Jade Conway, BA

Practice Gap

Pain and anxiety are common in fully conscious patients undergoing dermatologic surgery with local anesthesia. Particularly during nail surgery, pain from anesthetic injection—caused by both needle insertion and fluid infiltration—occurs because the nail unit is highly vascularized and innervated.¹ Current methods to improve patient comfort during infiltration include use of a buffered anesthetic solution, warming the anesthetic, slower technique, and direct cold application.²

Perioperative anxiety correlates with increased postoperative pain, analgesic use, and delayed recovery. Furthermore, increased perioperative anxiety reduces the pain threshold and elevates estimates of pain intensity.³ Therefore, reducing procedure-related anxiety and pain may improve quality of care and ease patient discomfort.

Distraction is a common and practical nonpharmacotherapeutic technique for reducing pain and anxiety during medical procedures. The refocusing method of distraction aims to divert attention away from pain to more pleasant stimuli to reduce pain perception.³ Several methods of distraction—using stress balls, engaging in conversation, hand-holding, applying virtual reality, and playing videos—can decrease perioperative anxiety and pain.^3-6

Procedural pain and distraction techniques have been evaluated in the pediatric population more than in adults.⁴ Nail surgery–associated pain and distraction techniques for nail surgery have been inadequately studied.⁷

We offer a distraction technique utilizing a portable massager to ensure that patients are as comfortable as possible when the local anesthetic is injected prior to the first incision.

The Technique

A portable shiatsu massager that uses heat and deep-tissue kneading is placed on the upper thigh for toenail cases or lower arm for fingernail cases during injection of anesthetic to divert the patient’s attention from the surgical site (Figure). Kneading from the massage helps distract the patient from pain by introducing a competing, more pleasant, vibrating sensation that overrides pain signals; the relaxation component helps to diminish patient anxiety during injection.

Practice Implications

Use of a portable massager may reduce pain through both distraction and vibration. In a randomized clinical trial of 115 patients undergoing hand or facial surgery, patients who viewed a distraction video during the procedure reported a lower pain score compared to the control group (mean [SD] visual analog scale of pain score, 3.4 [2.6] vs 4.5 [2.6][P=.01]).⁴ In another randomized clinical trial of 25 patients undergoing lip augmentation, 92% of patients (23/25) in the vibration-assisted arm endorsed less pain during procedures compared to the arm without vibration (mean [SD] pain score, 3.82 [1.73] vs 5.6 [1.76][P<.001]).⁸

Utilization of a portable massager is a safe means of improving the patient experience; the distracting and relaxing effects and intense pulsations simultaneously reduce anxiety and pain during nail surgery. Controlled clinical trials are needed to evaluate its efficacy in diminishing both anxiety and pain during nail procedures compared to other analgesic methods.

Practice Gap

Pain and anxiety are common in fully conscious patients undergoing dermatologic surgery with local anesthesia. Particularly during nail surgery, pain from anesthetic injection—caused by both needle insertion and fluid infiltration—occurs because the nail unit is highly vascularized and innervated.¹ Current methods to improve patient comfort during infiltration include use of a buffered anesthetic solution, warming the anesthetic, slower technique, and direct cold application.²

Perioperative anxiety correlates with increased postoperative pain, analgesic use, and delayed recovery. Furthermore, increased perioperative anxiety reduces the pain threshold and elevates estimates of pain intensity.³ Therefore, reducing procedure-related anxiety and pain may improve quality of care and ease patient discomfort.

Distraction is a common and practical nonpharmacotherapeutic technique for reducing pain and anxiety during medical procedures. The refocusing method of distraction aims to divert attention away from pain to more pleasant stimuli to reduce pain perception.³ Several methods of distraction—using stress balls, engaging in conversation, hand-holding, applying virtual reality, and playing videos—can decrease perioperative anxiety and pain.^3-6

Procedural pain and distraction techniques have been evaluated in the pediatric population more than in adults.⁴ Nail surgery–associated pain and distraction techniques for nail surgery have been inadequately studied.⁷

We offer a distraction technique utilizing a portable massager to ensure that patients are as comfortable as possible when the local anesthetic is injected prior to the first incision.

The Technique

A portable shiatsu massager that uses heat and deep-tissue kneading is placed on the upper thigh for toenail cases or lower arm for fingernail cases during injection of anesthetic to divert the patient’s attention from the surgical site (Figure). Kneading from the massage helps distract the patient from pain by introducing a competing, more pleasant, vibrating sensation that overrides pain signals; the relaxation component helps to diminish patient anxiety during injection.

Practice Implications

Use of a portable massager may reduce pain through both distraction and vibration. In a randomized clinical trial of 115 patients undergoing hand or facial surgery, patients who viewed a distraction video during the procedure reported a lower pain score compared to the control group (mean [SD] visual analog scale of pain score, 3.4 [2.6] vs 4.5 [2.6][P=.01]).⁴ In another randomized clinical trial of 25 patients undergoing lip augmentation, 92% of patients (23/25) in the vibration-assisted arm endorsed less pain during procedures compared to the arm without vibration (mean [SD] pain score, 3.82 [1.73] vs 5.6 [1.76][P<.001]).⁸

Utilization of a portable massager is a safe means of improving the patient experience; the distracting and relaxing effects and intense pulsations simultaneously reduce anxiety and pain during nail surgery. Controlled clinical trials are needed to evaluate its efficacy in diminishing both anxiety and pain during nail procedures compared to other analgesic methods.

Practice Gap

Pain and anxiety are common in fully conscious patients undergoing dermatologic surgery with local anesthesia. Particularly during nail surgery, pain from anesthetic injection—caused by both needle insertion and fluid infiltration—occurs because the nail unit is highly vascularized and innervated.¹ Current methods to improve patient comfort during infiltration include use of a buffered anesthetic solution, warming the anesthetic, slower technique, and direct cold application.²

Perioperative anxiety correlates with increased postoperative pain, analgesic use, and delayed recovery. Furthermore, increased perioperative anxiety reduces the pain threshold and elevates estimates of pain intensity.³ Therefore, reducing procedure-related anxiety and pain may improve quality of care and ease patient discomfort.

Distraction is a common and practical nonpharmacotherapeutic technique for reducing pain and anxiety during medical procedures. The refocusing method of distraction aims to divert attention away from pain to more pleasant stimuli to reduce pain perception.³ Several methods of distraction—using stress balls, engaging in conversation, hand-holding, applying virtual reality, and playing videos—can decrease perioperative anxiety and pain.^3-6

Procedural pain and distraction techniques have been evaluated in the pediatric population more than in adults.⁴ Nail surgery–associated pain and distraction techniques for nail surgery have been inadequately studied.⁷

We offer a distraction technique utilizing a portable massager to ensure that patients are as comfortable as possible when the local anesthetic is injected prior to the first incision.

The Technique

A portable shiatsu massager that uses heat and deep-tissue kneading is placed on the upper thigh for toenail cases or lower arm for fingernail cases during injection of anesthetic to divert the patient’s attention from the surgical site (Figure). Kneading from the massage helps distract the patient from pain by introducing a competing, more pleasant, vibrating sensation that overrides pain signals; the relaxation component helps to diminish patient anxiety during injection.

Practice Implications

Use of a portable massager may reduce pain through both distraction and vibration. In a randomized clinical trial of 115 patients undergoing hand or facial surgery, patients who viewed a distraction video during the procedure reported a lower pain score compared to the control group (mean [SD] visual analog scale of pain score, 3.4 [2.6] vs 4.5 [2.6][P=.01]).⁴ In another randomized clinical trial of 25 patients undergoing lip augmentation, 92% of patients (23/25) in the vibration-assisted arm endorsed less pain during procedures compared to the arm without vibration (mean [SD] pain score, 3.82 [1.73] vs 5.6 [1.76][P<.001]).⁸

Utilization of a portable massager is a safe means of improving the patient experience; the distracting and relaxing effects and intense pulsations simultaneously reduce anxiety and pain during nail surgery. Controlled clinical trials are needed to evaluate its efficacy in diminishing both anxiety and pain during nail procedures compared to other analgesic methods.

To the Editor:

Citation number and Hirsch index (h-index) have long been employed as metrics of productivity for academic scholarship. The h-index is defined as the highest number of publications (the maximum h value) of an author who has published at least h papers, each cited by other authors at least h times.¹ In a bibliometric analysis of the most frequently cited authors in dermatology from 1974 to 2019 (N=378,276), females comprised 12% of first and 11% of senior authors of the most cited publications, and 6 of the most cited authors in dermatology were women.² In another study analyzing the most prolific dermatologic authors based on h-index, 0% from 1980 to 1989 and 19% from 2010 to 2019 were female (N=393,488).³ Because citation number and h-index favor longer-practicing dermatologists, we examined dermatology author productivity and gender trends by recent publication rates.

The Scopus database was searched for dermatology publications by using the field category “dermatology”from January 1, 2017, to October 7, 2022. Nondermatologists and authors with the same initials were excluded. Authors were ranked by number of publications, including original articles, case reports, letters, and reviews. Sex, degree, and years of experience were determined via a Google search of the author’s name. The h-index; number of citations; and percentages of first, middle, and last authorship were recorded.

Of the top 50 published dermatologists, 30% were female (n=15) and 56% (n=28) held both MD and PhD degrees (Table). The mean years of experience was 26.27 years (range, 6–44 years), with a mean of 29.23 years in females and 25.87 years in males. The mean h-index was 27.96 (range, 8–88), with 24.87 for females and 29.29 for males. The mean number of citations was 4032.64 (range, 235–36,908), with 2891.13 for females and 4521.86 for males. Thirty-one authors were most frequently middle authors, 18 were senior authors, and 1 was a first author. On average (SD), authors were senior or first author in 47.97% (20.08%) of their publications (range, 6.32%–94.93%).

Our study shows that females were more highly represented as top dermatology authors (30%) as measured by publication numbers from 2017 to 2022 than in studies measuring citation rate from 1974 to 2019 (12%)² or h-index from 2010 to 2019 (19%).³ Similarly, in a study of dermatology authorship from 2009 to 2019, on average, females represented 51.06% first and 38.18% last authors.⁴

The proportion of females in the dermatology workforce has increased, with 3964 of 10,385 (38.2%) active dermatologists in 2007⁵ being female vs 6372 of 12,505 (51.0%) in 2019.⁶ The lower proportion of practicing female dermatologists in earlier years likely accounts for the lower percentage of females in dermatology citations and h-index top lists during that time, given that citation and h-index metrics are biased to dermatologists with longer careers.

Although our data are encouraging, females still accounted for less than one-third of the top 50 authors by publication numbers. Gender inequalities persist, with only one-third of a total of 1292 National Institutes of Health dermatology grants and one-fourth of Research Project Grant Program (R01) grants being awarded to females in the years 2009 to 2014.⁷ Therefore, formal and informal mentorship, protected time for research, resources for childcare, and opportunities for funding will be critical in supporting female dermatologists to both publish highly impactful research and obtain research grants.

Limitations of our study include the omission of authors with identical initials and the inability to account for name changes. Furthermore, Scopus does not include all articles published by each author. Finally, publication number reflects quantity but may not reflect quality.

By quantitating dermatology author publication numbers, we found better representation of female authors compared with studies measuring citation number and h-index. With higher proportions of female dermatology trainees and efforts to increase mentorship and research support for female dermatologists, we expect improved equality in top lists of dermatology citations and h-index values.

To the Editor:

Citation number and Hirsch index (h-index) have long been employed as metrics of productivity for academic scholarship. The h-index is defined as the highest number of publications (the maximum h value) of an author who has published at least h papers, each cited by other authors at least h times.¹ In a bibliometric analysis of the most frequently cited authors in dermatology from 1974 to 2019 (N=378,276), females comprised 12% of first and 11% of senior authors of the most cited publications, and 6 of the most cited authors in dermatology were women.² In another study analyzing the most prolific dermatologic authors based on h-index, 0% from 1980 to 1989 and 19% from 2010 to 2019 were female (N=393,488).³ Because citation number and h-index favor longer-practicing dermatologists, we examined dermatology author productivity and gender trends by recent publication rates.

The Scopus database was searched for dermatology publications by using the field category “dermatology”from January 1, 2017, to October 7, 2022. Nondermatologists and authors with the same initials were excluded. Authors were ranked by number of publications, including original articles, case reports, letters, and reviews. Sex, degree, and years of experience were determined via a Google search of the author’s name. The h-index; number of citations; and percentages of first, middle, and last authorship were recorded.

Of the top 50 published dermatologists, 30% were female (n=15) and 56% (n=28) held both MD and PhD degrees (Table). The mean years of experience was 26.27 years (range, 6–44 years), with a mean of 29.23 years in females and 25.87 years in males. The mean h-index was 27.96 (range, 8–88), with 24.87 for females and 29.29 for males. The mean number of citations was 4032.64 (range, 235–36,908), with 2891.13 for females and 4521.86 for males. Thirty-one authors were most frequently middle authors, 18 were senior authors, and 1 was a first author. On average (SD), authors were senior or first author in 47.97% (20.08%) of their publications (range, 6.32%–94.93%).

Our study shows that females were more highly represented as top dermatology authors (30%) as measured by publication numbers from 2017 to 2022 than in studies measuring citation rate from 1974 to 2019 (12%)² or h-index from 2010 to 2019 (19%).³ Similarly, in a study of dermatology authorship from 2009 to 2019, on average, females represented 51.06% first and 38.18% last authors.⁴

The proportion of females in the dermatology workforce has increased, with 3964 of 10,385 (38.2%) active dermatologists in 2007⁵ being female vs 6372 of 12,505 (51.0%) in 2019.⁶ The lower proportion of practicing female dermatologists in earlier years likely accounts for the lower percentage of females in dermatology citations and h-index top lists during that time, given that citation and h-index metrics are biased to dermatologists with longer careers.

Although our data are encouraging, females still accounted for less than one-third of the top 50 authors by publication numbers. Gender inequalities persist, with only one-third of a total of 1292 National Institutes of Health dermatology grants and one-fourth of Research Project Grant Program (R01) grants being awarded to females in the years 2009 to 2014.⁷ Therefore, formal and informal mentorship, protected time for research, resources for childcare, and opportunities for funding will be critical in supporting female dermatologists to both publish highly impactful research and obtain research grants.

Limitations of our study include the omission of authors with identical initials and the inability to account for name changes. Furthermore, Scopus does not include all articles published by each author. Finally, publication number reflects quantity but may not reflect quality.

By quantitating dermatology author publication numbers, we found better representation of female authors compared with studies measuring citation number and h-index. With higher proportions of female dermatology trainees and efforts to increase mentorship and research support for female dermatologists, we expect improved equality in top lists of dermatology citations and h-index values.

To the Editor:

Citation number and Hirsch index (h-index) have long been employed as metrics of productivity for academic scholarship. The h-index is defined as the highest number of publications (the maximum h value) of an author who has published at least h papers, each cited by other authors at least h times.¹ In a bibliometric analysis of the most frequently cited authors in dermatology from 1974 to 2019 (N=378,276), females comprised 12% of first and 11% of senior authors of the most cited publications, and 6 of the most cited authors in dermatology were women.² In another study analyzing the most prolific dermatologic authors based on h-index, 0% from 1980 to 1989 and 19% from 2010 to 2019 were female (N=393,488).³ Because citation number and h-index favor longer-practicing dermatologists, we examined dermatology author productivity and gender trends by recent publication rates.

The Scopus database was searched for dermatology publications by using the field category “dermatology”from January 1, 2017, to October 7, 2022. Nondermatologists and authors with the same initials were excluded. Authors were ranked by number of publications, including original articles, case reports, letters, and reviews. Sex, degree, and years of experience were determined via a Google search of the author’s name. The h-index; number of citations; and percentages of first, middle, and last authorship were recorded.

Of the top 50 published dermatologists, 30% were female (n=15) and 56% (n=28) held both MD and PhD degrees (Table). The mean years of experience was 26.27 years (range, 6–44 years), with a mean of 29.23 years in females and 25.87 years in males. The mean h-index was 27.96 (range, 8–88), with 24.87 for females and 29.29 for males. The mean number of citations was 4032.64 (range, 235–36,908), with 2891.13 for females and 4521.86 for males. Thirty-one authors were most frequently middle authors, 18 were senior authors, and 1 was a first author. On average (SD), authors were senior or first author in 47.97% (20.08%) of their publications (range, 6.32%–94.93%).

Our study shows that females were more highly represented as top dermatology authors (30%) as measured by publication numbers from 2017 to 2022 than in studies measuring citation rate from 1974 to 2019 (12%)² or h-index from 2010 to 2019 (19%).³ Similarly, in a study of dermatology authorship from 2009 to 2019, on average, females represented 51.06% first and 38.18% last authors.⁴

The proportion of females in the dermatology workforce has increased, with 3964 of 10,385 (38.2%) active dermatologists in 2007⁵ being female vs 6372 of 12,505 (51.0%) in 2019.⁶ The lower proportion of practicing female dermatologists in earlier years likely accounts for the lower percentage of females in dermatology citations and h-index top lists during that time, given that citation and h-index metrics are biased to dermatologists with longer careers.

Although our data are encouraging, females still accounted for less than one-third of the top 50 authors by publication numbers. Gender inequalities persist, with only one-third of a total of 1292 National Institutes of Health dermatology grants and one-fourth of Research Project Grant Program (R01) grants being awarded to females in the years 2009 to 2014.⁷ Therefore, formal and informal mentorship, protected time for research, resources for childcare, and opportunities for funding will be critical in supporting female dermatologists to both publish highly impactful research and obtain research grants.

Limitations of our study include the omission of authors with identical initials and the inability to account for name changes. Furthermore, Scopus does not include all articles published by each author. Finally, publication number reflects quantity but may not reflect quality.

By quantitating dermatology author publication numbers, we found better representation of female authors compared with studies measuring citation number and h-index. With higher proportions of female dermatology trainees and efforts to increase mentorship and research support for female dermatologists, we expect improved equality in top lists of dermatology citations and h-index values.

Personal protective equipment (PPE) is an important component in limiting transmission of SARS-CoV-2. The World Health Organization and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued guidelines for appropriate PPE use, but recommendations for head and shoe coverings are lacking. In this article, we analyze the literature on pathogen transmission via hair and shoes and make evidence-based recommendations for PPE selection during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Pathogens on Shoes and Hair

Hair and shoes may act as vehicles for pathogen transmission. In a study that simulated contamination of uncovered skin in health care workers after intubating manikins in respiratory distress, 8 (100%) had fluorescent markers on the hair, 6 (75%) on the neck, and 4 (50%) on the shoes.¹ In another study of postsurgical operating room (OR) surfaces (517 cultures), uncovered shoe tops and reusable hair coverings had 10-times more bacterial colony–forming units compared to other surfaces. On average, disposable shoe covers/head coverings had less than one-third bacterial colony–forming units compared with uncovered shoes/reusable hair coverings.²

Hair characteristics and coverings may affect pathogen transmission. Exposed hair may collect bacteria, as Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis attach to both scalp and facial hair. In one case, β-hemolytic streptococci cultured from the scalp of a perioperative nurse was linked to postsurgical infections in 20 patients.³ Hair coverings include bouffant caps and skullcaps. The bouffant cap is similar to a shower cap; it is relatively loose and secured around the head with elastic. The skullcap, or scrub cap, is tighter but leaves the neck nape and sideburns exposed. In a study comparing disposable bouffant caps, disposable skullcaps, and home-laundered cloth skullcaps worn by 2 teams of 5 surgeons, the disposable bouffant caps had the highest permeability, penetration, and microbial shed of airborne particles.⁴

Physicians’ shoes may act as fomites for transmission of pathogens to patients. In a study of 41 physicians and nurses in an acute care hospital, shoe soles were positive for at least one pathogen in 12 (29.3%) participants; methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus was most common. Additionally, 98% (49/50) of shoes worn outdoors showed positive bacterial cultures compared to 56% (28/50) of shoes reserved for the OR only.⁵ In a study examining ventilation effects on airborne pathogens in the OR, 15% of OR airborne bacteria originated from OR floors, and higher bacterial counts correlated with a higher number of steps in the OR.² In another study designed to evaluate SARS-CoV-2 distribution on hospital floors, 70% (7/10) of quantitative polymerase chain reaction assays performed on floor samples from intensive care units were positive. In addition, 100% (3/3) of swabs taken from hospital pharmacy floors with no COVID-19 patients were positive for SARS-CoV-2, meaning contaminated shoes likely served as vectors.⁶ Middle East respiratory syndrome, SARS-CoV-2, and influenza viruses may survive on porous and nonporous materials for hours to days.⁷Enterococcus, Candida, and Aspergillus may survive on textiles for up to 90 days.³

Recommendations for Hair and Shoe Coverings

We recommend that physicians utilize disposable skullcaps to cover the hair and consider a hooded gown or coverall for neck/ear coverage. We also recommend that physicians designate shoes that remain in the workplace and can be easily washed or disinfected at least weekly; physicians may choose to wash or disinfect shoes more often if they frequently are performing procedures that generate aerosols. Additionally, physicians should always wear shoe coverings when caring for patients (Table 1).

Our hair and shoe covering recommendations may serve to protect dermatologists when caring for patients. These protocols may be particularly important for dermatologists performing high-risk procedures, including facial surgery, intraoral/intranasal procedures, and treatment with ablative lasers and facial injectables, especially when the patient is unmasked. These recommendations may limit viral transmission to dermatologists and also protect individuals living in their households. Additional established guidelines by the American Academy of Dermatology, American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, and World Health Organization are listed in Table 2.^8-10

Current PPE recommendations that do not include hair and shoe coverings may be inadequate for limiting SARS-CoV-2 exposure between and among physicians and patients. Adherence to head covering and shoe recommendations may aid in reducing unwanted SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the health care setting, even as the pandemic continues.

Personal protective equipment (PPE) is an important component in limiting transmission of SARS-CoV-2. The World Health Organization and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued guidelines for appropriate PPE use, but recommendations for head and shoe coverings are lacking. In this article, we analyze the literature on pathogen transmission via hair and shoes and make evidence-based recommendations for PPE selection during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Pathogens on Shoes and Hair

Hair and shoes may act as vehicles for pathogen transmission. In a study that simulated contamination of uncovered skin in health care workers after intubating manikins in respiratory distress, 8 (100%) had fluorescent markers on the hair, 6 (75%) on the neck, and 4 (50%) on the shoes.¹ In another study of postsurgical operating room (OR) surfaces (517 cultures), uncovered shoe tops and reusable hair coverings had 10-times more bacterial colony–forming units compared to other surfaces. On average, disposable shoe covers/head coverings had less than one-third bacterial colony–forming units compared with uncovered shoes/reusable hair coverings.²

Hair characteristics and coverings may affect pathogen transmission. Exposed hair may collect bacteria, as Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis attach to both scalp and facial hair. In one case, β-hemolytic streptococci cultured from the scalp of a perioperative nurse was linked to postsurgical infections in 20 patients.³ Hair coverings include bouffant caps and skullcaps. The bouffant cap is similar to a shower cap; it is relatively loose and secured around the head with elastic. The skullcap, or scrub cap, is tighter but leaves the neck nape and sideburns exposed. In a study comparing disposable bouffant caps, disposable skullcaps, and home-laundered cloth skullcaps worn by 2 teams of 5 surgeons, the disposable bouffant caps had the highest permeability, penetration, and microbial shed of airborne particles.⁴

Physicians’ shoes may act as fomites for transmission of pathogens to patients. In a study of 41 physicians and nurses in an acute care hospital, shoe soles were positive for at least one pathogen in 12 (29.3%) participants; methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus was most common. Additionally, 98% (49/50) of shoes worn outdoors showed positive bacterial cultures compared to 56% (28/50) of shoes reserved for the OR only.⁵ In a study examining ventilation effects on airborne pathogens in the OR, 15% of OR airborne bacteria originated from OR floors, and higher bacterial counts correlated with a higher number of steps in the OR.² In another study designed to evaluate SARS-CoV-2 distribution on hospital floors, 70% (7/10) of quantitative polymerase chain reaction assays performed on floor samples from intensive care units were positive. In addition, 100% (3/3) of swabs taken from hospital pharmacy floors with no COVID-19 patients were positive for SARS-CoV-2, meaning contaminated shoes likely served as vectors.⁶ Middle East respiratory syndrome, SARS-CoV-2, and influenza viruses may survive on porous and nonporous materials for hours to days.⁷Enterococcus, Candida, and Aspergillus may survive on textiles for up to 90 days.³

Recommendations for Hair and Shoe Coverings

We recommend that physicians utilize disposable skullcaps to cover the hair and consider a hooded gown or coverall for neck/ear coverage. We also recommend that physicians designate shoes that remain in the workplace and can be easily washed or disinfected at least weekly; physicians may choose to wash or disinfect shoes more often if they frequently are performing procedures that generate aerosols. Additionally, physicians should always wear shoe coverings when caring for patients (Table 1).

Our hair and shoe covering recommendations may serve to protect dermatologists when caring for patients. These protocols may be particularly important for dermatologists performing high-risk procedures, including facial surgery, intraoral/intranasal procedures, and treatment with ablative lasers and facial injectables, especially when the patient is unmasked. These recommendations may limit viral transmission to dermatologists and also protect individuals living in their households. Additional established guidelines by the American Academy of Dermatology, American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, and World Health Organization are listed in Table 2.^8-10

Current PPE recommendations that do not include hair and shoe coverings may be inadequate for limiting SARS-CoV-2 exposure between and among physicians and patients. Adherence to head covering and shoe recommendations may aid in reducing unwanted SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the health care setting, even as the pandemic continues.

Personal protective equipment (PPE) is an important component in limiting transmission of SARS-CoV-2. The World Health Organization and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued guidelines for appropriate PPE use, but recommendations for head and shoe coverings are lacking. In this article, we analyze the literature on pathogen transmission via hair and shoes and make evidence-based recommendations for PPE selection during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Pathogens on Shoes and Hair

Hair and shoes may act as vehicles for pathogen transmission. In a study that simulated contamination of uncovered skin in health care workers after intubating manikins in respiratory distress, 8 (100%) had fluorescent markers on the hair, 6 (75%) on the neck, and 4 (50%) on the shoes.¹ In another study of postsurgical operating room (OR) surfaces (517 cultures), uncovered shoe tops and reusable hair coverings had 10-times more bacterial colony–forming units compared to other surfaces. On average, disposable shoe covers/head coverings had less than one-third bacterial colony–forming units compared with uncovered shoes/reusable hair coverings.²

Hair characteristics and coverings may affect pathogen transmission. Exposed hair may collect bacteria, as Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis attach to both scalp and facial hair. In one case, β-hemolytic streptococci cultured from the scalp of a perioperative nurse was linked to postsurgical infections in 20 patients.³ Hair coverings include bouffant caps and skullcaps. The bouffant cap is similar to a shower cap; it is relatively loose and secured around the head with elastic. The skullcap, or scrub cap, is tighter but leaves the neck nape and sideburns exposed. In a study comparing disposable bouffant caps, disposable skullcaps, and home-laundered cloth skullcaps worn by 2 teams of 5 surgeons, the disposable bouffant caps had the highest permeability, penetration, and microbial shed of airborne particles.⁴

Physicians’ shoes may act as fomites for transmission of pathogens to patients. In a study of 41 physicians and nurses in an acute care hospital, shoe soles were positive for at least one pathogen in 12 (29.3%) participants; methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus was most common. Additionally, 98% (49/50) of shoes worn outdoors showed positive bacterial cultures compared to 56% (28/50) of shoes reserved for the OR only.⁵ In a study examining ventilation effects on airborne pathogens in the OR, 15% of OR airborne bacteria originated from OR floors, and higher bacterial counts correlated with a higher number of steps in the OR.² In another study designed to evaluate SARS-CoV-2 distribution on hospital floors, 70% (7/10) of quantitative polymerase chain reaction assays performed on floor samples from intensive care units were positive. In addition, 100% (3/3) of swabs taken from hospital pharmacy floors with no COVID-19 patients were positive for SARS-CoV-2, meaning contaminated shoes likely served as vectors.⁶ Middle East respiratory syndrome, SARS-CoV-2, and influenza viruses may survive on porous and nonporous materials for hours to days.⁷Enterococcus, Candida, and Aspergillus may survive on textiles for up to 90 days.³

Recommendations for Hair and Shoe Coverings

We recommend that physicians utilize disposable skullcaps to cover the hair and consider a hooded gown or coverall for neck/ear coverage. We also recommend that physicians designate shoes that remain in the workplace and can be easily washed or disinfected at least weekly; physicians may choose to wash or disinfect shoes more often if they frequently are performing procedures that generate aerosols. Additionally, physicians should always wear shoe coverings when caring for patients (Table 1).

Our hair and shoe covering recommendations may serve to protect dermatologists when caring for patients. These protocols may be particularly important for dermatologists performing high-risk procedures, including facial surgery, intraoral/intranasal procedures, and treatment with ablative lasers and facial injectables, especially when the patient is unmasked. These recommendations may limit viral transmission to dermatologists and also protect individuals living in their households. Additional established guidelines by the American Academy of Dermatology, American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, and World Health Organization are listed in Table 2.^8-10

Current PPE recommendations that do not include hair and shoe coverings may be inadequate for limiting SARS-CoV-2 exposure between and among physicians and patients. Adherence to head covering and shoe recommendations may aid in reducing unwanted SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the health care setting, even as the pandemic continues.