Major articlePersonal protective equipment for the Ebola virus disease: A comparison of 2 training programs

•Despite current recommendations, training courses for Ebola virus disease personal protective equipment (PPE) have not been evaluated to date.•We evaluated basic and enhanced PPE with conventional and reinforced training programs.•Critical error frequency was between 3% and 40% at the third training session.•Basic PPE appears to be easier to use than enhanced PPE.•The reinforced training program achieved better proficiency for both PPE types.

BackgroundPersonal protective equipment (PPE) for preventing Ebola virus disease (EVD) includes basic PPE (B-PPE) and enhanced PPE (E-PPE). Our aim was to compare conventional training programs (CTPs) and reinforced training programs (RTPs) on the use of B-PPE and E-PPE.MethodsFour groups were created, designated CTP-B, CTP-E, RTP-B, and RTP-E. All groups received the same theoretical training, followed by 3 practical training sessions.ResultsA total of 120 students were included (30 per group). In all 4 groups, the frequency and number of total errors and critical errors decreased significantly over the course of the training sessions (P < .01). The RTP was associated with a greater reduction in the number of total errors and critical errors (P < .0001). During the third training session, we noted an error frequency of 7%-43%, a critical error frequency of 3%-40%, 0.3-1.5 total errors, and 0.1-0.8 critical errors per student. The B-PPE groups had the fewest errors and critical errors (P < .0001).ConclusionOur results indicate that both training methods improved the student's proficiency, that B-PPE appears to be easier to use than E-PPE, that the RTP achieved better proficiency for both PPE types, and that a number of students are still potentially at risk for EVD contamination despite the improvements observed during the training.