Informatyka Zaocznie

[gdshutter]

A major trickle-down effect of large-scale disease outbreaks may be a shortage of certain supplies. As COVID-19 appeared and spread among humans, the availability of items such as masks for nose and mouth (such as surgical operations) declined rapidly due to hoarding, flowing into the black market, and increasing unnecessary and legal use. In this case, the veterinary clinic is usually unable to obtain a mask because the supplier has sold out and production will (obviously) shift to supplying human medical facilities. Therefore, at present (in the field of human and veterinary medicine) an increasingly serious problem is how to deal with the shortage of supply, and the situation of insufficient supply of facilities is about to occur.
Surgical masks may be the first thing we use up. The most obvious solution to this problem is to start reusing medical masks, but these masks are sold as disposables and are not allowed to be reused under normal circumstances. So now many clinics are asking this question:
Can we reuse surgical masks?
The answer is not simple. First, we need to figure out what type of mask we are talking about. Use surgical masks during surgery to reduce the risk of surgeons injecting aerosols / droplets into the surgical site. The focus of this article is to use masks to protect veterinary patients. Reusing items to protect users (for example, from pathogens such as the COVID-19 virus) is another matter.
In a clinical setting, the main problem with reusing masks (ie protecting patients, not the wearer) is not mask contamination (because they are not sterile from the beginning), but whether they can still fully function when reused . This has not been fully investigated because there is not much incentive to study the reuse of items that are cheap and easily available (under normal circumstances) like masks.
Consider the potential impact of using a general mask:
In surgery, the risk is mainly to the patient, as it may increase the risk of contaminating the surgical site.
However, in most cases, the overall risk of the patient may be limited, as long as other standards of surgical aseptic procedures are strictly followed. However, some operations have a higher risk. Limiting the conversation during the operation to the necessary discussion may slightly reduce the risk because the conversation will generate more aerosols.
In veterinary medicine, the risks faced by surgeons (such as infectious substances that are sprayed on the face during surgery) are very low (almost zero). (In human medicine, surgeons face more risks because they need to protect themselves from blood-borne pathogens, such as HIV and hepatitis C virus infections. Fortunately, we are not as high risk of animal transmission.)
Therefore, sub-optimal (such as repeated use) surgical masks are better than no masks, with a lower risk to patients (patients requiring surgery) and an almost zero risk to staff.
The mask is marked for single use. Doesn't this mean it's inappropriate to reuse them?
Reusing items sold for single use is actually quite common, especially in veterinarians. We just need to put in some thinking and be responsible for how and when to complete these tasks.
At present, there are not many specific guidelines on mask reuse (but I doubt there will be more guidelines in the near future). The CDC recommends prolonging the use of the mask rather than reusing it (such as wearing the same mask longer, rather than taking it and taking it again), but their discussion also includes the use of the N95 mask laboratory-this is to protect the wearer, So the use of masks other than contamination is more of a concern than removing surgical masks.
A reference material on the reuse of masks during an influenza pandemic states: "If there are not enough masks available, NIOSH and the CDC recommend that as long as the masks are not significantly soiled or damaged (such as wrinkles or tears), medical institutions Consider using a mask again. "This seems reasonable.
How to sterilize the mask using autoclave or dry heat sterilization?
This may be counterproductive. From the perspective of patient protection, the most important issue is not the accumulation of microorganisms on the mask, but the integrity of the mask. Steam, in particular, may be harmful, because most masks are used to absorb liquids (ie, from the wearer's breath). I am worried that the method of disinfecting the mask will reduce the contaminants, but it will eventually destroy the mask and cause a greater risk. https://nioshn95respirator.com

[Reklama]