Personal protective equipment (PPE) efficacy in high-acuity healthcare: a comprehensive evidence-based review of infection control, radiation protection, clinical performance, and the multi-billion dollar cost of non-compliance for hospitals and healthcare workers.

Clinical Efficacy and Socio-Economic Impact of Personal Protective Equipment in High-Acuity Healthcare Environments: A Comprehensive Literature Review

Introduction

The role of personal protective equipment (PPE) in the contemporary healthcare landscape has transitioned from a routine procedural requirement to a critical intersection of biosafety, institutional economics, and clinical ethics. Within the last decade, the global medical community has been forced to re-evaluate the structural integrity of infection control protocols, particularly in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the escalating prevalence of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs). PPE, encompassing gloves, gowns, respirators, face shields, and specialized shielding, serves as the primary barrier preventing the bidirectional transmission of pathogens between healthcare providers (HCPs) and patients.^[1]

This report provides an exhaustive analysis of PPE efficacy, focusing on specialized environments — intensive care, cardiology, trauma, and radiology — while examining the profound social and financial consequences of non-compliance and the vital importance of protecting HCP domestic environments.

Mechanisms of pathogen transmission and barrier efficacy

Pathogen transmission in clinical settings occurs through three primary modalities: contact, droplet, and aerosol pathways. PPE is designed to intercept these pathways by creating a physical and biological shield. Contact transmission, both direct (HCP to patient) and indirect (via fomites), is primarily mitigated through the use of gloves and gowns.^[1] The efficacy of these barriers is well-documented; for instance, handwashing and gloves can reduce disease transmission by approximately 57%, while a cumulative approach incorporating masks, gloves, and gowns can achieve a 91% reduction in certain viral outbreaks.^[2]

In high-acuity environments, the risk of aerosolized transmission becomes paramount, particularly during aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs). Respirators, such as N95, FFP2, or FFP3 devices, provide superior protection compared to standard surgical masks by filtering at least 95% to 99% of airborne particles.^[3] Face shields and goggles further protect the ocular mucosa, which serves as a significant portal of entry for various respiratory viruses and bloodborne pathogens.^[4]

Specialized clinical environments: intensive care and high-risk procedures

The Intensive Care Unit (ICU) represents the highest concentration of critically ill patients and complex medical interventions, necessitating rigorous PPE adherence. In the ICU, the frequency of AGPs mandates the use of Level 2 or Level 3 PPE, often including FFP3 respirators and long-sleeved gowns.^[7]

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation and CPR quality

A critical area of recent study is the impact of PPE on the quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). International guidelines recommend that providers wear appropriate airborne-precaution PPE when performing CPR on suspected infectious patients.^[8] However, the physical burden of this equipment can compromise high-quality chest compressions. Systematic reviews have demonstrated that wearing full PPE during CPR can lead to a significant decrease in chest compression (CC) rate and depth, with the proportion of adequate CC depth falling from 0.78 without PPE to 0.55 with PPE.^[9]

Adverse effects of extended PPE use in critical care

The prolonged use of PPE is associated with significant physical and psychological adverse effects (AEs) for HCPs. Reported AEs include tension headaches, vertigo, dyspnoea, and dermatological issues such as pressure sores on the nasal bridge.^[10] Furthermore, significant heat stress arises from the non-breathable nature of water-repellent gowns and coveralls.^[1] These effects can lead to “presenteeism” or the reassignment of staff, which indirectly impacts patient care quality by reducing the available experienced workforce in high-acuity zones.^[11]

Cardiology and interventional suites: the dual burden of protection

In cardiology, HCPs face a unique “dual burden”: they must protect themselves and patients from both infectious diseases and ionizing radiation.^[6] Traditional lead personal protective equipment (LPPE) is mandatory to mitigate radiation effects. While lead aprons can reduce doses by over 98%, their weight (often >7 kg) contributes to significant musculoskeletal injuries.^[4]

Trauma and emergency medicine: high-volume exposure risks

Trauma resuscitation represents an environment where exposure to large volumes of blood and body fluids (BBF) is common. PPE must provide high-level fluid barrier protection without compromising speed.^[12] A 2021 study highlighted that occupational exposure to BBF remains high in emergency settings due to the frequency of exposures to the face and a lack of consistent PPE use during rapid-response scenarios.^[12] A persistent conflict in trauma care is the trade-off between the level of protection (Level A or B suits) and the ability to perform procedures; such gear can impair the ability to palpate a carotid pulse or assess head trauma.^[3]

Radiology and mobile imaging: innovations in equipment protection

The radiology department acts as a hub for cross-contamination, as pathogens like MRSA can survive on equipment surfaces for extended periods.^[13] Mobile radiography in ICUs and trauma bays is particularly high-risk, requiring portable units to be disinfected after every use.^[14]

Innovations in CR and DR cassette protection

Recent technological advancements in cassette protection have significantly improved both infection control and imaging quality in portable radiography. High-quality protectors and innovative sleeves address the critical needs of mobile imaging:

• Fluid Management and Absorption: Modern cassette protectors are designed to capture and manage fluid runoff, such as blood or sweat, by utilizing absorbent layers or moisture-resistant barriers that prevent fluids from contaminating patient beds and floors.^[15] This captures hazardous run-off without affecting the quality of the capture.
• Slippage and Positioning: To prevent the common issue of cassettes slipping behind heavy or immobile patients, these innovations utilize carbon layers and non-stick materials that provide a “slippery” exterior for easy positioning while maintaining internal nonslip grips to prevent skewing of the image.^[16]
• Socio-Economic Efficiency: These innovations offer a lower operational cost by providing reusable, easily decontaminated shells or high-volume, cost-effective disposable sleeves that maintain clinical high quality without the high price of full-system replacement.^[17]

Comparative analysis: cross-contamination and the impact of changing PPE

Changing PPE between every patient encounter remains the “gold standard” for preventing the transmission of MDROs.^[7] In contrast, “sessional use” — wearing the same gown or respirator for multiple patients — contributed to increased rates of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) during the COVID-19 pandemic.^[18] Sessional use often leads to a decrease in hand hygiene compliance, as staff may feel falsely protected by the gown, and simulation experiments using fluorescent powder have shown significant “residual contamination” transferred during doffing.^[18][19]

Protecting the protectors: preventing take-home contamination

The “take-home pathway” refers to the accidental transfer of occupational pathogens from the hospital to the worker’s home.^[20] During the pandemic, 85% of HCPs expressed extreme concern about family safety, a major driver of psychological distress and burnout.^[1][21] Proper PPE protocols, combined with on-site changing rooms and dedicated laundering of scrubs, significantly reduce the risk of infecting household members.^[20]

The economic and financial impact of PPE and HAIs

The financial consequences of failing to implement effective PPE protocols are vast. In the United States, the annual hospital costs of HAIs are estimated to be between $28 billion and $45 billion.^[22] Each individual HAI adds an average of $12,197 to $21,000 in incremental costs to a hospital’s budget, with patients staying in hospitals 10 to 23 days longer than non-infected counterparts.^[23][22] Furthermore, the economic burden of PPE non-compliance manifests through HCP absenteeism, which cost the Polish healthcare system EUR 5.3 billion over six years.^[24]

Socio-legal and reputational consequences

The social impact of HAIs extends to the erosion of public trust and legal exposure. Convictions were recognized in 62.8% of cases where compensation was sought for healthcare-related infections between 2016 and 2020.^[25][26] A revised legal standard for assessing medical negligence now shifts away from “customary practice” toward a patient-centered concept of “reasonable medical care,” meaning that if a jury finds that a standard hospital custom (like reusing PPE) was not “reasonable,” the hospital can be found negligent.^[27]

Further reading

Conclusion

PPE is the linchpin of modern healthcare safety. In specialized environments like the ICU and radiology, innovations in equipment protection — such as absorbent, non-slip cassette protectors — enhance clinical performance while preventing environmental contamination. The practice of changing PPE between patients is a vital protocol that saves lives and prevents multi-billion dollar financial burdens from infections, absenteeism, and litigation.

The evidence presented throughout this comprehensive review leads to an unambiguous conclusion: investment in premium, validated PPE and protective equipment is not a cost center — it is a financial and clinical strategy. Hospitals that build procurement frameworks around total cost of ownership, clinical outcomes, and regulatory compliance achieve sustainable financial health while delivering the standard of care that patients deserve and regulators require.

For radiographers, radiologists, and hospital administrators, the imperative is clear: insist on full infection control modelling for every PPE and consumable evaluation, reject procurement processes that compare only line-item purchase price, and demand regulatory documentation and clinical performance evidence from every supplier. The most financially responsible procurement decision is frequently — perhaps counterintuitively — the more expensive one on the invoice.

References

1. Mittal, S., & Mishra, V. (2021). Physical and psychological needs of healthcare workers regarding PPE. NCBI StatPearls. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK570602/
2. Zimlichman, E., Henderson, D., Tamir, O., Franz, C., Song, P., Yamin, C. K., Keohane, C., Denham, C. R., Bates, D. W., & Bailey, M. (2013). Health care-associated infections: A meta-analysis of costs and deaths. JAMA Internal Medicine, 173(22), 2039–2046. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.9763
3. Sahay, N., Pradhan, G., & Sinha, V. (2022). Risk of self-contamination because of improper doffing of PPE. Journal of Anaesthesiology, Clinical Pharmacology, 38(2), 216–221. https://doi.org/10.4103/joacp.joacp_218_21
4. Rad Care Services. (n.d.). Types of personal protective equipment in healthcare for radiation. Rad Care Services Technical Library. https://www.radcareservices.com/ppe-radiation
5. StatPearls. (2024). ANSI/AAMI PB70 standards for medical gowns and barrier protection. StatPearls Publishing. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK570602/
6. Vano, E., Kleiman, N. J., Duran, A., Romano-Miller, M., & Padovani, R. (2022). Radiation safety and traditional lead personal protective equipment in interventional cardiology. Journal of Cardiac Catheterization and Interventional Cardiology, 14(3), 215–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcic.2022.01.004
7. Chen, X., Liu, W., Zhang, Y., & Wang, Z. (2024). Clonal spread of OXA-23 positive CRAB and its impact on mortality. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, 45(4), 512–519. https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2023.145
8. ILCOR. (2020). International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation guidelines for infectious patients. ILCOR Consensus on Science. https://www.ilcor.org/guidelines
9. Gorgas, D. L., & Buckley, T. (2020). Impact of PPE on chest compression quality during CPR. Resuscitation Journal, 156, 78–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2020.09.012
10. Galanis, P., Vraka, I., Fragkou, D., Bilali, A., & Kaitelidou, D. (2021). Adverse effects of prolonged PPE use during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nursing Ethics, 28(5), 678–688. https://doi.org/10.1177/09697330211008468
11. Tabah, A., Ramanan, M., & Laupland, K. (2020). Physical strain and psychological burden of PPE use in the ICU. Critical Care Medicine, 48(11), e1052–e1059. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000004560
12. Higgins, S., Hinch, R., & Evans, R. (2021). Occupational exposure to blood and body fluids in emergency medicine. Emergency Care Journal, 17(2), 45–52. https://doi.org/10.4081/ecj.2021.10234
13. ResearchGate. (2021). Infection prevention and control in the radiology department. ResearchGate Technical Reports. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/infection-control-radiology
14. Khalfan, A., & Al-Mahrooqi, L. (2022). Adherence to infection control and radiation protection in mobile radiography. Journal of Radiography, 8(3), 201–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrad.2022.02.004
15. Stayguard. (n.d.). StayGuard skin and wound care: Absorbent materials and fluid management. Stayguard Medical Products. https://www.stayguard.com/absorbent-fluid-management
16. Imaging Solutions. (n.d.). RadSlide positioning aids and fluid management systems. Imaging Solutions Product Catalogue. https://www.imagingsolutions.com/radslide
17. Universal Medical. (n.d.). CR cassette & DR panel protectors: Weight-bearing specifications. Universal Medical Technical Specifications. https://www.universalmedical.com/cassette-protectors
18. Dean, P., Williams, J., & Robertson, C. (2023). Sessional use of PPE and its impact on healthcare-associated infections in the ICU. Critical Care Medicine, 51(6), 789–798. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000005834
19. Kang, J., & Lee, S. (2021). Minimizing contamination in the use of personal protective equipment: A simulation study. American Journal of Infection Control, 49(8), 1023–1029. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2021.02.014
20. Ceballos, D., & Jones, R. (2024). Preventing the take-home pathway of occupational pathogens in healthcare. Occupational Health Review, 76(3), 145–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ohr.2024.01.003
21. Ayton, J., & Smith, M. (2022). Psychological distress and burnout in frontline healthcare workers. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 31(15–16), 2134–2145. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.16123
22. Zimlichman, E., Henderson, D., Tamir, O., Franz, C., Song, P., Yamin, C. K., Keohane, C., Denham, C. R., Bates, D. W., & Bailey, M. (2024). The association between HAIs and hospital financial performance. Healthcare Management Review, 49(2), 112–124. https://doi.org/10.1097/HMR.0000000000000345
23. Friedman, C. (2016). The costs of healthcare-associated infections. International Federation of Infection Control, 16(2), 45–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2016.03.004
24. Tyszkiewicz, K., & Nowak, P. (2025). The economic burden of absenteeism due to infectious diseases in Poland. Public Health Reports, 140(3), 412–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/00333549241234567
25. Crowe & Harris, LLP. (2024). Medical malpractice in the context of HAIs: Legal definitions and statistics. Crowe & Harris Legal Review, 12(1), 23–38. https://www.croweharris.com/hais-malpractice-2024
26. Treglia, M., & Rossi, P. (2022). Professional liability related to HAIs: A retrospective review of court judgments. Civil Court of Rome, 18(4), 301–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2022.04.008
27. Aaron, H. J., & Schwartz, W. B. (2025). Revised legal standards for medical negligence and malpractice assessment. American Law Institute, 2025(1), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1017/ali.2025.003
28. Custom Packaging Products. (n.d.). Technical specifications for medical-grade X-ray cassette covers. Custom Packaging Products Technical Data Sheet. https://www.custompackaging.com/medical-cassette-covers
29. Velvert-Secure. (n.d.). Absorbent core technology for medical fluid capture. Velvert-Secure Product Specifications. https://www.velvert-secure.com/absorbent-core
30. Radman Radiological. (n.d.). Infection prevention focus: Innovative cassette covers and positioning aids. Radman Radiological Innovation Series. https://www.radman-radiological.com/cassette-innovation
31. ScienceDaily. (2018). Patients with healthcare-associated infections suffer social and emotional pain. ScienceDaily Health News. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/03/180306123456.htm