Assessment of Two Personal Breathing Recording Devices in a Simulated Healthcare Environment.

Jintuo Zhu, Xinjian He, Steven Guffey, Michael S Bergman, Eun G Lee, Ziqing Zhuang
{"title":"Assessment of Two Personal Breathing Recording Devices in a Simulated Healthcare Environment.","authors":"Jintuo Zhu, Xinjian He, Steven Guffey, Michael S Bergman, Eun G Lee, Ziqing Zhuang","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In the field of respiratory protection for healthcare workers (HCWs), few data are available on respiratory airflow rate when HCWs are performing their work activities. The objective of this study was to assess the performance of two wearable breathing recording devices in a simulated healthcare environment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Breathing recording devices from two different manufactures \"A\" and \"B\" were assessed using 15 subjects while performing a series of simulated healthcare work activities (patient assessment; vitals; IV treatment; changing linen; carrying weight while walking; normal breathing while standing). The minute volume (MV, L/min), mean inhalation flow (MIF, L/min), peak inhalation flow (PIF, L/min), breathing frequency (f, breaths/min), and tidal volume (TV, L/min) measured by each device were analyzed. Bland-Altman method was applied to explore the variability of devices A and B. Duncan's multiple range test was used to investigate the differences among activity-specific inspiratory flow rates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The average MV, MIF and PIF reported by device A were 23, 54, and 82 L/min with 95% upper confidence intervals (CIs) of 25, 60 and 92 L/min; the mean differences of MV, MIF and PIF presented by the two units of device A were 0.9, 1.3, and 2.8 L/min, respectively. The average values and mean differences of MV, MIF and PIF found with device B were significantly higher than device A (P<0.05), showing a high variability. During non-speech activities, the PIF/MV and MIF/MV ratios were >3.14 and >2, while with speech, the ratios increased to >6 and >3. The f during speech (15 breaths/min) was significantly lower than non-speech activities (20-25 breaths/min). Among different simulated work activities, the PIF of \"patient assessment\" was the highest.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study demonstrated a novel approach to characterize respiratory flow for healthcare workers using an innovative wearable flow recording device. Data from this investigation could be useful in the development of future respirator test standards.</p>","PeriodicalId":73984,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the International Society for Respiratory Protection","volume":"35 2","pages":"98-111"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7179815/pdf/nihms-1047288.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the International Society for Respiratory Protection","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: In the field of respiratory protection for healthcare workers (HCWs), few data are available on respiratory airflow rate when HCWs are performing their work activities. The objective of this study was to assess the performance of two wearable breathing recording devices in a simulated healthcare environment.

Methods: Breathing recording devices from two different manufactures "A" and "B" were assessed using 15 subjects while performing a series of simulated healthcare work activities (patient assessment; vitals; IV treatment; changing linen; carrying weight while walking; normal breathing while standing). The minute volume (MV, L/min), mean inhalation flow (MIF, L/min), peak inhalation flow (PIF, L/min), breathing frequency (f, breaths/min), and tidal volume (TV, L/min) measured by each device were analyzed. Bland-Altman method was applied to explore the variability of devices A and B. Duncan's multiple range test was used to investigate the differences among activity-specific inspiratory flow rates.

Results: The average MV, MIF and PIF reported by device A were 23, 54, and 82 L/min with 95% upper confidence intervals (CIs) of 25, 60 and 92 L/min; the mean differences of MV, MIF and PIF presented by the two units of device A were 0.9, 1.3, and 2.8 L/min, respectively. The average values and mean differences of MV, MIF and PIF found with device B were significantly higher than device A (P<0.05), showing a high variability. During non-speech activities, the PIF/MV and MIF/MV ratios were >3.14 and >2, while with speech, the ratios increased to >6 and >3. The f during speech (15 breaths/min) was significantly lower than non-speech activities (20-25 breaths/min). Among different simulated work activities, the PIF of "patient assessment" was the highest.

Conclusions: This study demonstrated a novel approach to characterize respiratory flow for healthcare workers using an innovative wearable flow recording device. Data from this investigation could be useful in the development of future respirator test standards.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

在模拟医疗环境中评估两种个人呼吸记录装置
背景:在医护人员(HCWs)呼吸保护领域,很少有关于医护人员工作时呼吸气流速率的数据。本研究的目的是评估两种可穿戴呼吸记录设备在模拟医疗环境中的性能:方法:使用 15 名受试者在进行一系列模拟医疗保健工作活动(患者评估、生命体征、静脉注射治疗、更换床单、行走时负重、站立时正常呼吸)时,对两种不同制造商生产的呼吸记录设备 "A "和 "B "进行了评估。分析了每个设备测得的分钟量(MV,升/分钟)、平均吸入流量(MIF,升/分钟)、吸入峰值流量(PIF,升/分钟)、呼吸频率(f,呼吸次数/分钟)和潮气量(TV,升/分钟)。采用 Bland-Altman 方法探讨了 A 和 B 设备的变异性,并采用邓肯多重范围检验探讨了活动特定吸气流速之间的差异:设备 A 报告的平均 MV、MIF 和 PIF 分别为 23、54 和 82 L/min,95% 置信区间上限 (CI) 分别为 25、60 和 92 L/min;设备 A 两个单元的 MV、MIF 和 PIF 的平均差异分别为 0.9、1.3 和 2.8 L/min。B 设备的 MV、MIF 和 PIF 的平均值和平均差明显高于 A 设备(P3.14 和 >2,而说话时的比率则增至 >6 和 >3。 说话时的 f(15 次/分钟)明显低于非说话活动(20-25 次/分钟)。在不同的模拟工作活动中,"病人评估 "的 PIF 值最高:本研究展示了一种利用创新的可穿戴呼吸流量记录装置来描述医护人员呼吸流量特征的新方法。这项调查所获得的数据将有助于制定未来的呼吸器测试标准。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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