Photodermatology, photoimmunology & photomedicine · 2019
An investigation of different types of eyewear and face shields in protecting patients and operators from the harmful effects of ultraviolet radiation.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Britton Jason, Eadie Ewan, Turner David
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Phototherapy and photochemotherapy are commonly used treatment modalities for a range of chronic skin conditions. Whilst undergoing ultraviolet radiation exposure, patients can wear personal protective equipment. Face shields in combination with other forms of skin cover may be worn to provide both skin and eye protection. There are a number of different types of eyewear and face shields available for purchase. Some of these have clear identifications that show the levels of protection provided whilst others may not have any.
METHODS: A series of similar experiments has been undertaken independently at two phototherapy treatment centres-Chapel Allerton Hospital, Leeds and Ninewells Hospital, Dundee-to investigate the effectiveness of different face shields and eye protection that are available for purchase in the United Kingdom (UK). Two similar examples of one face shield were tested at both centres, and another was transferred between the units.
RESULTS: Not all examples of the face shields and protective eyewear provided the wearer full protection between 300 nanometres and 400 nanometres (nm). Cost and conformance to different standards was not always a good indicator. Some inexpensive examples tested also met British Association of Dermatology protective sunglasses guidelines.
CONCLUSIONS: It is incumbent on all centres to check the properties of protective face shields and eyewear provided to patients and operators to guard against the effects from ultraviolet radiation. There is no correlation between price of the protective equipment and level of protection offered, and there may be opportunity for cost savings.
METHODS: A series of similar experiments has been undertaken independently at two phototherapy treatment centres-Chapel Allerton Hospital, Leeds and Ninewells Hospital, Dundee-to investigate the effectiveness of different face shields and eye protection that are available for purchase in the United Kingdom (UK). Two similar examples of one face shield were tested at both centres, and another was transferred between the units.
RESULTS: Not all examples of the face shields and protective eyewear provided the wearer full protection between 300 nanometres and 400 nanometres (nm). Cost and conformance to different standards was not always a good indicator. Some inexpensive examples tested also met British Association of Dermatology protective sunglasses guidelines.
CONCLUSIONS: It is incumbent on all centres to check the properties of protective face shields and eyewear provided to patients and operators to guard against the effects from ultraviolet radiation. There is no correlation between price of the protective equipment and level of protection offered, and there may be opportunity for cost savings.