Objectives: The primary objective was to compare the usage of Hazardous Materials (HazMat) Protective Personal Equipment (PPE) and ordinary PPE when performing basic and advanced health care support maneuvers in a prehospital setting, evaluating the effectiveness of several procedures, defined as the mean success rate of each. The secondary objective was to evaluate the presence of a learning effect, with improvements in the success rate and/or procedure timing. Methods: This was a prospective within-subjects (repeated-measures) study conducted on Emergency Medical Services (EMS) responders within their Chemical-Biological-Radiological-Nuclear-Explosive (CBRNe) training institutional programme. Volunteers performed a trial sequence of eight lifesaving procedures four times. During the first trial sequence, they wore standard clothing; during the three successive trials, they wore full HazMat PPE equipment. The primary outcomes were changes in success rate and time interval across the four trials. Results: A total of 146 EMS responders volunteered for the experiment. Procedure success rates remained high overall, with the most notable initial drop observed for video-assisted intubation (≈−10%). The only statistically significant delay in the first HazMat trial compared with baseline was for intravenous access (median +30 s; p < 0.001). In the two successive HazMat trials, success rates and timings improved, with median values coming close to baseline. However, only 61% of participants completed the entire drill due to tolerance limits of the equipment. Conclusions: HazMat PPE, while physically and ergonomically demanding, has minimal impact on most lifesaving procedures, though it may reduce intubation success and delay intravenous access. Tolerance to prolonged use is a key limitation, but dexterity improves rapidly with brief practice. EMS responders can benefit from continuous training practice, while manufacturers could explore ergonomic and tolerance improvements in their PPE equipment.
Innocenzi, S., Ingravalle, F., Maurici, M., Di Rienzo, D., Casciani, D., Cesare Rinella, M., et al. (2025). CBRNe Personal Protective Equipment Is Not a Hindrance to Lifesaving Procedures in Prehospital Settings: A Prospective, Repeated-Measures Observational Study. EPIDEMIOLOGIA, 6(4), 1-10 [10.3390/epidemiologia6040057].
CBRNe Personal Protective Equipment Is Not a Hindrance to Lifesaving Procedures in Prehospital Settings: A Prospective, Repeated-Measures Observational Study
Fabio Ingravalle;Massimo Maurici;Antonio Vinci;
2025-01-01
Abstract
Objectives: The primary objective was to compare the usage of Hazardous Materials (HazMat) Protective Personal Equipment (PPE) and ordinary PPE when performing basic and advanced health care support maneuvers in a prehospital setting, evaluating the effectiveness of several procedures, defined as the mean success rate of each. The secondary objective was to evaluate the presence of a learning effect, with improvements in the success rate and/or procedure timing. Methods: This was a prospective within-subjects (repeated-measures) study conducted on Emergency Medical Services (EMS) responders within their Chemical-Biological-Radiological-Nuclear-Explosive (CBRNe) training institutional programme. Volunteers performed a trial sequence of eight lifesaving procedures four times. During the first trial sequence, they wore standard clothing; during the three successive trials, they wore full HazMat PPE equipment. The primary outcomes were changes in success rate and time interval across the four trials. Results: A total of 146 EMS responders volunteered for the experiment. Procedure success rates remained high overall, with the most notable initial drop observed for video-assisted intubation (≈−10%). The only statistically significant delay in the first HazMat trial compared with baseline was for intravenous access (median +30 s; p < 0.001). In the two successive HazMat trials, success rates and timings improved, with median values coming close to baseline. However, only 61% of participants completed the entire drill due to tolerance limits of the equipment. Conclusions: HazMat PPE, while physically and ergonomically demanding, has minimal impact on most lifesaving procedures, though it may reduce intubation success and delay intravenous access. Tolerance to prolonged use is a key limitation, but dexterity improves rapidly with brief practice. EMS responders can benefit from continuous training practice, while manufacturers could explore ergonomic and tolerance improvements in their PPE equipment.| File | Dimensione | Formato | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
epidemiologia-06-00057.pdf
accesso aperto
Tipologia:
Versione Editoriale (PDF)
Licenza:
Creative commons
Dimensione
791.23 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
791.23 kB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.


