A comparative study of point-of-care protection from N95 filtering face-piece respirators in a Residential Aged Care Facility and a Tertiary Hospital-Respiratory protection challenges remain amidst long-term impacts of COVID-19.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q4 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Darius Chapman, Campbell Strong, Dhani Dharmaprani, Kathryn Tiver, Prabhpreet Kaur, Anand N Ganesan
{"title":"A comparative study of point-of-care protection from N95 filtering face-piece respirators in a Residential Aged Care Facility and a Tertiary Hospital-Respiratory protection challenges remain amidst long-term impacts of COVID-19.","authors":"Darius Chapman, Campbell Strong, Dhani Dharmaprani, Kathryn Tiver, Prabhpreet Kaur, Anand N Ganesan","doi":"10.1080/15459624.2024.2345145","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study compared the effectiveness of N95 FFRs in providing respiratory protection for healthcare staff in a residential aged care facility (RACF) and tertiary teaching hospital (TTH) who had previously passed their occupational respiratory protection program fit test. A total of 126 healthcare workers who were regularly using N95 FFRs and who had previously passed a fit test participated in this comparative study. In this study, participants were again fit tested with the PortaCount machine, and their self-assessed tolerability of wearing an N95 FFR was assessed using a standardized questionnaire. The main outcome measures included the pass rate of the fit test and the assessment of tolerability and comfort of the N95 FFR. Across all participants, the fit test pass rate was low (27%), indicating persistent gaps in respiratory protection programs for healthcare workers during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Hospital workers were 3.7 times more likely to pass the test compared to their counterparts in RACFs (<i>p</i> < 0.001). It was also found that workers in RACFs reported higher levels of discomfort and overall dissatisfaction with N95 FFRs compared to hospital staff. These findings highlight the need for targeted interventions and improvements in respiratory protection practices beyond annual fit testing, particularly in RACFs, to ensure the safety of healthcare workers and the vulnerable population they serve.</p>","PeriodicalId":16599,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene","volume":" ","pages":"485-493"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2024.2345145","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study compared the effectiveness of N95 FFRs in providing respiratory protection for healthcare staff in a residential aged care facility (RACF) and tertiary teaching hospital (TTH) who had previously passed their occupational respiratory protection program fit test. A total of 126 healthcare workers who were regularly using N95 FFRs and who had previously passed a fit test participated in this comparative study. In this study, participants were again fit tested with the PortaCount machine, and their self-assessed tolerability of wearing an N95 FFR was assessed using a standardized questionnaire. The main outcome measures included the pass rate of the fit test and the assessment of tolerability and comfort of the N95 FFR. Across all participants, the fit test pass rate was low (27%), indicating persistent gaps in respiratory protection programs for healthcare workers during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Hospital workers were 3.7 times more likely to pass the test compared to their counterparts in RACFs (p < 0.001). It was also found that workers in RACFs reported higher levels of discomfort and overall dissatisfaction with N95 FFRs compared to hospital staff. These findings highlight the need for targeted interventions and improvements in respiratory protection practices beyond annual fit testing, particularly in RACFs, to ensure the safety of healthcare workers and the vulnerable population they serve.

在一家养老院和一家三甲医院使用 N95 过滤面罩呼吸器进行护理点防护的比较研究-在 COVID-19 的长期影响下,呼吸防护仍面临挑战。
这项研究比较了 N95 FFR 为养老院和三级教学医院中先前通过职业呼吸防护计划密合度测试的医护人员提供呼吸防护的效果。共有 126 名定期使用 N95 FFR 并曾通过密合度测试的医护人员参与了这项比较研究。在这项研究中,参与者再次接受了 PortaCount 机器的密合度测试,并使用标准化问卷对他们佩戴 N95 FFR 的自我耐受性进行了评估。主要结果测量包括密合度测试的通过率以及对 N95 FFR 佩戴耐受性和舒适性的评估。在所有参与者中,密合度测试合格率较低(27%),这表明在 COVID-19 大流行期间,医护人员的呼吸防护计划一直存在漏洞。医院工作人员通过测试的可能性是 RACF 工作人员的 3.7 倍(p
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene
Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene 环境科学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
10.00%
发文量
81
审稿时长
12-24 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene ( JOEH ) is a joint publication of the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA®) and ACGIH®. The JOEH is a peer-reviewed journal devoted to enhancing the knowledge and practice of occupational and environmental hygiene and safety by widely disseminating research articles and applied studies of the highest quality. The JOEH provides a written medium for the communication of ideas, methods, processes, and research in core and emerging areas of occupational and environmental hygiene. Core domains include, but are not limited to: exposure assessment, control strategies, ergonomics, and risk analysis. Emerging domains include, but are not limited to: sensor technology, emergency preparedness and response, changing workforce, and management and analysis of "big" data.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信