Availability of personal protective equipment and satisfaction of healthcare professionals during COVID-19 pandemic in Ethiopia

Study area and setting

A hospital-based cross-sectional study was conducted from 9^th to 26^th June 2020 at six public hospitals in Addis Ababa city administration, three months after the first confirmed COVID-19 case in Ethiopia in March 2020. Addis Ababa city is the most populated urban city in Ethiopia, and is home to about 17% of the urban dwellers in the country. In 2019, the city had a projected population of about 3.6 million and accounted for 3.7% of the total population [14]. The city has the highest number of health infrastructure and medical personnel compared with any city or region in the country. There were 12 hospitals and close to 100 health centers belonging to the public center, and about 25 private hospitals in Addis Ababa city. There were also over 17,000 HCPs in the city, including 2,441 (14%) physicians and 8,172 (47%) nurses by the end of July 2019. Addis Ababa city has the highest rate of COVID-19 cases and deaths in Ethiopia. As of 22^nd Oct 2020, a total of 46,570 confirmed COVID-19 confirmed cases and 122 deaths were reported in Addis Ababa [15]. The hospitals selected for the current study were the leading hospitals in the country and provided outpatient and inpatient services for the city residents and patients coming from different parts of the country.

Study population and sampling

Of the 12 government hospitals in Addis Ababa city administration, the following six were purposively selected based on the relatively higher number of health work forces: Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital (TASH), Zewditu Memorial Hospital (ZMH), Ghandi Memorial Hospital (GMH), Menelik II Hospital (MH), Yekatit 12 Hospital Medical College (Y12HMC) and St. Paul Hospital Millennium Medical College (SPHMMC). The study population included all categories of HCPs practicing in the selected hospitals at the time of the survey. In this study, HCP is defined as a healthcare provider in the selected hospital involved in the provision of healthcare services including intern doctors, resident doctors, general practitioners, medical specialists and sub-specialists, health officers, anesthetists, nurses, midwives, laboratory technologists, radiologists, physiotherapists, X-ray and laboratory technicians. The study targeted the HCPs since they are the majority involved in a number of healthcare activities which render them at risk of acquiring and transmitting infections.

Sample size was calculated using a single cross-sectional study design formula based on a 50% prevalence estimate of the availability of PPE in the hospital at 95% confidence level, 4% precision, a design effect of 1.5 and 25% non-response rate. Accordingly, the minimum total sample size targeted for this survey was 1,200 respondents. A mix of purposive and random sampling was applied to select participants based on their availability and willingness to participate in the study. In each hospital, the types and number of wards were initially identified and the number of healthcare workers within each ward was obtained from the human resource department. The sample size allocated to the hospital was distributed to the wards proportional to the size of their healthcare workers. Since it was difficult to obtain the complete list of healthcare workers in each ward at the time of the study, proper random sampling was not followed to select the study participants. Some healthcare workers in particular physicians or nurses were on duty, some were working in different departments in the same hospital or another hospital, and others were reluctant to accept the invitation to participate in the study. The list of the available voluntary healthcare workers was obtained and a simple random sampling was applied to select potential respondents based on the sample size allocated to each ward. All eligible participants who consented to participate were recruited into the study.

Data collection

Date were collected using structured paper-based self-administered questionnaires that composed of sections on demographic and occupational characteristics of the respondents (e.g., gender, age, education and years of work experience), working unit, availability and practices regarding compliance with usage of PPE (gloves, gowns, facemask, N95 respirator, goggles, face shields, and hair covers), as well as their main concerns and worries about the availability and use of proper PPE during the current COVID-19 pandemic. The satisfaction level of HCPs regarding the availability and use of PPE included four items: (1) I am satisfied with the current availability of PPE in my hospital during the COVID-19, (2) I am satisfied with the current use of PPE by health professionals in my hospital, (3) I am satisfied that the correct PPE (as recommended by WHO) is always available to me when managing suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patient in my hospital, and (4) I am satisfied that the correct PPE (as recommended by WHO) is always available to me when treating non-COVID-19 patients in my hospital. These items were measured using a five-point Likert scale, where 1-strongly dissatisfied, 2-dissatisfied, 3-average, 4-satisfied, and 5-strongly satisfied.

The questionnaire was developed in English based on related literature and available national and international PPE guidelines. A total of 12 experienced data collectors with health backgrounds were involved in data collection. One data collector per hospital was independently recruited and trained for this purpose, while one assistant healthcare workers was recruited from each hospital to facilitate and assist the data collection process. A guideline was developed by the research team to guide the data collectors, assistant healthcare workers and supervisors for data collection, quality assurance of data and ethical conduct during implementation of the survey. The components of the guidelines included sections on selection of respondents, data collection procedures using self-administered questionnaire, and ethical issues including COVID-19 infection prevention measures. Training and orientation on the survey including how to administer the questionnaire were conducted for the data collectors using webinar.

Before handing out the questionnaires to the potential study participants in the selected hospitals, the data collectors introduced themselves to the respondents, build a rapport with them and explained the aims of the study and data collection procedures. After obtaining consent from the participants, the questionnaires were handed out to the respondents and appointed for return to recollect the completed questionnaires. The questionnaires were distributed with a cover letter (consent form), introducing the study and explaining the purpose of the survey, instructions on how to complete the questionnaire, and researchers contact information for any questions the respondent might have. Participants completed the questionnaires by themselves in English language. Data collection took place concurrently in all hospitals. Upon return of the questionnaires, the data collectors checked for completeness and consistency, and incomplete questionnaires were taken back to the respondents for completion as much as possible.

Statistical analyses

Before data entry, each questionnaire was checked for completeness. Data were entered into the Census Surveys Professional (CSPro) Version 7.2 statistical software package and subsequently exported to SPSS version 23.0 (SPSS Inc., IBM, USA) for cleaning and data analysis. Continuous data were summarized using means and standard deviations, while categorical data were presented as frequency counts and percentages. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the study variables. The Chi-square test was used to assess the association between the groups.

The overall satisfaction score regarding the availability and use of PPE for each respondent was calculated by taking the sum of the scores of the four questions. Responses to these questions were summed to form a total satisfaction score ranging from 4 to 20, with higher scores indicating higher level of satisfaction. Using the total satisfaction score, individuals were classified into two groups: dissatisfied (≤ median score) and satisfied (>median score). The reliability of the questionnaire was measured by Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, and the Cronbach’s alpha for the satisfaction level was 0.769. A bivariate and multivariable binary logistic regression were performed to identify the main factors associated with healthcare professional’s satisfaction level regarding availability and use of PPE. Individuals were classified into two based on their satisfaction level: satisfied group (1), and the rest were placed in the dissatisfied group (0). Odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to quantify the associations between potential predictors and outcome variable, satisfaction level. A value of P<0.05 was used for all tests of statistical significance.

Ethical considerations

Ethical clearance for the study was obtained from the Institutional Review Board of the College of Health Sciences at Addis Ababa University (AAU). Permission to undertake this study was obtained from every relevant authority at all levels. Official letters from AAU were written to each hospital to cooperate and participate in the survey. All participants gave their informed consent prior to data collection. Anonymity and data confidentiality were ensured, and no identifiable data from individual participants were collected. All personnel involved in the survey received orientation on COVID-19 infection prevention and control measures.

Sample characteristics

From a total of 1,228 questionnaires distributed in six hospitals, 1,146 were completed and returned. Of these, 12 questionnaires were discarded due to missing data, resulting in 1,134 (92%) valid questionnaires for analysis. About 53% were females. Among the respondents reporting age, the mean (±SD) age was 30.3 ±6.4 years, about 58% aged between 20-29 years, and 32% aged 30-39 years (Table 1). The largest number of respondents were from TASH (25%, n=283) and SPHMMC (20.5%, n=233), followed by ZMH (15.6%, n=177) and MH (15.3%, n=174). Nurses constituted about 40% of the overall study participants, followed by physicians (22.2%), interns (10.8%) and midwives (10.3%). Among 252 physicians (22.2%) participated in the study, GPs and resident doctors accounted for 44.8% and 42.9%, respectively, while specialists and sub-specialists consisted the remaining 12.3%. With Gyn&Ob department constituting 17.2% of the respondents, surgical (13.9%), pediatrics (13.1%), medical (13.0%) and OPD (10.5%) departments represented a fairly similar number of study participants. Among the study participants reporting work experience, about 49% and 25% of the respondents reported that they served in the hospital less than 5 years and 5-9 years, respectively. However, the majority of the respondents (67%) at SPHMMC only served less than five years as compared to 28.3% of their counterparts at TASH.

Availability of PPE before and during COVID-19

The HCPs were asked the types of PPE that were frequently available in the hospital before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Table 2 shows the self-reported availability of different PPE by HCPs before and during the COVID-19. Gloves and gowns were reported as the most frequently available PPE in the routine care of patients before and during the pandemic. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the frequent availability of most PPE as reported by the study participants has improved, for example, the frequent availability of surgical facemask and N95 respirator has increased from 59.3% and 12.6% before the pandemic to 82.6% and 24.2% after the pandemic, respectively. The self-reported availability of gloves before and during COVID-19 was >90%, and statistically not significant for any of the hospitals. The availability of gowns for all study hospitals was >60% before and during the COVID-19, with no significant increase during the COVID-19.

The availability of facemask and N95 respirator showed a statistically significant increase during COVID-19 as compared to the pre-COVID-19 (P<0.001). Similarly, the use of eye protection (goggles and face shield) has increased from 18.6% before the pandemic to 27.1% during the pandemic (P<0.001), but only a steady increase was observed in the availability of hair covers during the pandemic as compared with the time before COVID-19 (P=0.240). This study found a major variation among the study hospitals with regard to the frequently available PPE before and after COVID-19. The frequent availability of N95 respirator during the pandemic was reported by 36% of the participants from SPHMMC and 30% from TASH as compared with 9.2% at MH and 13% at GMH. Even simple hand sanitizer was in short supply in some hospitals as reported by some respondents.

Use of PPE before and during COVID-19

The HCPs were asked the types of PPE that were frequently used in the hospital before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Table 3 presents the self-reported frequently used PPE by HCPss before and during COVID-19. Gloves and gowns were identified as the most frequently used PPE in the hospital before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. The use of gloves by all HCPs was above 90%, while the self-reported use by other healthcare workers before and after COVID-19 was relatively lower than others, despite showing some improvement during COVID-19. Likewise, the self-reported use of gowns remained not statistically significant before and during COVID-19, whereas its use rate remained less than 80% for the different categories of HCPs. The use of surgical facemask has increased from 47.2% before the pandemic to 85.7% during the pandemic for all HCPs (P<0.001).

The use of N95 respirator has also increased from 9.1% before the pandemic to 21.2% after the pandemic (P<0.001). Similarly, the use of eye protection (goggles and face shield) has increased from 11.6% before the pandemic to 22.4% during the pandemic (P<0.001). A statistically significant increase in the percentage of respondents reporting the frequent use of hair covers during the pandemic as compared with the time before COVID-19 was also reported (P=0.008). The self-reported use of N95 respirator was the highest for physicians than other even before (16%) and after (23%) COVID-19, while the least use of N95 respirator was reported by interns. Overall, the self-reported use of N95 respirator was lower than other PPE except the use of hair cover. Although there was an increase in the self-reported use of hair cover during COVID-19, its use was generally very low and the difference was not statistically significant regarding its use by the different categories of HCPs.

With regard to the types of PPE used during their last interaction with a patient, the majority of the HCPs reported the use of gloves (91.2%), gowns (72.4%), and facemasks (86.8%), with about 24%, 19% and 18% reporting N95 respirator, eye protection and hair dresses, respectively (Table 4).

Self-reported satisfaction level of healthcare professionals about PPE

Table 5 shows the satisfaction level of HCPs with regard to the current availability and use of PPE in the study hospitals, and 54.7% (n=584) and 17.5% (n=187) of the respondents reported that they were unsatisfied or somewhat unsatisfied with the availability of PPE, respectively. Similarly, 48.8% (n=521) and 20% (n=213) of the participants self-reported that they were unhappy or somewhat unhappy with the current use of PPE by health professionals in the hospital. Overall, only 12% or less of the respondents expressed their opinion that they were satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the current availability or use of PPE at their hospitals.

About 28% (n=294) and 27% (n=291) of all the respondents self-reported that they were dissatisfied or strongly dissatisfied, respectively, about the availability of the correct PPE in their hospital, as recommended by WHO, for managing suspected/confirmed COVID-19 patients (Table 5). It is only about one-third of the respondents who agreed or strongly agreed about the availability of PPEs in their hospital for managing COVID-19 patients as recommended by WHO.

Generally, more than half of the different healthcare professional categories reported that they disagreed or strongly disagreed about the statement on the availability of correct PPE in the hospital for managing COVID-19 patients as per the WHO recommendation, ranging from about 51% by physicians and 66% by interns. About 54% and 17.5% of the respondents reported that they were unsatisfied or somewhat unsatisfied with the availability of PPE, respectively. The overwhelming majority of interns (76.8%), physicians (72.3%) and nurses (72.9%) were unsatisfied with the current availability of PPE in the study hospitals. Only 10% of the respondents expressed their opinion that they were satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the current availability of PPE at their hospitals.

This study also assessed the level of preparedness of HCPs to provide direct clinical care to COVID-19 patients. Only 5.2% and 32.8% of the participants felt they were completely prepared or somewhat prepared to provide direct clinical care to COVID-19 patients, respectively. Overall, the majority (77%, n=872/1134) of the participants perceived that the PPE currently available to them at their hospital was inadequate to keep them safe from infection when managing suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients. The mean and the SD of the satisfaction scores of the four items regarding the availability and use of PPE were calculated. Table 6 shows the degree of satisfaction scores of all respondents. The first two items had a score of <2 (1.85±1.13 and 1.97±1.13), indicating strong dissatisfaction of the HCPs, while the remaining two items had a mean score of between 1.5 and 2.0 (2.65±1.40 and 2.70±1.39), showing the dissatisfaction of the study participants. The overall score was 2.29±0.97, showing that the majority of the respondents reported that they were dissatisfied with the availability and use of PPE in the study hospitals.

Bivariate and multivariable analyses of PPE self-reported satisfaction

The total satisfaction score regarding the availability and use of PPE for each respondent was used as dependent variable and dichotomized into two groups: dissatisfied (≤median score) and satisfied (>median score). This dependent variable was further subjected to bivariate and multivariable binary logistic regression analyses using eight potential independent variables (gender, medical profession, working unit, hospital, whether received training in PPE during the COVID-19 pandemic, whether used any ‘homemade’ or ‘creative’ PPE during COVID-19, whether they reported that adequate PPE was available to protect them from risk of infection while managing suspected/confirmed COVID-19 patients, and preparedness to tackle COVID-19).

Table 7 shows the relationship between the respondents PPE satisfaction level and independent factors for both bivariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses. In the bivariate logistic regression, the odds of satisfaction with the availability of PPE among males were 1.37 times higher than females (OR=1.37, 95% CI:1.08-1.75, P=0.010). However, nurses were less likely to be satisfied with the availability and use of PPE than physicians (OR=0.48, 95% CI:0.29-0.77, P=0.003). The HCPs at MH were less likely to be satisfied with the availability and use of PPE in their hospital than those in SPHMMC (OR=0.46, 95% CI:0.30-0.72, P=0.011). The odds of satisfaction among those respondents who reported that PPE was adequately available to protect themselves from the risk of infection when managing suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases were 8.31 times higher than among those who said ‘no’ (OR=8.31, 95% CI:5.84-11.82, P<0.001). The odds of satisfaction among those health workers who used any ‘homemade’ or ‘creative’ PPE such as homemade fabric, face covering clothes or sewed cotton masks (OR=2.01, 95% CI:1.53-2.66, P<0.001) and those who reported that they were prepared to provide direct care to suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases (OR=1.45, 95% CI:1.12-1.87, P=0.004) were higher than among other healthcare workers.

In the multivariable logistic regression analysis (Table 7), which was performed using eight independent variables in the model, the odds of satisfaction with availability of PPE among males were again 1.39 times higher than female healthcare workers (OR=1.39, 95% CI:1.05-1.85, P=0.023). The odds of satisfaction among HCPs from GMH were 1.69 times higher than among those working at SPHMMC (OR=1.69, 95% CI:1.05-2.71, P=0.031), while healthcare workers at MH were less likely to be satisfied with PPE than those at SPHMMC (OR=0.45, 95% CI:0.28-0.72, P=0.001). The odds of satisfaction among those healthcare workers who reported that PPE was adequately available to protect themselves from the risk of infection when managing suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases were 7.53 times higher than among those who reported inadequate PPE (OR=7.53, 95% CI:5.08-11.16, P<0.001). The odds of satisfaction among HCPs who reported that they were prepared to provide direct care to suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases were higher than other healthcare workers (OR=1.65, 95% CI:1.22-2.12, P=0.001). The factors such as medical profession, medical unit, training in PPE after COVID-19, and use of any ‘homemade’, or ‘creative’ PPE in the hospital did not have significant influence on the satisfaction level of HCPs regarding the availability and use of PPE. The multivariable binary logistic regression model presented in Table 7 had goodness-of-fit under the Hosmer-Lemeshow test (χ²=5.35, P=0.720), and the full model containing all predictors was statistically significant χ² (21, N=1067) = 231.56, P<0.001. The model as a whole explained between 19.5% (Cox-Snell R²) and 26% (Nagelkerke R²) of the variance in satisfaction level.