10 free EMT practice questions: PPE & Standard Precautions

Leave it uncovered and wash it after the call: Leaving it uncovered and washing it after the call means the open cut has no barrier during patient contact for the entire shift before it's finally addressed.

Have the partner provide all patient contact: Having the partner provide all patient contact isn't necessary and isn't the standard response: a small cut is covered with a waterproof dressing, not treated as a reason to remove the EMT from all patient care.

Wear two pairs of gloves over it: Wearing two pairs of gloves over the cut still leaves a hole in the barrier directly beneath the gloves: the dressing is what closes that gap, not extra glove layers.

Rely on the prescription eyeglasses: Relying on the prescription eyeglasses alone leaves gaps above, below, and at the temples where fluid can reach the eyes: eyeglasses aren't rated for splash protection.

Add a face shield only if splashing begins: Adding a face shield only if splashing begins waits until fluid is already moving unpredictably: childbirth is one of the highest-splash calls an EMT runs, and eye protection needs to be in place before the delivery, not added reactively.

Remove the eyeglasses and use the mask alone: Removing the eyeglasses and using the mask alone takes away the EMT's corrective vision without providing any actual eye protection: a mask doesn't shield the eyes at all.

Gown and examination gloves: A gown and examination gloves address fluid exposure, but they don't protect against the fragments and struck-by hazards created by cutting glass and metal.

Surgical mask and eye protection: A surgical mask and eye protection provide some splash protection but don't address the head-strike risk from cutting tools and a moving roof structure.

Respirator and examination gloves: A respirator and examination gloves address airborne or respiratory hazards, not the mechanical cutting hazard actually present during this extrication.

Rely on the eyeglasses for eye protection: Relying on the eyeglasses alone leaves gaps above, below, and at the temples where fluid can reach the eyes: eyeglasses aren't rated for splash protection.

Replace the eyeglasses with contact lenses: Replacing the eyeglasses with contact lenses doesn't add any splash protection at all, and it removes the EMT's corrective lenses in exchange for nothing.

Wear a surgical mask with the eyeglasses: Wearing a surgical mask with the eyeglasses does nothing for the eyes themselves: a mask covers the nose and mouth, not the ocular surface that's exposed to splash here.

Take it home and launder it separately: Taking it home to launder it separately moves the contamination out of a controlled workplace system and into a household machine, which isn't how contaminated laundry is supposed to be handled.

Spray it with a disinfectant and finish the shift: Spraying it with disinfectant and finishing the shift doesn't remove the blood-soaked garment from contact with the skin, and it doesn't follow the requirement to remove contaminated clothing as soon as possible.

Seal it in a plastic bag in a personal locker: Sealing it in a bag in a personal locker keeps the contamination on site but unlabeled and headed for another unprotected handling later, rather than going into the labeled biohazard system meant for it.

Rinse the same gloves with water and reuse them: Rinsing contaminated gloves with water does not decontaminate them and does not replace changing gloves.

Wear the same gloves as long as they are not visibly soiled: Gloves can carry pathogens even without visible soiling, so appearance is not a reliable indicator for reuse.

Apply a second pair of gloves over the first pair: Double gloving is used for situations with substantial bleeding or large volumes of body fluid, not as a substitute for changing gloves between patients.

A protective gown to prevent blood from soiling the EMT's uniform and clothes: A gown is the right addition when splatter is landing on your torso and arms in volume: hematemesis, an arterial bleed, a field delivery, and wearing one here would be perfectly reasonable. The question describes a patient leaning forward with blood dripping downward, and a contaminated uniform is a laundering problem while a splash to the eye is a seroconversion risk. When an item asks which consideration is most critical, rank by consequence, and the eye outranks the shirt.

Double gloves to provide backup protection in case the first pair tears: Double gloving is genuinely indicated in a few specific situations: sharp bone ends, prolonged extrication through glass and metal, or high-risk isolation protocols where tearing is likely. Standard precautions do not call for it routinely, and a second pair does nothing about the exposure route this scenario creates. Nothing about a nosebleed threatens the integrity of your gloves: what it threatens is your face, and that is where the additional barrier belongs.

A surgical mask to prevent inhalation of blood aerosol particles: A surgical mask is the right choice when the concern is droplets reaching your nose and mouth, or source control on a coughing patient, and it does add some lower-face splash protection. A nosebleed is not a respiratory illness and the blood is not being aerosolized, so the inhalation premise stated in this option is simply wrong. A mask also leaves the eyes completely uncovered, which is exactly the surface the described splatter threatens.

Switch to double gloves to increase protection: A second pair of gloves adds protection at the one place you are already protected, and the question specifically identifies the gap as the uniform, arms, and exposed skin. Gloves stop at the wrist, and the wrist is where the described contamination begins. Double gloving answers a glove-tearing problem: sharp bone ends, prolonged extrication, and nothing in this scenario describes a torn or threatened glove.

Ask the patient to turn away to reduce splashing: Repositioning is sound clinical judgment in general, and you absolutely would position a patient who is vomiting blood to protect their own airway. This is not personal protective equipment, which is what the question asks for, and a patient hemorrhaging from the upper GI tract has no control over the direction, force, or timing of hematemesis. You cannot ask vomited blood to go somewhere else; you can put a barrier between it and yourself, which is what the key does.

Wait to begin treatment until the bleeding slows: Waiting is the one option that is clinically dangerous rather than merely inadequate. A patient vomiting blood from a severe GI hemorrhage is at immediate risk of aspiration and hemorrhagic shock, and the bleeding is not going to politely slow down. Delaying treatment to avoid exposure inverts the entire purpose of PPE: the equipment exists so that care can begin right now, not so that it can be postponed until the scene is tidier.

Wipe them clean with a dry gauze pad: This treats the oil as surface dirt that can be removed. What the source calls for after a petroleum exposure is a glove change, not a glove cleaning, and wiping the outside leaves the EMT working in the same exposed pair.

Pull a second pair over the contaminated pair: Adding a layer leaves the exposed pair on the hands when the instruction is to change the gloves rather than to cover them. Double gloving is indicated for substantial bleeding, and the question states this bleeding is already controlled.

Keep them on and change them after the splint is applied: This is the assumption that an intact-looking glove is an intact glove. The instruction is triggered by the exposure, not by a visible tear, and splinting a deformed leg is more hands-on patient contact carried out in the pair the source says to change.

Eye protection alone, since the patient is coughing toward the EMT's face: Incorrect. Eye protection addresses splash exposure, not the airborne transmission route this presentation raises.

A gown, since respiratory secretions may soil clothing: Incorrect. A gown addresses contact with secretions on clothing, which is not the primary concern for an airborne-suspected illness.

No additional precaution, since fever alone is not diagnostic: Incorrect. The combination of fever, productive cough, and travel to a known outbreak region is exactly the presentation that calls for respiratory precautions before a diagnosis is confirmed.