RSSAll Entries Tagged With: "PPE"

We advance, masked!

In the topsy turvy world of Personal Protective Equipment (aka PPE), there are some developments on the decontamination/reprocessing of masks that I wanted to bring to your attention, if you’ve not already scoped them out.

First up, a little more information from our friends at the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, where we find that the guidance issues to surveyors is to be somewhat judicious in how they chase issues relating to PPE, but the basic expectations of employers look like this:

  • Make a good-faith effort to provide and ensure workers use the most appropriate respiratory protection available for the hazards against which workers need to be protected. Efforts should be consistent with flexibilities outlined in OSHA’s previous COVID-19 enforcement memoranda.
  • When respirators must be decontaminated to facilitate their reuse in ways consistent with OSHA’s previous COVID-19 enforcement memoranda and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Strategies for Optimizing the Supply of N95 Respirators, ensure that decontamination is accomplished according to the methods described above and detailed in CDC’s Decontamination and Reuse of Filtering Facepiece Respirators using Contingency and Crisis Capacity Strategies.
  • Ensure users perform a user seal check each time they don a respirator. Employers should not permit use of a respirator on which the user cannot perform a successful user seal check. See 29 CFR § 1910.134, Appendix B-1, User Seal Check Procedures.[11]
  • Train employees to follow appropriate precautionary measures prior to using a decontaminated filtering facepiece respirator (FFR). See cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/ppe-strategy/decontamination-reuse-respirators.html.
  • Train employees using decontaminated respirators to understand that if the structural and functional integrity of any part of the respirator is compromised, it should not be used by that individual as respiratory protection. The inability to achieve a successful user seal check could be an indicator that the integrity of the respirator is compromised.
  • Visually inspect, or ensure that workers visually inspect, the FFRs to determine if the structural and functional integrity of the respirator has been compromised. Over time or as a result of the decontamination process, components such as the straps, nose bridge, and nose foam material may degrade, which can affect the quality of the fit and seal.
  • Train employees on the procedures for the sequence of donning/doffing to prevent self-contamination. See cdc.gov/niosh/npptl/pdfs/PPE-Sequence-508.pdf.
  • If no manufacturer or third-party guidance or procedures are available to support the specific decontamination method(s) employed, avoid the use of decontaminated FFRs when healthcare personnel perform surgical procedures on patients infected with, or potentially infected with, SARS-CoV-2 or perform or are present for procedures expected to generate aerosols or procedures where respiratory secretions are likely to be poorly controlled (e.g., cardiopulmonary resuscitation, intubation, extubation, bronchoscopy, nebulizer therapy, sputum induction). If decontamination methods degrade FFR performance, including filtration and fit, or otherwise affect structural integrity, the decontaminated FFR may not provide the level of protection needed or expected during aerosol-generating procedures.

I suspect that, in general, folks are being sufficiently attentive to their PPE (perhaps more than has ever been the case) that they are checking for integrity (though they may not be as familiar with the User Seal Check Procedure—could be a teachable moment). And the missive covers some decontamination methodologies that may be of interest, particularly in light of the FDA’s altered stance on decontamination and reprocessing of masks.

I guess the questions become those related to available supplies of PPE. I get the sense that some folks are still relying to a fair degree on the use of masks that are not NIOSH-approved and so this latest development could potentially mean that, in the absence of being able to decontaminate and reprocess, the supply chain is going to have to be considerably more robust in either providing more non-NIOSH masks or more NIOSH masks that can be appropriately decontaminated, etc. I’d be curious to hear of any experiences (good or not so) that you’ve had in this regard. It seems likely that, even as we try to get to the “new normal,” we’re going to be dealing with this for a while, so we might as well share the good, the bad, and the ugly.

Speaking of which (sort of), as a closing thought for this week, now that I am hanging out in airports again, one thing that I’ve noticed is the phenomenon of the smile that doesn’t reach someone’s eyes. Pre-mask, I don’t know that I analyzed transient interactions with folks, but I find myself responding to folks based on their “eye language” and I’ve found that it can turn what would typically be a (more or less) neutral transaction into a positive or negative. I suspect that most customer service training involves reminding folks to smile, but now that our smiles have been temporarily removed from the occasion, the eyes are all we have for first impressions. Don’t know if that’s useful to you, but something to ponder.

Be well and stay safe ’til next time!

A little mo’ from the Mighty O (ccupational Safety & Health Administration)

As they are wont to do, the folks at OSHA periodically issue safety alerts and it would seem that the ongoing challenges of managing the ongoing occupational health and safety aspects of COVID-19 is ripe for alerting. You can find the complete list of alerts on OSHA’s COVID-19 homepage.

Interestingly enough, OSHA has not (as of this writing) issued an alert specific to hospitals, but they did recently issue an alert aimed at nursing homes and long-term care facilities, the elements of which are, at the very least, instructive for other folks in the healthcare demographic; you can find the alert in its entirety here. I just wanted to plant a seed relative to a few of these:

  • Maintain at least 6 feet between workers, residents, and visitors, to the extent possible, including while workers perform their duties and during breaks.
  • Stagger break periods to avoid crowding in breakrooms.
  • Always follow good infection prevention and control practices. Consult OSHA’s COVID-19 guidance for healthcare workers and employers.
  • Provide handwashing facilities and alcohol-based hand sanitizer with at least 60% alcohol throughout facilities.
  • Regularly clean and disinfect shared equipment and frequently touched surfaces in resident rooms, staff work stations, and common areas.
  • Use hospital-grade cleaning chemicals approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from List N or EPA-approved, hospital grade cleaning chemicals that have label claims against the coronavirus.
  • Ensure workers have and use any personal protective equipment (PPE) they need to perform their jobs safely.
  • Continually monitor PPE stocks, burn rate, and supply chains. Develop a process for decontamination and reuse of PPE, such as face shields and goggles, as appropriate. Follow CDC recommendations for optimization of PPE supplies.
  • Train workers about how to protect themselves and residents during the pandemic.
  • Encourage workers to report any safety and health concerns.

I don’t know that there’s anything on the list that doesn’t make sense, but I do think it might be useful/beneficial to keep an eye on these (and the other elements) to ensure you and your folks are not at elevated risk for exposure. Admittedly, there is still a lot we don’t know about the epidemiological aspects of COVID-19 and it may result in additional levels of guidance and/or protection (remember those halcyon days when masks were not required—seems like only months ago—oh, wait, I guess it was…). I also think it’s important to hear folks out if they voice frustrations with process, etc. A fair amount of this stuff is learning as we go—and making the best decisions we can based on the available information—in full recognition that being a leader in healthcare can mean having to put up with some unpleasant feedback. I think some folks in the field remain super concerned and super attentive to the decisions others are making on their behalf, so it’s important to keep things on an even keel.

Until next time, continue to stay safe—and keep rocking it!

Will it go ’round in circles? A couple more pieces of the COVID-19 pie

As I try to embrace brevity as the soul of wit (which is likely to be as close to Shakespearean as this space is ever likely to venture), I have just a couple of resources to share with you folks this week. I do hope this finds you settling in (at least somewhat) to the current reality and the “new” stressors have subsided a bit.

Clearly, there’s been a lot of discussion regarding the protection of healthcare workers, mostly as a function of providing essential personal protective equipment (and the struggles that folks have faced in procuring said PPE). What is somewhat sketchier at the moment it to how organizations/employers are going to be held accountable for worker protection in the aftermath of the pandemic condition. But you might be able to gain some sense of things by consulting our friends at the federal Occupational Safety & Health Administration. While the OSHA website does speak of “discretion” in enforcement activities when considering an employer’s “good faith” efforts, I think it will be of critical importance that we be able to speak to a risk assessment to determine where folks jobs/tasks fall on the exposure continuum. OSHA indicates a spread of low, medium, high, and very high as risk categories with the enjoinder “(u)ntil more is known about how COVID-19 spreads, OSHA recommends using a combination of standard precautions, contact precautions, airborne precautions, and eye protection (e.g., goggles, face shields) to protect healthcare workers with exposure to the virus.” They also encourage the use of the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention as the primary source of current strategies, etc., so we can all work from the same source.

One of the other common threads of discussion relates to the disinfection of surfaces, etc., for which I would encourage you to check out the Environmental Protection Agency’s list of approved disinfectants (hopefully whatever your organization is using is on the list; not necessarily a deal-breaker if it isn’t, but there are always risks when one goes off-list). I keep reflecting on the reality that, in all likelihood, we won’t know what worked/didn’t work, etc., until this is long past it’s point of criticality, so it’s important to make sure that we can evidence a thoughtful process in identifying strategies. As of this writing (April 21), there does seem to be a growing unrest to get things back to normal, with some states opting to employ less restrictive strategies for distancing (in all its many permutations—who knew?). I am hopeful that we won’t be having this same discussion a month (or two months) from now if there is a resurgence, but it does seem inopportune to try and short-circuit a process before we have enough data to support easing up on things. I guess it all goes back to what they say about time—it will tell!

Stay safe!

Why pay full price for the right thing…

…when you can get an approximation for a lot less money!

I’ve been sitting on this particular line of thought for quite some time—long enough for the world to get to a place where having to “make do” is not only the order of the day, but a philosophy that is being endorsed by the various and sundry regulatory folks as work to hold the line on PPE and other operational necessities. It seems almost daily, the hard lines that existed in the compliance world have blurred to the point of vanishing. And while we know that things will eventually return to whatever normal awaits us, there are some indications of what that world might look like (again, looking purely at regulatory compliance as a function of surveys).

While there has been no formal public announcement yet (though I am anticipating something or other in the not too distant future), it seems that something we chatted about almost a year ago is going to manifest itself during surveys conducted by our friends in Chicago to the tune of an additional scheduled survey day, with the intent being the opportunity to really kick the environmental tires (so to speak) in your outpatient locations. As we discussed last year, I believe that there’s the potential for any number of vulnerabilities in the outpatient settings that may not manifest themselves so readily in the hospital setting, but if you look at what has been driving the numbers when it comes to the survey of the physical environment, it is clear that a lot of the same potentials exist—loaded sprinkler heads, issues with door hardware, gaps in inspection, testing and maintenance activities, depending on the environment, even air pressure relationships, and the management of temperature and humidity can be in the mix. The cynic in me is quite certain that there is no surprise in moving further afield with the survey process when it comes to generating findings—think of how much stuff they found in hospitals, where we exercise the most “control”! At any rate, I’m sure we’ll be getting the official word soon, but I’ve been thinking about what this is all gonna look like post-COVID and I think this is an important piece to be thinking about in terms of preparation.

In closing for this week. I wanted to share a piece on inspirational quotes. I personally don’t hate inspirational quotes as a going concern, but I hadn’t run into to a few of these before, so I figure it can’t hurt to share with the group.

Hope you all are safe and (reasonably) sane—you’ve got this!

Like water for opportunistic organisms: Protecting patients through utility systems

As a wise individual once noted, “water always wins” (at risk of betraying my nerd status, you can find the entire quote here), and it seems like water in its numerous forms is giving facilities professionals a run for their money this year. From mold in an OR in the Northwest to the constant battle (or so it seems) with Legionella prevention, this is as challenging a time as I can recall for facilities. And that doesn’t even take into account the ongoing impact of minor intrusions—leaks, condensation, overflowing toilets—it is an almost endless list of troubles.

My intent was to provide the above as information, with my usual encouragement to leverage point-of-care/point-of-service staff in the early identification of trouble spots, but I’m also thinking that perhaps someone out there in the field has been able to develop an effective plan for the proactive management of water woes. Certainly, I know of folks with fairly predictable “rainy seasons” and then there are those locations in which rain is a constant threat, not to mention the intrusion of humidity by various (and sometimes nefarious) means. So, what do you do that works (recognizing that this is not a one size fits all proposition)? Do you have any useful/effective strategies you can share with the blogosphere? I generally only hear about stuff that doesn’t work, so it would be a treat indeed to tout someone’s intuitive brilliance.

As a final note for this week, those of your laboring under the yoke of TJC accreditation might do well to give the August issue of Perspectives a look (it’s become less of a regularly useful read for me, but every once in a while). In the Consistent Interpretation column/article, there’s a lot of discussion (under the guise of the Infection Control standards) of PPE use/availability/education, etc. Again, the findings are falling under the IC standards from a past survey result standpoint, but I don’t think it’s a stretch for some (or almost any) of these to be applied as Hazardous Materials & Wastes Management findings. Again, not everything applies, but I think if we’ve learned nothing else over the years, it’s the funky application of survey concepts from one are of scrutiny to another. Stranger things have happened…

Try to keep things cool over the second half of the summer!

You don’t have to be a weather(person)man to tell: Kicking off survey year 2018!

Your guess is as good as mine…

Just a couple of brief items (relatively—you know how I do go on, but I will try) of interest. I don’t know that there’s a common theme besides an effort to anticipate in which direction the survey winds might blow in 2018:

  •  Previously in this space, I’ve mentioned the work of Matt Freije and his team at HCInfo as they have done yeoman’s (yeoperson’s?) work in the field of water systems management and the “fight” against In response to last year’s letter of intent by CMS to take a more focused look at how hospitals and nursing homes are providing appropriately safe water systems for their patients, Mr. Freije has developed a checklist to help folks evaluate their current situations and has posted the checklist online for comment, suggestions, etc. I’m having a hard time thinking that this might not become something of a hardship for folks arriving late to the party, so if you’ve not yet embraced poking around this subject (and even if you have), you’d do well to check out the checklist.
  •  A couple of inspection items relative to the ongoing rollout of the various and sundry changes wrought by the adoption of the 2012 Life Safety Code®, some of which have yet to migrate in detail to the accreditation organization publications (at least the ones that I’ve seen), but have popped up during recent CMS surveys:
    • Make sure you fire alarm circuit breakers are clearly marked in red (check out NFPA 72 10.5.5.2 for the skinny on this).
    • Make sure your ILSM/fire watch policy/process reflects the appropriate AHJs—you need to make sure that you know for sure whether your state department of public health, et al, want to be notified. They do in California, and probably elsewhere.
    • In NFPA 25, chapters 5 and 13 indicate some monthly inspections of gauges, valves for condition, appropriate position (open or closed) and normal pressures—again, they’re not specifically listed in the accreditation manuals yet, but I suspect that they’ll be coming to a survey report near you before too long.
    • A final note for the moment in this category, NFPA 70 (2011 edition) 400.10 indicates that “flexible cords and cables shall be connected to devices and to fittings so that tension is not transmitted to joints of terminals.” Keep an eye on power strips, particularly in your IT and communications closets for those dangling power strips (and some of them aren’t so much dangling as they are pulled across open spaces, etc. I suspect you know what I mean.) I know the folks who manage this stuff think that we are just being pains in the butt, but now you may have a little codified leverage.
  •  In my post a couple of weeks ago, I don’t think I played the personal protective equipment (PPE) card with sufficient gravity; part of folks’ understanding of the hazards of using chemicals is recognizing the importance of actually using appropriate PPE as identified on the product SDS. When you think about it, the emergency eyewash station is not intended to be the first line of defense in the management of exposures to chemical hazards, but rather what happens when there is an emergency exposure. If the use of PPE is hardwired into the process, then the only time they’ll need to use the eyewash equipment is when they do their weekly testing. At that, my friends, is as it should be.

 

Try to run, try to hide: Some random thoughts to open the 2018 Physical Environment campaign

I suspect that I may return to the coming changes to the Life Safety standards and EPs dealing with outpatient occupancy, but I wanted to toss a couple of other thoughts your way to start things off with a lesser potential for headaches derived from over-stimulation of the regulatory madness response.

Some of the funkiest findings that arise during survey are those relating to the euphemistic “non-intact surfaces.” The overarching concerns relate to how effectively non-intact surfaces can be cleaned/disinfected, with the prevailing logic being “not particularly well.” One of the surfaces that will encounter scrutiny during survey is the omnipresent patient mattress and I suspect a recent study by ECRI is only going to increase attentions in this regard because, to be honest, what they found is kind of disturbing. As we’ve discussed in the past, ECRI publishes an annual list of technology challenges, and #3 on the hit list this year involves the risks associated with “mattress ingress,” which roughly translates into blood and body fluids seeping into mattresses with non-intact surfaces. I think part of the dynamic at work is that mattresses are somewhat (and in some instances, very much) more expensive than in the “old days,” which decreases the ability for organizations to have a ready supply of backup mattresses for replacement activities. Of course, you have to have a robust process for identifying mattresses to be replaced and that process generally hinges on the active participation of the folks in Environmental Services. As one might imagine, this can become a costly undertaking if you’ve got a lot of cracked or otherwise damaged mattresses, but if you need some additional information with which to encourage the importance of the process, Health Facilities Management magazine has something that I think you’ll find useful.

Another one of those funky findings that I see bubbling up from time to time are those related to the use (including availability) of appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). From a practical standpoint, I know it can be a wicked pain in the butt to get folks to do what they’re supposed to when it comes to PPE use (especially when they are engaged in the inappropriate mixing of chemicals—yow!). While it is too early to tell whether this is going to be helpful or another bludgeon with which regulatory surveyors can bring to bear on safety professionals, the tag team of CDC and NIOSH have come up with a “National Framework for Personal Protective Equipment Conformity Assessment – Infrastructure” to help achieve some level of standardization relative to PPE use. It does (of course!) include the use of processes that very much resemble those of a risk assessment, including identification of risks and hazards and identification of PPE types needed to address those risks and hazards. Part of me is fearful that this is going to be just one more opportunity for field surveyors to muddy the waters even more than they are now (is that even possible? I hope not…). At any rate, this is probably something with which you should be at least passingly familiar; you can find the details, as well as the downloadable document, here.

As you’ve probably noticed over the last little while, these pages tend to focus more on TJC and CMS than most of the accreditation organizations, but I was happy (Pleased? Intrigued? Something else?) to see that the Health Facilities Accreditation Program (HFAP) had published a summary of its most frequently cited standards/conditions during 2017 in its annual Quality Report. I’ll let you look over the document in its entirety, but some of the EC/EM/LS findings were kind of interesting. In no particular orders, some topics and thoughts:

  • Business continuity: Effective recovery from an emergency/disaster is the result of thoughtful planning. The road to recovery should be clearly charted.
  • Emergency supplies: Apparently there is a move towards maintaining emergency supplies as a separate “entity”; also an inventory is important.
  • Security of supplies: Make sure there are provisions for securing supplies; I suspect this is most applicable during an emergency, particularly an extended-time event.
  • Personal Protective Equipment: Don’t forget PPE in your emergency planning activities.
  • Decontamination/Triage/Utilities/Volunteers: Make sure you have a handle on these in your emergency plan.
  • Environment of Care: Eyewash stations, ligature risks, dirty and/or non-intact surfaces, clustering of fire drills, past due inspections of medical equipment, air pressure relationships, open junction boxes, obstructed access to electrical panels, etc., risk assessment stuff, making sure that all care environments are demonstrably included in the program.
  • Life Safety: Improper installation of smoke detectors, exit/no exit signage concerns, fire alarm testing issues (not complete, no device inventory, etc.), egress locking arrangements, unsealed penetrations, rated door/frame issues.

Again, the link above will take you to the report, but there’s really nothing that couldn’t be found anywhere if there are “lapses of concentration” in the process. Right now, healthcare organization physical environments are being surveyed with the “bar” residing at the perfect level. I have encountered any number of very effectively managed facilities in the 16 years I’ve been doing this, but I can count the number of perfect buildings on the finger of no fingers. Perhaps you have one, but if you’ve got people scurrying around the place, I suspect perfection is the goal, but always a distance away…

These are a few of my favorite things: Safety Risk Assessments!

A somewhat mixed bag of news items for you this week: a cornucopia of compelling content, if you will…

The Center for Health Design has published a pretty cool safety risk assessment tool that is available free on its website, although you do have to register (also free). The web page offers an introductory video describing the risk assessment, so you can check it out before you register.

In other news, Maine became the first state to ban flame retardants in upholstered furniture. As I travel the highways and byways of these United States, I see a fair amount of holiday decorations that have been treated with flame retardant sprays of various manufacture as folks try to provide a cheery environment for patients and not run afoul of the safety Grinches (and I use that term with all due respect and affection, having been a Grinch myself once or twice in the past). I don’t know if we’ll be able to say “as Maine goes, so goes the nation,” but this might have some interesting impact on the field-treating of combustible decorations.

As our final note this week, data from the U.S. Nurses’ Health Study II suggests that there is an increased risk of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) among nurses with frequent exposure (at least once a week) to disinfectants in certain tasks (cleaning of surfaces, etc.): https://www.ersnet.org/the-society/news/nurses-regular-use-of-disinfectants-is-associated-with-developing-copd . The study indicates some of the “culprits” as glutaraldehyde, bleach, hydrogen peroxide, alcohol, and quaternary ammonium compounds. The article on the link also indicates that a recent European study of folks working as cleaners also showed an increased risk for COPD (somehow, not a surprising revelation to me). I think the bottom line on this (and perhaps our charge moving forward) is (and the article doesn’t really mention this) ensuring that folks are using appropriate PPE when they are using those types (or any type) of disinfectant products. PPE is always a tough thing to “sell” to folks, and while I think folks do understand that there are risks involved (just as there are risks associated with all sorts of behaviors—smoking springs to mind), there does seem to be a reluctance to take proper precautions every time one engages in these types of activities. I know this stuff isn’t particularly “sexy” when it comes to the topics of the day, but reinforcing basic protective measures can’t be a completely lost cause, can it?

 

 

Be prepared

As the flu season commences, the specter of Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) and its “presentation” of flu-like symptoms is certainly going to make this a most challenging flu season. While (as this item goes to press) we’ve not seen any of the exposure cases that occurred in the United States result in significant harm to folks (the story in Africa remains less optimistic), it seems that it may be a while before we see an operational end to needing to be prepared to handle Ebola patients in our hospitals. But in recognition that preparedness in general is inextricably woven into the fabric of day-to-day operations in healthcare, right off the mark we can see that this may engender some unexpected dynamics as we move through the process.

And, strangely enough, The Joint Commission has taken an interest in how well hospital are prepared to respond to this latest of potential pandemics. Certainly, the concept of having respond to a pandemic has figured in the preparation activities of hospitals across the country over the past few years and there’s been a lot of focus in preparations for the typical (and atypical) flu season. And, when The Joint Commission takes an interest in a timely condition in the healthcare landscape, it increases the likelihood that questions might be raised during the current survey season.

Fortunately, TJC has made available its thoughts on how best to prepare for the management of Ebola patients and I think that you can very safely assume that this information will guide surveyors as they apply their own knowledge and experience to the conversation. Minimally, I think that we can expect some “coverage” of the topic in the Emergency Management interview session; the function of establishing your incident command structure in the event of a case of EVD showing up in your ED; whether you have sufficient access to resources to respond appropriately over the long haul, etc.

Historically, there’s been a fair amount of variability from flu season to flu season—hopefully we’ll be able to put all that experience to work to manage this year’s course of treatment. As a final thought, if you’ve not had the opportunity to check out the latest words from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on the subject, I would direct your attention to recent CDC info on management of patients and PPE.

I suppose, if nothing else, the past few weeks of our encounter with Ebola demonstrates something along the best laid plans of mice and men: it’s up to us to make sure that those plans do not go far astray (with apologies to Robert Burns).

Uniformly clean

Reaching in once again to the viewer mailbag, we find a question regarding the laundering of staff uniforms. In this particular instance, this organization is moving from a business casual dress code for medical staff to providing scrubs (three sets each) to promote uniformity of attire (sorry, I couldn’t resist the pun). Now that the decision has been announced, there’s been a little pushback from the soon-to-be scrub-wearing folks as to whether the organization has to launder the scrubs if they become contaminated with blood or OPIM (the plan is for folks to take care of their own laundering).

So, in digging around a bit I found an OSHA interpretation letter that covers the question regarding the laundering of uniforms is raised and includes the following response:

Question 6: Is it permissible for employees to launder personal protective equipment like scrubs or other clothing worn next to the skin at home?

Reply 6: In your inquiry, you correctly note that it is unacceptable for contaminated PPE to be laundered at home by employees. However employees’ uniforms or scrubs which are usually worn in a manner similar to street clothes are generally not intended to be PPE and are, therefore, not expected to be contaminated with blood or OPIM. These would not need to be handled in the same manner as contaminated laundry or contaminated PPE unless the uniforms or scrubs have not been properly protected and become contaminated.

To my way of thinking, if the scrubs were to become contaminated, which would appear to be the result of the scrubs not having been properly protected (I’m reading that as “not wearing appropriate PPE), then the tacit expectation is that they would be handled in the same manner as contaminated laundry or contaminated PPE and since it is inappropriate for PPE to be laundered at home, then provisions would need to be made for the laundering of contaminated scrubs/uniforms. Now, you could certainly put in place safeguards, including the potential for corrective actions, if you have a “run” on folks getting their uniforms contaminated. It’s certainly possible that, from time to time, a uniform might become contaminated, but the proper use of PPE should keep that to a minimum.

How are folks out there in radio land managing scrubs that are used as uniforms (as opposed to being used as PPE)? Are you letting folks take care of their own garments or doing something that’s a little more involved? Always happy to hear what’s going on out there in the field.

And if I can take a moment of your time, I’d like to take this opportunity to remember my late colleague David LaHoda. This is the type of question he loved to answer and I loved helping him help folks out there in the great big world of safety. David, you are missed, my friend!