Skip directly to site content Skip directly to page options Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link
Volume 13, Number 10—October 2007
Research

Personal Protective Equipment and Antiviral Drug Use during Hospitalization for Suspected Avian or Pandemic Influenza1

Ashwin Swaminathan*, Rhea Martin*, Sandi Gamon*, Craig Aboltins†, Eugene Athan‡, George Braitberg*, Michael G. Catton§, Louise Cooley¶, Dominic E. Dwyer#, Deidre Edmonds*, Damon P. Eisen**, Kelly Hosking*, Andrew J. Hughes‡, Paul D. Johnson*††, Andrew V Maclean‡‡, Mary O’Reilly‡‡, S. Erica Peters§§, Rhonda L. Stuart¶¶, Rodney Moran##, and M. Lindsay Grayson*††***Comments to Author 
Author affiliations: *Austin Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; †St. Vincent’s Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; ‡Barwon Health, Geelong, Victoria, Australia; §Victorian Infectious Diseases Reference Laboratory, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; ¶Royal Hobart Hospital, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia; #Westmead Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; **Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; ††University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; ‡‡Box Hill Hospital–Eastern Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; §§Western Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; ¶¶Monash Medical Centre–Southern Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; ##Department of Human Services, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; ***Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia;

Main Article

Table 3

Number of close contacts (CCs) and exposures to API patient*

Characteristic
 No. CCs (no. exposures) per hospital
A
 B
 C
 D
 E
 F
 G
 H
 I
 Mean
Total 17 (26) 15 (20) 6 (15) 11 (20) 14 (17) 12 (20) 11 (17) 10 (11)† 6 (8)† 12.3 (19.3)‡
By clinical area
Triage 8 (8) 4 (4) 1 (1) 2 (2) 5 (5) 1 (1) 3 (3) 7 (7) 3 (3) 3.8 
(3.8)
ED 5 (11) 7 (11) 3 (9) 7 (10) 6 (9) 7 (10) 6 (9) 3 (4)† 3 (5)† 5.9 (9.9)‡
Ward
 4 (7)
 4 (5)
 2 (5)
 2 (8)
 3 (3)
 4 (9)
 2 (5)
 –
 –
 3.0 
(6.0)
By study period, h
0–1 10 (12) 8 (8) 3 (4) 6 (8) 7 (7) 8 (8) 5 (5) 9 (10) 5 (6) 6.8 
(7.6)
1–2 2 (3) 0 (1) 1 (2) 2 (2) 3 (5) 2 (6) 3 (3) 0 (0) 1 (2) 1.6 
(2.7)
2–3 2 (4) 0 (2) 0 (4) 3 (5) 2 (3) 1 (3) 0 (2) 1 (1)† 0 (0)† 1.1 (3.3)‡
3–4 3 (5) 5 (6) 2 (3) 0 (2) 0 (0) 1 (1) 2 (3) – – 1.9 
(2.9)
4–5 0 (1) 2 (2) 0 (1) 0 (1) 1 (1) 0 (2) 1 (2) – – 0.6 
(1.4)
5–6
 0 (0)
 0 (1)
 0 (1)
 0 (2)
 1 (1)
 0 (0)
 0 (2)
 –
 –
 0.1 
(1.0)
By HCW status
Non-HCW 3 (3) 5 (5) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (3) 0 (0) 2 (2) 4 (4)† 0 (0)† 1.9 (1.9)‡
HCW
 14 (23)
 10 (15)
 6 (15)
 11 (20)
 11 (14)
 12 (20)
 9 (15)
 6 (7)†
 6 (8)†
 10.4 (17.4)‡
No. HCW CCs (%) who wore complete PPE set during each exposure§
 2
 3
 5
 9
 8
 8
 8
 2†
 3†
 6.1 
(59)‡
No. HCW CCs (%) who wore N95 masks during each exposure§ 12 7 6 10 11 12 9 5† 3† 9.6 
(92)‡

*API, avian (H5N1) or pandemic influenza; ED, emergency department; HCW, healthcare worker; PPE, personal protective equipment.
†Incomplete data as simulation terminated after 2.5 h.
‡Excludes data from sites H and I.
§World Health Organization recommendations (Table 1).

Main Article

1This research was presented in part at the 47th Annual Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, Chicago, Illinois, USA, September 17-20, 2007.

Page created: July 02, 2010
Page updated: July 02, 2010
Page reviewed: July 02, 2010
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.
file_external