J. Manage. Hum. Resour. (July - December 2026) 4(2):
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21626399
e-ISSN 3091-1850
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Evaluation of the use of personal protective equipment by healthcare professionals
Evaluación del uso de equipos de protección personal en profesionales de salud
Claudia Maricela Cedeño Barberán
1
iD Jenifer Dayanara Aguilar Cano
2
iD Víctor Manuel Sabando Saltos
3
iD
Mercedes María Piguave Lino
4
iD Delia Georgina Bravo Bonoso
2
iD Doris Susana Delgado Bernal
2
iD
Received: 12/05/26 / Accepted: 19/06/26 / Published online: 25/07/26
© The Author(s) 2026
Abstract
Biosafety encompasses essential regulations and precautions to protect
people's health against biological, physical, chemical and radioactive
risks, with the use of Personal Protective Equipment being the main
containment barrier. Objective: to identify compliance with biosafety
protocols by professionals. Methodology: descriptive, quantitative and
prospective cross-sectional study, a Checklist was applied to 32
workers from various areas of a Manabi Hospital, during a period of
three months in 2025, ensuring ethical procedures. The results show
that while there is strong support for mask mandates, staff attend
trainings on PPE and safe practical implementation. Notably,
respondents practice hand hygiene before and after removing their
equipment, and a worrying percentage reveal a universal lack of
awareness of the synergistic nature of infection control measures. In
conclusion, although the willingness towards training is positive,
effective adherence to PPE practices in combination with other
fundamental measures, such as hand hygiene, is insufficient.
Keywords safety, efficacy, risk, training, health.
Resumen
La bioseguridad engloba regulaciones y precauciones esenciales para
proteger la salud de las personas contra riesgos biológicos, físicos,
químicos y radiactivos, siendo el uso de Equipos de Protección
Personal la principal barrera de contención. Objetivo: identificar el
cumplimiento de los protocolos de bioseguridad por parte de los
profesionales. Metodología: estudio descriptivo, cuantitativo y
prospectivo de corte transversal, se aplicó un Checklist a 32
trabajadores de diversas áreas de un Hospital Manabita, durante un
periodo de tres meses en 2025, asegurando procedimientos éticos. Los
resultados demuestran que, si bien existe un fuerte apoyo a la
obligatoriedad de la mascarilla, el personal asiste a capacitaciones
sobre EPP y la implementación práctica segura. Notablemente los
encuestados practica la higiene de manos antes y después de quitarse
su equipo y un porcentaje preocupante revela una falta de conciencia
universal sobre la naturaleza sinérgica de las medidas de control de
infecciones. En conclusión, aunque la disposición hacia la formación
es positiva, la adherencia efectiva a las prácticas de EPP en
combinación con otras medidas fundamentales, como la higiene de
manos, es insuficiente.
Palabras clave seguridad, eficacia, riesgo, formación, salud.
Corresponding author
Claudia Maricela Cedeño Barberán
iD https://orcid.org/0009-0002-1342-9108
1
Pontifica Universidad Católica del Ecuador Sede Manabí
2
Universidad Estatal del Sur de Manabí
3
Hospital Miguel Hilario Alcívar
4
Hospital General Portoviejo - IESS
1721
ClaudiaM.Cedeño
1
iD JeniferD.Aguilar
2
iD VíctorM.Sabando
3
iD
MercedesM.Piguave
4
iD DeliaG.Bravo
2
iD DorisS.Delgado
2
iD
Howtocite
Cedeño,C.M.,Aguilar,J.D.,Sabando,V.M.,Piguave,M.M.,Bravo,D.G.,&Delgado,D.S.(2026).Evaluationoftheuseofpersonalprotectiveequipmentbyhealthcareprofessionals.
JournalofManagementandHumanResources,4(2),17–21.https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21626399
J. Manage. Hum. Resour. (July - December 2026) 4(2):
Introduction
The term "Biosafety" encompasses regulations and precautions
designed to protect human health against biological, physical,
chemical, and other occupational risks while supporting safe care
environments. In healthcare, infection prevention and control depends
on the consistent application of standard precautions, including hand
hygiene and the appropriate use of personal protective equipment
(PPE) (World Health Organization [WHO], 2022). Compliance with
protocols, techniques, and appropriate use of resources is therefore a
fundamental component of biosafety.
Personal protective equipment (PPE) comprises barriers used alone
or in combination to protect the skin, respiratory and other mucous
membranes, eyes, and clothing from exposure to potentially
infectious material. PPE selection depends on the expected interaction
with patients and the mechanism of transmission, and its effectiveness
relies on correct selection, donning, use, and removal (Moris Vidal et
al., 2021; Verbeek et al., 2020).
Healthcare-associated infections remain a major patient- and
worker-safety challenge. The World Health Organization reports that
infection prevention and control programs, including appropriate
hand hygiene and related precautions, can prevent a substantial
proportion of healthcare-associated infections (WHO, 2022). These
findings reinforce the importance of adherence to biosafety measures
among healthcare professionals.
Healthcare workers are exposed to occupational infections through
contact with patients, contaminated materials, body fluids, and
respiratory hazards. Standard precautions—particularly hand hygiene,
respiratory hygiene, safe handling of healthcare waste, and
appropriate PPE—are central to reducing these risks (WHO, 2022).
Evidence from the COVID-19 period also showed that deficiencies in
infection-prevention measures and PPE availability can increase
occupational risk among healthcare personnel (Palacio Lapuente et
al., 2021).
The evaluation of personal protective equipment (PPE) use among
healthcare professionals reveals important challenges in adherence
and perception. In Ecuador, Cordero Ramirez et al. (2024) found that
48.3% of nurses had a poor perception of PPE use, while workplace
motivation showed a positive relationship with professional
performance. Evidence also indicates that appropriate masks and
other PPE contribute to reducing exposure to respiratory and highly
infectious diseases (Chou et al., 2020; Verbeek et al., 2020).
However, adherence depends not only on equipment availability but
also on knowledge, training, organizational support, and compliance
with standard precautions (De Sousa et al., 2019; Palacio Lapuente et
al., 2021).
This study is highly relevant in the healthcare setting, as all
healthcare professionals must be familiar with the protocols for the
correct use of biosafety measures. These protocols play a vital role in
preventing hospital-acquired infections and reducing occupational
risks. This research will yield valuable and up-to-date data that will
allow for a better understanding of compliance with these protocols
by all healthcare professionals at this prestigious institution.
Methodology
This study is classified as descriptive, meaning its main objective
is to provide a detailed overview of the characteristics and conditions
of the selected population. A quantitative method is employed,
allowing for the collection and analysis of numerical data, facilitating
the identification of patterns and trends. Furthermore, the study
design is prospective, meaning that data will be collected over time,
specifically in a cross-sectional period. This methodology is suitable
for capturing a current and specific picture of the use of personal
protective equipment (PPE) in a hospital setting. The target
population consists of 36 healthcare workers, representing a
significant sample of the staff working at a hospital in Manabí. From
this population, 32 workers were selected from various areas where
PPE is used. This selection ensures adequate representation that
reflects the diverse realities and needs of healthcare professionals
within the hospital context.
The inclusion criteria are fundamental to the rigor of the study,
allowing only those professionals who voluntarily agree to participate
to do so. This decision ensures that the data collected is relevant and
that the participants are willing to collaborate in the research. In
contrast, the exclusion criteria were based on excluding those workers
who did not wish to participate, which reinforces the ethical standards
and respect for the individuals involved.
Procedure for collecting information
The data collection technique used was a validated survey,
employing indirect observation to gather relevant information on the
use of personal protective equipment. The data collection instrument
was a checklist, which facilitated direct observation during May,
June, and July of 2025, obtaining precise and specific data within a
defined period, thus allowing for a better interpretation of the results.
Data processing and analysis were carried out using Microsoft Excel,
and the results were subsequently represented in graphs, facilitating
the understanding of the findings. This quantitative approach ensures
that the results are objective and easily interpretable.
Regarding ethical procedures, informed consent was obtained from
all participants, ensuring they understood the nature of the study and
their right to participate voluntarily. Furthermore, permission was
requested from teaching managers and department heads to conduct
direct observation. The information collected was used exclusively
for academic purposes, guaranteeing the absence of conflicts of
interest and respecting the privacy and integrity of the participants.
Results and Discussion
Figure 1. Work area
The geographical distribution of staff indicates that the majority of
respondents work in high-demand, high-complexity units. Internal
Medicine accounts for 28.1%, Emergency Medicine for 25% (53.1%
combined), reflecting the reality of frontline staff who manage both
complex cases requiring prolonged hospitalization and the high
volume of emergency and critical patients. In addition to primary care
units, the operating room contributes 15.6%, while Infectious
Diseases and the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) account for 12.5%,
establishing a profile of staff who are highly exposed and directly
responsible for implementing infection control measures in high-risk
environments.
Figure 2. Professional activity of the study population
J. Manage. Hum. Resour. (July - December 2026) 4(2): 1-5 2
Introduction
The term "Biosafety" encompasses regulations and precautions
designed to protect human health against biological, physical,
chemical, and other occupational risks while supporting safe care
environments. In healthcare, infection prevention and control depends
on the consistent application of standard precautions, including hand
hygiene and the appropriate use of personal protective equipment
(PPE) (World Health Organization [WHO], 2022). Compliance with
protocols, techniques, and appropriate use of resources is therefore a
fundamental component of biosafety.
Personal protective equipment (PPE) comprises barriers used alone
or in combination to protect the skin, respiratory and other mucous
membranes, eyes, and clothing from exposure to potentially
infectious material. PPE selection depends on the expected interaction
with patients and the mechanism of transmission, and its effectiveness
relies on correct selection, donning, use, and removal (Moris Vidal et
al., 2021; Verbeek et al., 2020).
Healthcare-associated infections remain a major patient- and
worker-safety challenge. The World Health Organization reports that
infection prevention and control programs, including appropriate
hand hygiene and related precautions, can prevent a substantial
proportion of healthcare-associated infections (WHO, 2022). These
findings reinforce the importance of adherence to biosafety measures
among healthcare professionals.
Healthcare workers are exposed to occupational infections through
contact with patients, contaminated materials, body fluids, and
respiratory hazards. Standard precautions—particularly hand hygiene,
respiratory hygiene, safe handling of healthcare waste, and
appropriate PPE—are central to reducing these risks (WHO, 2022).
Evidence from the COVID-19 period also showed that deficiencies in
infection-prevention measures and PPE availability can increase
occupational risk among healthcare personnel (Palacio Lapuente et
al., 2021).
The evaluation of personal protective equipment (PPE) use among
healthcare professionals reveals important challenges in adherence
and perception. In Ecuador, Cordero Ramirez et al. (2024) found that
48.3% of nurses had a poor perception of PPE use, while workplace
motivation showed a positive relationship with professional
performance. Evidence also indicates that appropriate masks and
other PPE contribute to reducing exposure to respiratory and highly
infectious diseases (Chou et al., 2020; Verbeek et al., 2020).
However, adherence depends not only on equipment availability but
also on knowledge, training, organizational support, and compliance
with standard precautions (De Sousa et al., 2019; Palacio Lapuente et
al., 2021).
This study is highly relevant in the healthcare setting, as all
healthcare professionals must be familiar with the protocols for the
correct use of biosafety measures. These protocols play a vital role in
preventing hospital-acquired infections and reducing occupational
risks. This research will yield valuable and up-to-date data that will
allow for a better understanding of compliance with these protocols
by all healthcare professionals at this prestigious institution.
Methodology
This study is classified as descriptive, meaning its main objective
is to provide a detailed overview of the characteristics and conditions
of the selected population. A quantitative method is employed,
allowing for the collection and analysis of numerical data, facilitating
the identification of patterns and trends. Furthermore, the study
design is prospective, meaning that data will be collected over time,
specifically in a cross-sectional period. This methodology is suitable
for capturing a current and specific picture of the us personal
protective equipment (PPE) in a hospital setting. The target
population consists of 36 healthcare workers, representing a
significant sample of the staff working at a hospital in Manabí. From
this population, 32 workers were selected from various areas where
PPE is used. This selection ensures adequate representation that
reflects the diverse realities and needs of healthcare professionals
within the hospital context.
The inclusion criteria are fundamental to the rigor of the study,
allowing only those professionals who voluntarily agree to participate
to do so. This decision ensures that the data collected is relevant and
that the participants are willing to collaborate in the research. In
contrast, the exclusion criteria were based on excluding those workers
who did not wish to participate, which reinforces the ethical standards
and respect for the individuals involved.
Procedure for collecting information
The data collection technique used was a validated survey,
employing indirect observation to gather relevant information on the
use of personal protective equipment. The data collection instrument
was a checklist, which facilitated direct observation during May,
June, and July of 2025, obtaining precise and specific data within a
defined period, thus allowing for a better interpretation of the results.
Data processing and analysis were carried out using Microsoft Excel,
and the results were subsequently represented in graphs, facilitating
the understanding of the findings. This quantitative approach ensures
that the results are objective and easily interpretable.
Regarding ethical procedures, informed consent was obtained from
all participants, ensuring they understood the nature of the study and
their right to participate voluntarily. Furthermore, permission was
requested from teaching managers and department heads to conduct
direct observation. The information collected was used exclusively
for academic purposes, guaranteeing the absence of conflicts of
interest and respecting the privacy and integrity of the participants.
Results and Discussion
Figure 1. Work area
The geographical distribution of staff indicates that the majority of
respondents work in high-demand, high-complexity units. Internal
Medicine accounts for 28.1%, Emergency Medicine for 25% (53.1%
combined), reflecting the reality of frontline staff who manage both
complex cases requiring prolonged hospitalization and the high
volume of emergency and critical patients. In addition to primary care
units, the operating room contributes 15.6%, while Infectious
Diseases and the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) account for 12.5%,
establishing a profile of staff who are highly exposed and directly
responsible for implementing infection control measures in high-risk
environments.
Figure 2. Professional activity of the study population
3 J. Manage. Hum. Resour. (July - December 2026) 4(2): 1-5
The distribution of professional activity shows that nursing staff
constitute the largest segment of the analyzed population,
representing 37.5%. When combined with nursing interns (18.7%)
and nursing assistants (9.3%), the nursing and related fields group
comprises the absolute majority of the sample (65.5% in total).
Physicians represent the next largest group, with 28.1% of the studied
population, although they are a minority compared to nursing staff.
Finally, 6.2% of the sample is classified as "Other."
Chart 3. Service time
The sample is characterized by a significant degree of seniority and
experience, with the majority of staff having intermediate experience
of 5 to 10 years, comprising 40.6% of the population. This is followed
by the most experienced staff, with more than 10 years of service, at
37.5%. The observed successes or failures in adherence to PPE
practices should be interpreted as reflecting systemic problems or
persistent shortcomings in PPE quality or ongoing training, rather
than simply user inexperience. On the other hand, those with less than
5 years of service are a minority, representing 21.8%. If this younger
group had received more recent training with updated protocols, its
positive impact could be moderated by the influence of the large
number of staff with decades of experience.
Chart 4A. Attitudes of healthcare personnel towards PPE
The most prominent attitude is the strong support for mandatory
N95 masks or equivalent, with 71.8% of respondents believing that
this high-filtration respiratory protection should be mandatory.
Regarding the integration of PPE with other safety protocols, the
majority of respondents agree that PPE should be used in combination
with other precautionary measures, such as hand hygiene, reaching
56.2% agreement. A significant number of respondents disagreed
(12.5% disagreed, 18.7% somewhat agreed or somewhat disagreed,
and 9.3% neither agreed nor disagreed). While staff value hand
hygiene, there is a lack of widespread awareness of the synergistic
nature of infection control measures, where PPE acts as a barrier but
is ineffective without the strict practice of hand hygiene before and
after use.
The appropriate use of personal protective equipment (PPE) is
essential to ensure the safety of healthcare personnel, especially in
high-risk infection settings. According to the findings, there is strong
support for mandatory N95 mask use, with 71.8% of respondents in
favor. This finding is consistent with Chou et al. (2020), who
emphasize the protective role of appropriate masks in healthcare
settings. However, effective protection also depends on correct use,
risk assessment, and adherence to broader infection-prevention
measures, which reinforces the importance of continuous training
(Verbeek et al., 2020).
Chart 4B. Attitudes of healthcare personnel towards PPE
The responses are notably divided, with 40.6% answering 'Yes',
15.6% 'No', 15.6% 'Somewhat agree' or 'Somewhat disagree' and 25%
respectively, and 3.1% 'Neither agree nor disagree'. Regarding
whether the use of PPE will keep healthcare workers safe from
contracting any type of infection, the most common response is 'No',
supported by 34.3%, while only 46.8% answer 'Yes'.
On the other hand, concerns about the effectiveness of reusable
PPE are highlighted in the analysis presented, with 88% of
respondents indicating their use of reusable PPE. Reuse may be
appropriate only when reprocessing or decontamination procedures
are explicitly supported for the specific equipment and are performed
under established protocols; otherwise, protection can be
compromised (WHO, 2020). This suggests that, despite a positive
attitude toward training (82%), practical implementation may be
insufficient, which is consistent with Verbeek et al. (2020), who
emphasize the importance of training in correct PPE use, donning,
and doffing.
Figure 5A. Healthcare personnel practices regarding PPE
First, 81.27% report disinfecting their gloves after each interaction
with a patient. However, a disparity is revealed in the application of
other hygiene measures. For example, the use of goggles and/or face
shields during patient care shows a considerably lower percentage at
65.6%, indicating a lack of awareness about the risk of exposure to
aerosols or bodily fluids, or a misperception of the need for such
measures. The fact that only 56.2% of respondents practice hand
hygiene before and after removing personal protective equipment
(PPE) is equally concerning, as this practice is important for
minimizing the risk of cross-contamination. Furthermore, the use of
shoe covers and biohazard bags appears to be even less common, at
34.3% and 37.5% respectively, raising questions about safety training
and culture in the workplace.
1721
18
The distribution of professional activity shows that nursing staff
constitute the largest segment of the analyzed population,
representing 37.5%. When combined with nursing interns (18.7%)
and nursing assistants (9.3%), the nursing and related fields group
comprises the absolute majority of the sample (65.5% in total).
Physicians represent the next largest group, with 28.1% of the studied
population, although they are a minority compared to nursing staff.
Finally, 6.2% of the sample is classified as "Other."
Chart 3. Service time
The sample is characterized by a significant degree of seniority and
experience, with the majority of staff having intermediate experience
of 5 to 10 years, comprising 40.6% of the population. This is followed
by the most experienced staff, with more than 10 years of service, at
37.5%. The observed successes or failures in adherence to PPE
practices should be interpreted as reflecting systemic problems or
persistent shortcomings in PPE quality or ongoing training, rather
than simply user inexperience. On the other hand, those with less than
5 years of service are a minority, representing 21.8%. If this younger
group had received more recent training with updated protocols, its
positive impact could be moderated by the influence of the large
number of staff with decades of experience.
Chart 4A. Attitudes of healthcare personnel towards PPE
The most prominent attitude is the strong support for mandatory
N95 masks or equivalent, with 71.8% of respondents believing that
this high-filtration respiratory protection should be mandatory.
Regarding the integration of PPE with other safety protocols, the
majority of respondents agree that PPE should be used in combination
with other precautionary measures, such as hand hygiene, reaching
56.2% agreement. A significant number of respondents disagreed
(12.5% disagreed, 18.7% somewhat agreed or somewhat disagreed,
and 9.3% neither agreed nor disagreed). While staff value hand
hygiene, there is a lack of widespread awareness of the synergistic
nature of infection control measures, where PPE acts as a barrier but
is ineffective without the strict practice of hand hygiene before and
after use.
The appropriate use of personal protective equipment (PPE) is
essential to ensure the safety of healthcare personnel, especially in
high-risk infection settings. According to the findings, there is strong
support for mandatory N95 mask use, with 71.8% of respondents in
favor. This finding is consistent with Chou et al. (2020), who
emphasize the protective role of appropriate masks in healthcare
settings. However, effective protection also depends on correct use,
risk assessment, and adherence to broader infection-prevention
measures, which reinforces the importance of continuous training
(Verbeek et al., 2020).
Chart 4B. Attitudes of healthcare personnel towards PPE
The responses are notably divided, with 40.6% answering 'Yes',
15.6% 'No', 15.6% 'Somewhat agree' or 'Somewhat disagree' and 25%
respectively, and 3.1% 'Neither agree nor disagree'. Regarding
whether the use of PPE will keep healthcare workers safe from
contracting any type of infection, the most common response is 'No',
supported by 34.3%, while only 46.8% answer 'Yes'.
On the other hand, concerns about the effectiveness of reusable
PPE are highlighted in the analysis presented, with 88% of
respondents indicating their use of reusable PPE. Reuse may be
appropriate only when reprocessing or decontamination procedures
are explicitly supported for the specific equipment and are performed
under established protocols; otherwise, protection can be
compromised (WHO, 2020). This suggests that, despite a positive
attitude toward training (82%), practical implementation may be
insufficient, which is consistent with Verbeek et al. (2020), who
emphasize the importance of training in correct PPE use, donning,
and doffing.
Figure 5A. Healthcare personnel practices regarding PPE
First, 81.27% report disinfecting their gloves after each interaction
with a patient. However, a disparity is revealed in the application of
other hygiene measures. For example, the use of goggles and/or face
shields during patient care shows a considerably lower percentage at
65.6%, indicating a lack of awareness about the risk of exposure to
aerosols or bodily fluids, or a misperception of the need for such
measures. The fact that only 56.2% of respondents practice hand
hygiene before and after removing personal protective equipment
(PPE) is equally concerning, as this practice is important for
minimizing the risk of cross-contamination. Furthermore, the use of
shoe covers and biohazard bags appears to be even less common, at
34.3% and 37.5% respectively, raising questions about safety training
and culture in the workplace.
3 J. Manage. Hum. Resour. (July - December 2026) 4(2): 1-5
The distribution of professional activity shows that nursing staff
constitute the largest segment of the analyzed population,
representing 37.5%. When combined with nursing interns (18.7%)
and nursing assistants (9.3%), the nursing and related fields group
comprises the absolute majority of the sample (65.5% in total).
Physicians represent the next largest group, with 28.1% of the studied
population, although they are a minority compared to nursing staff.
Finally, 6.2% of the sample is classified as "Other."
Chart 3. Service time
The sample is characterized by a significant degree of seniority and
experience, with the majority of staff having intermediate experience
of 5 to 10 years, comprising 40.6% of the population. This is followed
by the most experienced staff, with more than 10 years of service, at
37.5%. The observed successes or failures in adherence to PPE
practices should be interpreted as reflecting systemic problems or
persistent shortcomings in PPE quality or ongoing training, rather
than simply user inexperience. On the other hand, those with less than
5 years of service are a minority, representing 21.8%. If this younger
group had received more recent training with updated protocols, its
positive impact could be moderated by the influence of the large
number of staff with decades of experience.
Chart 4A. Attitudes of healthcare personnel towards PPE
The most prominent attitude is the strong support for mandatory
N95 masks or equivalent, with 71.8% of respondents believing that
this high-filtration respiratory protection should be mandatory.
Regarding the integration of PPE with other safety protocols, the
majority of respondents agree that PPE should be used in combination
with other precautionary measures, such as hand hygiene, reaching
56.2% agreement. A significant number of respondents disagreed
(12.5% disagreed, 18.7% somewhat agreed or somewhat disagreed,
and 9.3% neither agreed nor disagreed). While staff value hand
hygiene, there is a lack of widespread awareness of the synergistic
nature of infection control measures, where PPE acts as a barrier but
is ineffective without the strict practice of hand hygiene before and
after use.
The appropriate use of personal protective equipment (PPE) is
essential to ensure the safety of healthcare personnel, especially in
high-risk infection settings. According to the findings, there is strong
support for mandatory N95 mask use, with 71.8% of respondents in
favor. This finding is consistent with Chou et al. (2020), who
empha
setting
risk assessment, and adherence to broader infection-prevention
measures, which reinforces the importance of continuous training
(Verbeek et al., 2020).
Chart 4B. Attitudes of healthcare personnel towards PPE
The responses are notably divided, with 40.6% answering 'Yes',
15.6% 'No', 15.6% 'Somewhat agree' or 'Somewhat disagree' and 25%
respectively, and 3.1% 'Neither agree nor disagree'. Regarding
whether the use of PPE will keep healthcare workers safe from
contracting any type of infection, the most common response is 'No',
supported by 34.3%, while only 46.8% answer 'Yes'.
On the other hand, concerns about the effectiveness of reusable
PPE are highlighted in the analysis presented, with 88% of
respondents indicating their use of reusable PPE. Reuse may be
appropriate only when reprocessing or decontamination procedures
are explicitly supported for the specific equipment and are performed
under established protocols; otherwise, protection can be
compromised (WHO, 2020). This suggests that, despite a positive
attitude toward training (82%), practical implementation may be
insufficient, which is consistent with Verbeek et al. (2020), who
emphasize the importance of training in correct PPE use, donning,
and doffing.
Figure 5A. Healthcare personnel practices regarding PPE
First, 81.27% report disinfecting their gloves after each interaction
with a patient. However, a disparity is revealed in the application of
other hygiene measures. For example, the use of goggles and/or face
shields during patient care shows a considerably lower percentage at
65.6%, indicating a lack of awareness about the risk of exposure to
aerosols or bodily fluids, or a misperception of the need for such
measures. The fact that only 56.2% of respondents practice hand
hygiene before and after removing personal protective equipment
(PPE) is equally concerning, as this practice is important for
minimizing the risk of cross-contamination. Furthermore, the use of
shoe covers and biohazard bags appears to be even less common, at
34.3% and 37.5% respectively, raising questions about safety training
and culture in the workplace.
J. Manage. Hum. Resour. (July - December 2026) 4(2): 1-5 4
Furthermore, the study reveals that 56.2% of respondents practice
hand hygiene before and after removing PPE, a concerning
percentage given that hand hygiene is one of the most effective
measures for preventing infection transmission (Chopin Doroteo &
Ortega Soto, 2025; WHO, 2022). This discrepancy highlights the
need to strengthen education and awareness regarding the
complementary role of PPE and hand hygiene in infection-control
practices.
Figure 5 B. Health personnel practices regarding PPE
First, 82% of respondents indicated they attend some form of PPE
training, reflecting a positive commitment to training and updates on
safety protocols. However, the regular use of PPE suggests a lack of
enthusiasm for training, and practical implementation may be
insufficient. Regarding the use of surgical and N95 masks, the
percentages are also concerning: only 64% reported using them
during patient care, and 81% used gloves during contact with patients.
On the other hand, 88% of respondents indicated they are using
reusable PPE, which could be positive if proper disinfection measures
are implemented; however, it also raises concerns about the
effectiveness of these reuse methods and their correct handling.
The results show that 40.6% of staff have between 5 and 10 years
of experience, while 37.5% have more than 10 years. This distribution
underscores the need for ongoing infection-prevention training
regardless of professional seniority. Palacio Lapuente et al. (2021)
emphasize that effective infection prevention requires sustained
organizational measures, updated guidance, and adequate protective
resources. Finally, the implementation of effective infection-control
measures requires a multidimensional approach that includes not only
the proper use of PPE but also continuous training and a strong
institutional safety culture.
Conclusions
An assessment of personal protective equipment (PPE) use among
healthcare professionals reveals a critical situation that affects not
only staff safety but also the quality of care. Although a high
percentage of respondents recognize the importance of PPE, such as
the N95 mask, effective adherence to its use is compromised by
factors such as resource availability, insufficient training, and risk
perception. Furthermore, the results indicate that staff experience
does not always translate into greater adherence to safety practices.
Most respondents have years of experience, but this is not reflected in
compliance with measures such as hand hygiene and the proper use of
PPE.
Finally, it is essential to adopt a multidimensional approach that
includes ongoing training, the availability of adequate resources, and
awareness of the synergy between the use of PPE and other infection
control measures. Only through a collective effort can the safety of
healthcare professionals be guaranteed and, consequently, the quality
of patient care improved, thus reducing the risk of hospital-acquired
infections and contributing to a more robust and safer healthcare
system.
References
Argota-Pérez G, Álvarez-Becerra RM, Miranda-Benavente J,
Galvez-Marquina M, Sakuray M. S, Córdova Salas C. Inteligencia
emocional en la docencia universitaria. Paideia XXI. 2019 Sep
27;9(1):53–61.
Badillo Trejo E, Ángeles Sandoval C, Acevedo Morales C, Cano Badajóz P,
López Sandoval MG. Actitud de los trabajadores ante el uso de equipo de
protección personal. Revista CuidArte. 2019 Feb 18;8(15):56.
Chopin Doroteo M, Ortega Soto E. La higiene de manos una estrategia
antigua, eficaz, y sencilla para prevenir infecciones. Medicina e
Investigación Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México. 2025 Jan
14;13(1):126.
Chou R, Dana T, Jungbauer R, Weeks C, McDonagh MS. Masks for
Prevention of Respiratory Virus Infections, Including SARS-CoV-2, in
Health Care and Community Settings. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Oct
6;173(7):542–55.
Cordero Ramirez EL, Marín García YE, Saraguro Salinas SM. Percepción
del uso de equipos protección personal y motivación laboral en
enfermeros de un hospital público. Enfermería Investiga. 2024 Jan
3;9(1):22–31.
DE SOUSA FF, De Sousa IA, De Oliveira LMN. A utilização de
equipamentos de proteção individual e coletiva por profissionais de
saúde: revisão integrativa. Revista de Atenção à Saúde. 2019 Apr
15;16(58).
García Medina LC, Núñez Cordero R de F, Gallón Estrada D, Batista Utria
LA, Chiriboga Pazmiño CE, Carvajal Rodríguez GG, et al.
Manifestaciones cutáneas por el uso de EPP en el personal de la salud.
Ciencia Latina Revista Científica Multidisciplinar. 2022 Aug
29;6(4):2536–50.
Lo JH, Lin LK, Hung CC. Real-Time Personal Protective Equipment
Compliance Detection Based on Deep Learning Algorithm.
Sustainability. 2022 Dec 26;15(1):391.
Massiris M, Fernández JA, Bajo J, Delrieux C. Sistema automatizado para
monitorear el uso de equipos de protección personal en la industria de la
construcción. Revista Iberoamericana de Automática e Informática
industrial. 2020 Dec 23;18(1):68.
Moreira Macías EL, Paredes-Ortiz EB. Equipo de protección personal y su
relación con las lesiones ocupacionales en trabajadores de la
construcción. Revista Científica Ciencia y Tecnología. 2024 Jan
31;24(41).
Moris Vidal HF, Reyne N, Vázquez J, Secchi A, Moreno J, Astorga F, et al.
Uso de Elementos de Protección Personal en Unidad de Emergencia
HBLT en contexto Pandemia COVID-19. ARS MEDICA Revista de
Ciencias Médicas. 2021 Sep 29;46(3):17–24.
Palacio Lapuente J, Martín Rodríguez MD, Aibar Remón C, Jurado
Balbuena JJ, Torijano Casalengua ML, Añel Rodríguez R. Prevención de
infecciones relacionadas con la asistencia sanitaria en atención primaria.
Lecciones de la pandemia. Aten Primaria. 2021 Dec;53:102225.
Quintero Ramírez NM, Padilla Constante K. Acciones seguras en la higiene
de manos. 2024 Dec.
Verbeek JH, Rajamaki B, Ijaz S, Sauni R, Toomey E, Blackwood B, et al.
Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases
due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff. Cochrane
Database of Systematic Reviews. 2020 Apr 15;
Conflicts of interest
The author declares that she has no conflicts of interest.
Author contribution
Conceptualization: Cedeño Barberán, CM, Aguilar Cano, JD Data
curation: Cedeño Barberán, CM, Aguilar Cano, JD, Sabando Saltos,
VM, Piguave Lino, MM Formal analysis: Sabando Saltos, VM, Piguave
Lino, MM, Bravo Bonoso, DG, and Delgado Bernal, DS Research:
Cedeño Barberán, CM, Bravo Bonoso, DG, and Delgado Bernal, DS
Methodology: Cedeño Barberán, CM, Aguilar Cano, JD Supervision:
Bravo Bonoso, DG, and Delgado Bernal, DS Validation: Bravo Bonoso,
DG, and Delgado Bernal, DS Visualization: Cedeño Barberán, CM,
Bravo Bonoso, DG, and Delgado Bernal, DS Writing the original draft:
Aguilar Cano, JD, Sabando Saltos, VM, and Delgado Bernal, DS
Writing, review, and editing: Cedeño Barberán, CM, Aguilar Cano, JD,
Bravo Bonoso, DG, and Delgado Bernal, DS.
Data availability statement
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are
available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Statement on the use of AI
The authors acknowledge the use of generative AI and AI-assisted
technologies to improve the readability and clarity of the article.
19
J.Manage.Hum.Resour.(JulyDecember2026)4(2):1721
J. Manage. Hum. Resour. (July - December 2026) 4(2):
Furthermore, the study reveals that 56.2% of respondents practice
hand hygiene before and after removing PPE, a concerning
percentage given that hand hygiene is one of the most effective
measures for preventing infection transmission (Chopin Doroteo &
Ortega Soto, 2025; WHO, 2022). This discrepancy highlights the
need to strengthen education and awareness regarding the
complementary role of PPE and hand hygiene in infection-control
practices.
Figure 5 B. Health personnel practices regarding PPE
First, 82% of respondents indicated they attend some form of PPE
training, reflecting a positive commitment to training and updates on
safety protocols. However, the regular use of PPE suggests a lack of
enthusiasm for training, and practical implementation may be
insufficient. Regarding the use of surgical and N95 masks, the
percentages are also concerning: only 64% reported using them
during patient care, and 81% used gloves during contact with patients.
On the other hand, 88% of respondents indicated they are using
reusable PPE, which could be positive if proper disinfection measures
are implemented; however, it also raises concerns about the
effectiveness of these reuse methods and their correct handling.
The results show that 40.6% of staff have between 5 and 10 years
of experience, while 37.5% have more than 10 years. This distribution
underscores the need for ongoing infection-prevention training
regardless of professional seniority. Palacio Lapuente et al. (2021)
emphasize that effective infection prevention requires sustained
organizational measures, updated guidance, and adequate protective
resources. Finally, the implementation of effective infection-control
measures requires a multidimensional approach that includes not only
the proper use of PPE but also continuous training and a strong
institutional safety culture.
Conclusions
An assessment of personal protective equipment (PPE) use among
healthcare professionals reveals a critical situation that affects not
only staff safety but also the quality of care. Although a high
percentage of respondents recognize the importance of PPE, such as
the N95 mask, effective adherence to its use is compromised by
factors such as resource availability, insufficient training, and risk
perception. Furthermore, the results indicate that staff experience
does not always translate into greater adherence to safety practices.
Most respondents have years of experience, but this is not reflected in
compliance with measures such as hand hygiene and the proper use of
PPE.
J. Manage. Hum. Resour. (July - December 2026) 4(2): 1-5 4
Furthermore, the study reveals that 56.2% of respondents practice
hand hygiene before and after removing PPE, a concerning
percentage given that hand hygiene is one of the most effective
measures for preventing infection transmission (Chopin Doroteo &
Ortega Soto, 2025; WHO, 2022). This discrepancy h ghts the
need to strengthen education and awareness regarding the
complementary role of PPE and hand hygiene in infection-control
practices.
Figure 5 B. Health personnel practices regarding PPE
First, 82% of respondents indicated they attend some form of PPE
training, reflecting a positive commitment to training and updates on
safety protocols. However, the regular use of PPE suggests a lack of
enthusiasm for training, and practical implementation may be
insufficient. Regarding the use of surgical and N95 masks, the
percentages are also concerning: only 64% reported using them
during patient care, and 81% used gloves during contact with patients.
On the other hand, 88% of respondents indicated they are using
reusable PPE, which could be positive if proper disinfection measures
are implemented; however, it also raises concerns about the
effectiveness of these reuse methods and their correct handling.
The results show that 40.6% of staff have between 5 and 10 years
of experience, while 37.5% have more than 10 years. This distribution
underscores the need for ongoing infection-prevention training
regardless of professional seniority. Palacio Lapuente et al. (2021)
emphasize that effective infection prevention requires sustained
organizational measures, updated guidance, and adequate protective
resources. Finally, the implementation of effective infection-control
measures requires a multidimensional approach that includes not only
the proper use of PPE but also continuous training and a strong
institutional safety culture.
Conclusions
An assessment of personal protective equipment (PPE) use among
healthcare professionals reveals a critical situation that affects not
only staff safety but also the quality of care. Although a high
percentage of respondents recognize the importance of PPE, such as
the N95 mask, effective adherence to its use is compromised by
factors such as resource availability, insufficient training, and risk
perception. Furthermore, the results indicate that staff experience
does not always translate into greater adherence to safety practices.
Most respondents have years of experience, but this is not reflected in
compliance with measures such as hand hygiene and the proper use of
PPE.
Finally, it is essential to adopt a multidimensional approach that
includes ongoing training, the availability of adequate resources, and
awareness of the synergy between the use of PPE and other infection
control measures. Only through a collective effort can the safety of
healthcare professionals be guaranteed and, consequently, the quality
of patient care improved, thus reducing the risk of hospital-acquired
infections and contributing to a more robust and safer healthcare
system.
Badillo Trejo E, Ángeles Sandoval C, Acevedo Morales C, Cano Badajóz P,
López Sandoval MG. Actitud de los trabajadores ante el uso de equipo de
protección personal. Revista CuidArte. 2019 Feb 18;8(15):56.
Chopin Doroteo M, Ortega Soto E. La higiene de manos una estrategia
antigua, eficaz, y sencilla para prevenir infecciones. Medicina e
Investigación Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México. 2025 Jan
14;13(1):126.
Chou R, Dana T, Jungbauer R, Weeks C, McDonagh MS. Masks for
1721
20
References
ArgotaPérez, G., ÁlvarezBecerra, R. M., MirandaBenavente, J.,
GalvezMarquina, M., Sakuray M., S., & Córdova Salas, C.
(2019). Inteligencia emocional en la docencia universitaria.
Paideia XXI, 9(1), 53–61.
https://doi.org/10.31381/paideia.v9i1.2263
Badillo Trejo, E., Ángeles Sandoval, C., Acevedo Morales, C., Cano
Badajóz, P., & López Sandoval, M. G. (2019). Actitud de los
trabajadores ante el uso de equipo de protección personal. Revista
CuidArte, 8(15), 56–66.
https://doi.org/10.22201/fesi.23958979e.2019.8.15.69157
Chopin Doroteo, M., & Ortega Soto, E. (2025). La higiene de manos
una estrategia antigua, eficaz, y sencilla para prevenir infecciones.
Medicina e Investigación Universidad Autónoma del Estado de
México, 13(1), 126–132.
https://doi.org/10.36677/medicinainvestigacion.v13i1.23032
Chou, R., Dana, T., Jungbauer, R., Weeks, C., & McDonagh, M. S.
(2020). Masks for prevention of respiratory virus infections,
including SARSCoV2, in health care and community settings: A
living rapid review. Annals of Internal Medicine, 173(7),
542–555. https://doi.org/10.7326/M203213
Cordero Ramirez, E. L., Marín García, Y. E., & Saraguro Salinas, S.
M. (2024). Percepción del uso de equipos protección personal y
motivación laboral en enfermeros de un hospital público.
Enfermería Investiga, 9(1), 22–31.
https://doi.org/10.31243/ei.uta.v9i1.2283.2024
De Sousa, F. F., De Sousa, I. A., & De Oliveira, L. M. N. (2019). A
utilização de equipamentos de proteção individual e coletiva por
profissionais de saúde: Revisão integrativa. Revista de Atenção à
Saúde, 16(58). https://doi.org/10.13037/ras.vol16n58.5667
García Medina, L. C., Núñez Cordero, R. de F., Gallón Estrada, D.,
Batista Utria, L. A., Chiriboga Pazmiño, C. E., Carvajal
Rodríguez, G. G., Bustamante Montenegro, J. M., & Contento
Suescun, G. (2022). Manifestaciones cutáneas por el uso de EPP
en el personal de la salud. Ciencia Latina Revista Científica
Multidisciplinar, 6(4), 2536–2550.
https://doi.org/10.37811/cl_rcm.v6i4.2779
Lo, J.H., Lin, L.K., & Hung, C.C. (2023). Realtime personal
protective equipment compliance detection based on deep
learning algorithm. Sustainability, 15(1), 391.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010391
Massiris, M., Fernández, J. A., Bajo, J., & Delrieux, C. (2021).
Sistema automatizado para monitorear el uso de equipos de
protección personal en la industria de la construcción. Revista
Iberoamericana de Automática e Informática Industrial, 18(1),
68–79. https://doi.org/10.4995/riai.2020.13243
Moreira Macías, E. L., & ParedesOrtiz, E. B. (2024). Equipo de
protección personal y su relación con las lesiones ocupacionales
en trabajadores de la construcción. Revista Científica Ciencia y
Tecnología, 24(41). https://doi.org/10.47189/rcct.v24i41.641
Moris Vidal, H. F., Reyne, N., Vázquez, J., Secchi, A., Moreno, J.,
Astorga, F., & Amorín, P. (2021). Uso de elementos de
protección personal en Unidad de Emergencia HBLT en contexto
pandemia COVID19. ARS MEDICA Revista de Ciencias
Médicas, 46(3), 17–24.
https://doi.org/10.11565/arsmed.v46i3.1808
Palacio Lapuente, J., Martín Rodríguez, M. D., Aibar Remón, C.,
Jurado Balbuena, J. J., Torijano Casalengua, M. L., & Añel
Rodríguez, R. (2021). Prevención de infecciones relacionadas con
la asistencia sanitaria en atención primaria. Lecciones de la
pandemia. Atención Primaria, 53(S1), 102225.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aprim.2021.102225
Quintero Ramirez, N. M., & Padilla Constante, K. (2024). Acciones
seguras en la higiene de manos. Universidad Cooperativa de
Colombia.
https://repository.ucc.edu.co/bitstreams/09643ade203240d691f
4312ba6eb375c/download
Verbeek, J. H., Rajamaki, B., Ijaz, S., Sauni, R., Toomey, E.,
Blackwood, B., Tikka, C., Ruotsalainen, J. H., & Kilinc Balci, F.
S. (2020). Personal protective equipment for preventing highly
infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in
healthcare staff. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews,
2020(4), CD011621.
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011621.pub4
21
J.Manage.Hum.Resour.(JulyDecember2026)4(2):1721
Conflictsofinterest
Theauthordeclaresthatshehasnoconflictsofinterest.
Authorcontribution
Conceptualization: Cedeño Barberán, CM, Aguilar Cano, JD Data
curation: Cedeño Barberán, CM, Aguilar Cano, JD, Sabando Saltos,
VM, Piguave Lino, MM Formal analysis: Sabando Saltos, VM,
Piguave Lino, MM, Bravo Bonoso, DG, and Delgado Bernal, DS
Research: Cedeño Barberán, CM, Bravo Bonoso, DG, and Delgado
Bernal, DS Methodology: Cedeño Barberán, CM, Aguilar Cano, JD
Supervision: Bravo Bonoso, DG, and Delgado Bernal, DS
Validation: Bravo Bonoso, DG, and Delgado Bernal, DS
Visualization: Cedeño Barberán, CM, Bravo Bonoso, DG, and
Delgado Bernal, DS Writing the original draft: Aguilar Cano, JD,
Sabando Saltos, VM, and Delgado Bernal, DS Writing, review, and
editing: Cedeño Barberán, CM, Aguilar Cano, JD, Bravo Bonoso,
DG,andDelgadoBernal,DS.
Dataavailabilitystatement
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are
availablefromthecorrespondingauthoronreasonablerequest.
StatementontheuseofAI
The authors acknowledge the use of generative AI and AIassisted
technologiestoimprovethereadabilityandclarityofthearticle.
Disclaimer/Editor'snote
The statements, opinions, and data contained in all publications are
solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of
JournalofManagementandHumanResources.
Journal of Management and Human Resources and/or the editors
disclaim any responsibility for any injury to people or property
resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions, or products
mentionedinthecontent.
