tolerance is greatly reduced and risk perception is not always rational. This is natural given all of the information on the outbreak, much of it scary, that comes at us 24/7. There is a cry for zero risk, even though that is likely not achievable. In an effort to advocate for their constituencies, professional societies have added to the anxiety and created more demand for resources that are already scarce, such as testing supplies and personal protective equipment.
Once and for all, we need to determine the utility of every item of personal protective equipment for various types of pathogens. This will require federal funding to do the needed research. New designs should be evaluated and current PPE improved.
The focus of infection control and prevention research has been too focused on bacterial pathogens. Looking at journals from the last decade, one can see that most of the papers are focused on drug-resistant bacterial pathogens. These organisms pose little risk to healthcare workers. As above, federal funding will be needed to accomplish the needed work.
CDC has not been helpful by producing confusing information that is not practical, and SHEA and APIC have offered little to no guidance at a time when it is most needed. In contrast, the World Health Organization has produced guidance that is based on sound logic and written in a very clear manner.
Anthony Fauci is a hero. Where would we be without him? Don't think about the answer to that question.
With the assistance of a great supply management team, we have been able to outfit all of our clinical staff with face shields. See here for our rationale and implementation. Acceptance by healthcare workers has been good and compliance is easy to visually monitor. Our message is that the shields are to be worn at all times except when eating or when in a room alone. Shields alone are worn for non-COVID care. For the care of COVID patients, masks are added beneath the shield, except in the instance of aerosol-generating procedures, when N95 respirators are worn beneath the shield.
This week CDC recommended the use of cloth masks for all persons in public settings. Although cloth masks are better than nothing, depending on the material, the filtration efficiency varies, and they can become contaminated. Moreover, adjusting the mask increases the frequency of touching the face, which can lead to autoinoculation if the hands are contaminated. We're not very excited about this strategy. However, we believe that face shields offer a better solution for the public. Dan and I laid out the case for this in an OpEd in the Des Moines Register this week.
The advantages of face shields are their durability allowing them to be worn an indefinite number of times, the ability to easily clean them after use, their comfort, and they prevent the wearer from touching their face. Importantly, they cover all the portals of entry for this virus--the eyes, the nose, and the mouth. Moreover, the supply chain is significantly more diversified than that of face masks, so availability is much greater. Large companies, such as Apple, Nike and John Deere, have converted production lines to make face shields. Smaller companies, such as Upstaging, have as well. Upstaging is selling shields to consumers as well as hospitals. (I ordered some from them and received them in less than 24 hours.) Because the design of face shields is simple, massive production should not be difficult. Individuals and groups are making them via 3-D printing, and they can even be made from materials that are readily available from stores that sell office or craft supplies. Our goal should be to have a face shield for every person in the country. It should be worn anytime a person leaves their home, while in any public place, and even at work. From news reports, it appears that face shields are already being more commonly worn in other nations, particularly in some Asian countries.
Some argue that face shields may not prevent infectious aerosols that could be propelled around the edge of the shield. However, it appears that with this virus, transmission occurs mostly via droplets that do not have the ability to move in air currents and waft around the shield edges. But importantly, if everyone is shielded, these aerosols would need to move around the shield of the infected person and then waft around the shield of the uninfected person for infectious droplet nuceli to land on their face. The probability of this happening seems low, particularly since persons who are symptomatic and coughing should not be leaving their homes anyway. And hand hygiene still needs to be stressed to prevent autoinoculation.
Some are critical of any strategy that isn't perfect. But let's think about the influenza vaccine. Although the effectiveness varies from year to year, on average it's 40%. We push this vaccine hard in the hospital and in the community. Could we expect that face shields are at least 40% effective in reducing the transmission of COVID-19? I think so. Universal shielding would bend the curve more quickly and accelerate the ability to reduce social distancing and restrictions on movement.
Face shields are a simple solution that if implemented universally would have a major impact on public health. Until we have a vaccine, this may be our best intervention for preventing transmission in the community.
There’s much about the COVID-19 pandemic that is unprecedented, at least in my lifetime. One aspect is very familiar, though: arguments about the primary mode(s) of transmission of a newly emerging respiratory virus.
Much of the problem stems from our need to divide transmission modes into simple categories in order to apply prevention measures effectively. When someone calls the infection prevention program to ask about precautions recommended for virus X on the respiratory viral panel, it's not helpful to begin the conversation by saying,
“well, you know, droplet and airborne transmission is not really a dichotomy, it’s more like a continuum, and there are a lot of factors at play—can we talk in more detail about the patient’s condition, what procedures they might be undergoing, and whether they might break out in song during routine patient care activities?”
One recent review you may find useful was published in Current Opinions in Infectious Diseases in August of 2019 by Shiu, Leung and Cowling (talk about great timing…). A very important point made in this piece is that viral nucleic acids and (less often) viable virus can be found in air samples--including from healthcare environments--for influenza, RSV, adenovirus, rhinovirus, and other coronaviruses. So reports about airborne SARS-CoV-2 (which will keep coming out in both pre-print and peer-reviewed literature) are not surprising. Nor do they answer the most important practical question about SARS-CoV-2 transmission:
Is airborne transmission a major mode of COVID-19 spread in community and in routine (i.e. no aerosol-generating procedure (AGP)) clinical settings?
My view is that we should consider the epidemiology of COVID-19 thus far in the pandemic, to determine if transmission patterns are more consistent with that of other common respiratory viral pathogens, or more consistent with that of the agents we classically consider to be transmitted by the airborne route (measles, VZV and M. tuberculosis). We could compare, for example, attack rates in various settings (household, healthcare, public), and the infamous R0 (expected ‘average’ number of secondary cases from a single infected individual in a susceptible population).
For COVID I’ll point to two careful contact investigations—this one of the over 400 close contacts of the first 10 travel-related COVID-19 cases in the US, and this study from Guangzhou, China, which was ten-fold larger (4950 close contacts to confirmed cases). The US study examined symptomatic secondary attack rates, and the study in China did serial RT-PCR on all contacts in addition to monitoring for symptoms. The findings are remarkably similar: highest attack rates are among household contacts (10.5% in US, 10.2% in Guangzhou), with extremely low rates of transmission among healthcare or community contacts (zero in US study, 1% among healthcare contacts and 0.1% among public transport contacts in Guangzhou). As for the R0, which of course varies as a population begins prevention approaches, the best estimate in my opinion is the tragic natural experiment performed on the unfortunate passengers of the Diamond Princess: during the early stage of the outbreak the R0 was 2.3.
For measles, the R0 is 12-18 and the secondary household attack rates are >= 90%.
For VZV, the R0 is ~10 and the secondary household attack rate is 85%.
Based upon the above, I’m confident that SARS-CoV-2 transmission is similar to that of other respiratory viruses we are used to encountering—for which experience suggests droplet + contact spread to be the primary route of transmission. The trick is determining under what conditions a higher-risk aerosol might be produced (i.e. what is our list of AGPs? See here and here, if you dare!).
Does this mean that every respiratory droplet falls to the ground immediately and within 6 feet of a coughing patient? No. Dr. Lydia Bourouiba has an excellent piece in JAMA about the role of “turbulent gas clouds” in allowing droplets to travel further, and to remain in the air longer, than our traditional “droplet-airborne” dichotomy considers. In my view, this kind of droplet + "gas cloud" production mostly contributes to the extensive surface contamination that results in the highest risk of transmission being among close household contacts.
Since my post last weekend, I now have found the term that, once this is all over (and it will be over someday, my friends), will send me into flashbacks and result in me sitting in the corner, rocking back-and-forth, saying "Please, Mommy, make it stop." "Aerosol-generating procedure." AGP for short. In the last few weeks, the items that healthcare teams across the U.S. and professional societies have insisted are AGPs have included, but are not limited to, the following:
Laboring patients in second or third stage of delivery
All TEEs ("because might accidentally enter the airway like a bronch")
EGDs (The new AGA guidance states: "To estimate the risk of viral transmission in endoscopic procedures, we examined data evaluating non-GI aerosolizing-generating procedures such as bronchoscopy and tracheal intubation. Our search strategy did not yield comparative studies on the degree of aerosolization with upper or lower GI endoscopy compared with bronchoscopy or tracheal intubation. However, we assume that insertion of the endoscope into the pharynx and esophagus is likely to be associated with a similar risk of aerosolization of respiratory droplets to that of bronchoscopy.")
Orthopedic procedures with drilling of intramedullary bone
Any surgery that goes anywhere near a sinus (All ophthalmologic procedures, any craniotomy, etc)
Any dental procedure
Cardiac cath lab procedures where the patient is "found down" (their MI might have been brought on by COVID-19)
All neurosurgery because the patient's face is right in the surgical field
All electrocautery (guidance that was courtesy of the American College of Surgeons that has now been removed from their guidance page)
Some such requests are based primarily on concerning yet truly anecdotal stories from other countries that claim a specific specialty is at "highest risk of contracting COVID." Often these are extended to all patients due to the possibility that an asymptomatic patient could be a source of spread, drawing the thread from detection of SARS-CoV-2 at high levels in the upper airways in asymptomatic patients to detection of viral RNAemia in a minority of hospitalized highly symptomatic patients to note theoretical risks. In many of these instances, the proposed risk of "aerosol" exposure is due to facets of the procedure that would have existed long before COVID-19 and, if true, should have warranted use of N95 respirators as part of Standard Precautions for these procedures for years. The added interjection of professional society guidance that understandably advocates for the healthcare workers in their field but doesn't contain any evidence base to support claims that x or y is an AGP that leads to increased risk of pathogen transmission requiring an N95 also creates marked discomfort for infection prevention and operational teams on the front line, when faced to assess risk and allot precious PPE. As a colleague told me last week, "No society is going to say, 'Hey, we're cool. We'll just take the masks.'" I imagine, if we had unlimited PPE, this wouldn't be an issue, as we all want our colleagues to be protected and feel safe. The reality is PPE is a scarce resource, and one that we have to use our science to guide decisions. The best thing about this issue is that hopefully Dr. Babcock will get more funding for her research to help address these questions. When all this is over, I guarantee you that the term "AGP" will cause me, and I imagine many of you, to run the other direction . . . Stay healthy and sane everyone!!
In previous blog posts, I mentioned the implementation of face shields to prevent nosocomial COVID-19 infection. Over the past few days, I have received many questions from people across the country, so I thought it would be useful to pull everything together in a single post and add some details.
Rationale
As we began to prepare for the pandemic, we assessed our inventory of personal protective equipment (PPE). However, knowing current inventory levels alone is not useful. It's deceiving when you see PPE inventory levels of several hundred thousand items. How could we ever run out, right? This is why your inventory levels must be evaluated in the context of normal demand. Your supply chain folks should be able to tell you how many PPE items are normally used on a daily or weekly basis. Next, you need to determine your expected demand for the outbreak. There is no right answer here as there are too many unknowns. You'll just need to make an educated guess. We determined that our critical level of each PPE item was 12 weeks (84 days) at four times normal demand*, although you could argue that this is an underestimate. Next our supply chain group developed an interactive spreadsheet with each row being a PPE item, and columns showing current inventory; normal demand per day; and days of stock at normal demand, two times normal demand, and four times normal demand. The final column (days of stock at four times normal demand) is color coded as follows: red <84 days, yellow 85-111 days, green >112 days (16 weeks). Once this is done, you will likely be surprised to find that what seemed like an abundance is really not so. When evaluating your levels, you also need to consider that some items are on allocation and you can expect to receive periodic shipments, while others are simply stocked out with no promise of future deliveries.
After reviewing all of the above, the most worrisome thing for us was an inadequate supply of face masks (<84 days at four times normal usage). My biggest fear was that we would overuse them early in the outbreak when few COVID patients are hospitalized, then have none after the surge of COVID inpatients arrived. Many hospitals had extended the use of face masks beyond a single patient encounter, which is a reasonable decision in this time of shortage, but we know that face masks lose their effectiveness when they get wet. Some began to use cloth masks, which is also a problem. So I began to wonder whether face masks could be replaced by face shields.
Why face shields?
They provide greater facial surface area coverage than face masks by protecting all the facial mucosal surfaces from infectious droplets.
Given that the eyes are protected, we can eliminate the need for goggles when a face mask is worn. And we know that healthcare workers are really bad at wearing eye protection.
They prevent you from touching your face. One of the major drawbacks of face masks is that some people will touch their faces even more to adjust the mask and this poses a risk for autoinoculation by contaminated hands.
Face shields are durable, can be cleaned after use, and reused repeatedly.
Many people (myself included) find face shields more comfortable than face masks.
Communication is better with shields than with face masks as your face is visible to patients and coworkers.
If all of your healthcare workers are shielded, social distancing becomes less important.
And importantly, this is a device that is diversified across other industries. There is greater availability since the medical supply chain is so stressed at this time.
Are there any disadvantages compared to face masks? The only one I can think of is the possiblity of a droplet coming in an upward trajectory going under the bottom edge of the shield. Although the probability of this is small, this can be minimized by having the shielded healthcare worker flex their neck when standing over the patient (for example, when performing a physical exam), bringing the bottom edge of the shield closer to the HCW's torso. Moreover, when doing a procedure that normally requires a face mask, we recommend that a mask be worn under the shield anyway.
A few people have asked what is the evidence that face shields can replace face masks, and those particularly inclined toward methodolatry (the profane worship of the randomized clinical trial as the only valid method of investigation) continue to demand that face shields not replace face masks. Do I have evidence? No. To me, this is just plain common sense--we have a product that is reusable, cleanable, covers more of your face, decreases the risk of autoinoculation, and keeps us from burning through our mask supply. We have hospitals in the US where nurses are using bandanas to protect themselves. In this extraordinary time, I can live without a clinical trial.
Implementation
We quickly found that face shields marketed for medical uses were stocked out. One of our pharmacists went to a local hardware store and found shields used for grinding. We then explored vendors that supply hardware and agricultural products (see more here on the purchasing process). In addition, the University of Wisconsin has a great website that includes diagrams for construction of shields, and Johns Hopkins has a "recipe" available that can be used to create 50,000 shields. We placed the Wisconsin diagrams on the hospital website and several manufacturing firms responded that they could fabricate them for us. In addition, we have had some designed and produced by people interested in 3-D printing. One of our physicians, modified the Johns Hopkins' information and has her kids at home making shields. We also placed on our hospital's website a request for donation of face shields that people have at home, and we received many donations. It has really been a community effort. As our supply of shields grows daily, we deploy them throughout the medical center. At this point, the shields are handed off from one worker to the next as their shift ends, but our ultimate goal is for every person to have one for their personal use.
Here are the instructions we give to our staff on when to use face shields:
Wear the face shield with every patient encounter (COVID and non-COVID patients) over a medical mask. Think of it as a new component of standard precautions--every patient, every time.
For COVID patients (confirmed or suspect), if an aerosol generating procedure is being performed, wear the face shield over an N95 respirator.
To help introduce the concept to our workforce, we produced this video:
We still have some details to iron out, such as the best product to clean the shield, since some products damage polycarbonate. We have had some of the shields break, so fabricating replacement shields to repair them is ongoing.
Lastly, I have had a number of people who want to purchase their own shield ask me which one I recommend. Over the past two weeks, I have tried many models and have become a face shield connaisseur. If you want to buy your own, I think the best is the Uvex Bionic S8510 made by Honeywell (shown in the photo to the right). It is more sturdy than many other models, provides greater facial coverage (extends laterally on the face to your ears), and is comfortable. What really sets it apart is the V-shaped, downward projecting bottom border of the shield. This allows it to sit close to your upper torso, minimizing the risk of upward trajectory droplets. As an added bonus, from a sartorial standpoint, you'll look top-notch in this one! It's the kingdaddy!
This is probably more than you ever wanted to know about face shields. But it's a crazy time and we hospital epidemiologists are doing things I could have never imagined just a month ago. The bottom line is that by employing face shields we are able to protect our workforce while extending the duration of time that we will have face masks available.
Stay safe and be well!
Mike Edmond
*Addendum: A hospital in New York reported 15-30 times normal demand for face masks.
(Apologies to Mike - we usually don't like to step on each other on the blog, but I missed he'd just published another great post! So don't miss it here!) So this week, the reality of what's coming started to dawn on many at the medical center. As we start moving from the preparation to the treatment phase of the pandemic, more people have been pulled into the realities of caring for suspected and confirmed COVID patients . . . and stories abound from around the U.S. about how a lot of them have some very strong opinions about PPE: A healthcare worker who showed up to work in full Ebola gear (no, I'm sure the co-workers felt safe in their "flimsy" masks). Entire units who mandated masking of everyone after a co-worker was diagnosed with COVID (and had not worked with symptoms). The sudden interest in and expertise about asymptomatic transmission by folks who never worried about coming to work sick with other viruses before. Adding to the confusion are the contradicting images (full Tyvek suits in China), messages (a Power Point describing Wuhan experiences that notes SARS-CoV-2 can spread "through eyelashes and hair"), and, sadly, guidance from various authorities:
OSHA: "Those who work closely with (either in contact with or within 6 feet of) patients known to be, or suspected of being, infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, should wear respirators."
CDC: First, the recommended protection included a respirator for all types of patient care. Then this was revised to: "Put on a respirator or facemask (if a respirator is not available) before entry into the patient room or care area. N95 respirators or respirators that offer a higher level of protection should be used instead of a facemask when performing or present for an aerosol-generating procedure. . .When the supply chain is restored, facilities with a respiratory protection program should return to use of respirators for patients with known or suspected COVID-19."
WHO, Canadian Health Authority, and an increasing number of state health departments, including Tennessee: Gown, gloves, facemask, eye protection (goggles or face shield) unless performing an aerosol-generating procedure, and then use a respirator or PAPR instead of the mask.
I definitely understand and support the need to be cautious, especially when it's early in a new pathogen outbreak, and the protection and safety of healthcare personnel (HCP) has been a major concern of mine and the focus of my career. But one can easily see how the seeds of confusion have been sown among our HCPs regarding PPE. No issue has been the bane of my work this week than "aerosol-generating procedures" or AGPs, and as I tried to dive into the science behind these recs, I came away even more confused. A few quick learnings and thoughts on this issue:
The term "aerosol" means a very different thing to a true aerosol scientist (whom I imagine I will offend with much of my own ignorance here) and most lay medical people: To the former, an aerosol is a smaller particle (smaller than a droplet), the smallest of which require a higher level of filtration to protect HCP (as in a respirator). To the latter, any visible drop of fluid, liquid, spit, etc. is an "aerosol" ("I can see it flying through the air!!"), and as such their perception is that the official lists (more on those in a bit) of AGPs are lacking.
The various lists of what might be an AGP vary by organization and even changes within a single organization's guidance. Some include nebulized medications. Some, like WHO, had nebs on one version of the list in 2007 but removed them in 2009. A brief summary below:
The actual science on what is an AGP and, more importantly, whether they confer a higher risk of transmission of infectious agents is a) very difficult to illustrate (often relying on retrospective recall of patient care activities in infected and non-infected HCP), b) involves some logistically challenging studies (ask Dr. Babcock), and c) has many confounding factors (individual patient issues, use of PPE, etc.). I refer you to a few excellent papers on the topic HERE and HERE (shout out to our favorite blogger!). Also see this nice summary in the lay press HERE.
I imagine, if we all shared our lists of AGPs, there'd be wide disagreement (which is why I didn't tell you mine). Some will have nebulized medications (which always throws the peds clinics into a frenzy). Some don't. CPAP/Bipap? Maybe, but the few studies that have examined this often just say "non-invasive ventilation," and 1 study in SARS had a single patient infect 22 HCPs as a driver of that risk. Is nighttime Bipap setting on the vent the same as rescue Bipap in impending respiratory failure (where there may be more suctioning and bagging of the airway?). Open suctioning of the airway? Just try to find any further description of that generic and broad term in any of the guidelines or evidence base. Is a brief (few seconds), pharyngeal suction an AGP? Is it really similar in risk to a deep, persistent need to suction copious lower airway secretions? Clearly no, but they're all "open suction of the airways." I think what we're seeing is that a simple term or list of procedures that is provided in guidance without strong evidence or out of an abundance of caution can have major logistic and psychological impact when trying to implement on the front line. Also, without more clarity (and more funded science on this topic!), we end up potentially using valuable PPE that was not warranted if no risk exists. I'll end by saying, sadly, this is not the first time we've dealt with this issue. For those of us who were hosp epis during the H1N1 pandemic, this exact conversation occurred, albeit with less intensity as the wave of illness didn’t flood the hospitals as much as expected. Our frontline healthcare workers are putting themselves at potential risk by caring for these patients, and they are understandably anxious and scared. Conflicted and confusing PPE recs do them no service, and guidance not rooted in science that leads to inappropriate use of PPE may lead to shortages down the road and more exposed HCP. This pandemic has already started, but perhaps we can finally learn and have more funded science to provide clarity and consistency on these issues that account for the real world nuances of delivery of healthcare. Failure to do so merely puts our HCP at greater risk for the next new pathogen.
