在 COVID-19 大流行期间,医护人员对弹性半面罩呼吸器和 N95® 过滤面罩呼吸器的舒适度评分

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q1 NURSING
Lisa Pompeii, Janelle Rios, Colleen S. Kraft, Marie Kasbaum, Elisa Benavides, Scott J. Patlovich, Luis Ostrosky-Zeichner, Adam Hornbeck, Caitlin McClain, Rohan D. Fernando, Margaret Sietsema, Morgan Lane
{"title":"在 COVID-19 大流行期间,医护人员对弹性半面罩呼吸器和 N95® 过滤面罩呼吸器的舒适度评分","authors":"Lisa Pompeii, Janelle Rios, Colleen S. Kraft, Marie Kasbaum, Elisa Benavides, Scott J. Patlovich, Luis Ostrosky-Zeichner, Adam Hornbeck, Caitlin McClain, Rohan D. Fernando, Margaret Sietsema, Morgan Lane","doi":"10.1177/21650799241238755","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background:Reusable elastomeric half-mask respirators (EHMR) are an alternative to address shortages of disposable respirators. While respirator discomfort has been noted as a barrier to adherence to wearing an N95 filtering facepiece respirator (FFR) among health care personnel (HCP), few have examined EHMR comfort while providing patient care, which was the purpose of this study.Method:Among a cohort of 183 HCP, we prospectively examined how HCP rated EHMR tolerability using the Respirator Comfort, Wearing Experience, and Function Instrument (R-COMFI) questionnaire at Study Week 2 and Week 10. At the completion of the study (Week-12), HCP compared EHMR comfort with their prior N95 FFR use. Overall R-COMFI scores and three subscales (comfort, wear experience, and function) were examined as well as individual item scores.Findings:The HCP reported an improved overall R-COMFI score (lower score more favorable, 30.0 vs. 28.7/47, respectively) from Week 2 to Week 10. Many individual item scores improved or remained low over this period, except difficulty communicating with patients and coworkers. The overall R-COMFI scores for the EHMR were more favorable than for the N95 FFR (33.7 vs. 37.4, respectively), with a large proportion of workers indicating their perception that EHMR fit better, provided better protection, and they preferred to wear it in pandemic conditions compared with the N95 FFR.Conclusion/Application to Practice:Findings suggest that the EHMR is a feasible respiratory protection device with respect to tolerance. EHMRs can be considered as a possible alternative to the N95 FFR in the health care setting. Future work is needed in the EHMR design to improve communication.","PeriodicalId":48968,"journal":{"name":"Workplace Health & Safety","volume":"239 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Health Care Workers’ Comfort Ratings for Elastomeric Half Mask Respirators Versus N95® Filtering Facepiece Respirators During the COVID-19 Pandemic\",\"authors\":\"Lisa Pompeii, Janelle Rios, Colleen S. Kraft, Marie Kasbaum, Elisa Benavides, Scott J. Patlovich, Luis Ostrosky-Zeichner, Adam Hornbeck, Caitlin McClain, Rohan D. Fernando, Margaret Sietsema, Morgan Lane\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/21650799241238755\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background:Reusable elastomeric half-mask respirators (EHMR) are an alternative to address shortages of disposable respirators. While respirator discomfort has been noted as a barrier to adherence to wearing an N95 filtering facepiece respirator (FFR) among health care personnel (HCP), few have examined EHMR comfort while providing patient care, which was the purpose of this study.Method:Among a cohort of 183 HCP, we prospectively examined how HCP rated EHMR tolerability using the Respirator Comfort, Wearing Experience, and Function Instrument (R-COMFI) questionnaire at Study Week 2 and Week 10. At the completion of the study (Week-12), HCP compared EHMR comfort with their prior N95 FFR use. Overall R-COMFI scores and three subscales (comfort, wear experience, and function) were examined as well as individual item scores.Findings:The HCP reported an improved overall R-COMFI score (lower score more favorable, 30.0 vs. 28.7/47, respectively) from Week 2 to Week 10. Many individual item scores improved or remained low over this period, except difficulty communicating with patients and coworkers. The overall R-COMFI scores for the EHMR were more favorable than for the N95 FFR (33.7 vs. 37.4, respectively), with a large proportion of workers indicating their perception that EHMR fit better, provided better protection, and they preferred to wear it in pandemic conditions compared with the N95 FFR.Conclusion/Application to Practice:Findings suggest that the EHMR is a feasible respiratory protection device with respect to tolerance. EHMRs can be considered as a possible alternative to the N95 FFR in the health care setting. Future work is needed in the EHMR design to improve communication.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48968,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Workplace Health & Safety\",\"volume\":\"239 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Workplace Health & Safety\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/21650799241238755\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Workplace Health & Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/21650799241238755","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:可重复使用的弹性半面罩呼吸器(EHMR)是解决一次性呼吸器短缺问题的替代品。方法:在 183 名医护人员中,我们使用呼吸器舒适度、佩戴体验和功能问卷 (R-COMFI) 对医护人员在研究第 2 周和第 10 周佩戴 N95 过滤面罩呼吸器的耐受性进行了前瞻性研究。在研究结束时(第 12 周),HCP 将 EHMR 的舒适度与之前使用 N95 FFR 时的舒适度进行了比较。研究结果:HCP 报告说,从第 2 周到第 10 周,R-COMFI 总分有所提高(得分越低越有利,分别为 30.0 vs. 28.7/47)。在此期间,除与患者和同事沟通困难外,许多单项得分都有所提高或保持在较低水平。与 N95 FFR 相比,EHMR 的 R-COMFI 总分更高(分别为 33.7 分和 37.4 分),大部分工人认为 EHMR 更合身,能提供更好的保护,他们更愿意在大流行条件下佩戴 EHMR。在医疗保健环境中,超高强度口罩可被视为 N95 FFR 的可能替代品。今后还需要对超高强度呼吸器进行设计,以改善沟通。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Health Care Workers’ Comfort Ratings for Elastomeric Half Mask Respirators Versus N95® Filtering Facepiece Respirators During the COVID-19 Pandemic
Background:Reusable elastomeric half-mask respirators (EHMR) are an alternative to address shortages of disposable respirators. While respirator discomfort has been noted as a barrier to adherence to wearing an N95 filtering facepiece respirator (FFR) among health care personnel (HCP), few have examined EHMR comfort while providing patient care, which was the purpose of this study.Method:Among a cohort of 183 HCP, we prospectively examined how HCP rated EHMR tolerability using the Respirator Comfort, Wearing Experience, and Function Instrument (R-COMFI) questionnaire at Study Week 2 and Week 10. At the completion of the study (Week-12), HCP compared EHMR comfort with their prior N95 FFR use. Overall R-COMFI scores and three subscales (comfort, wear experience, and function) were examined as well as individual item scores.Findings:The HCP reported an improved overall R-COMFI score (lower score more favorable, 30.0 vs. 28.7/47, respectively) from Week 2 to Week 10. Many individual item scores improved or remained low over this period, except difficulty communicating with patients and coworkers. The overall R-COMFI scores for the EHMR were more favorable than for the N95 FFR (33.7 vs. 37.4, respectively), with a large proportion of workers indicating their perception that EHMR fit better, provided better protection, and they preferred to wear it in pandemic conditions compared with the N95 FFR.Conclusion/Application to Practice:Findings suggest that the EHMR is a feasible respiratory protection device with respect to tolerance. EHMRs can be considered as a possible alternative to the N95 FFR in the health care setting. Future work is needed in the EHMR design to improve communication.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
3.80%
发文量
77
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Workplace Health & Safety: Promoting Environments Conducive to Well-Being and Productivity is the official publication of the American Association of Occupational Health Nursing, Inc. (AAOHN). It is a scientific peer-reviewed Journal. Its purpose is to support and promote the practice of occupational and environmental health nurses by providing leading edge research findings and evidence-based clinical practices. It publishes articles that span the range of issues facing occupational and environmental health professionals, including emergency and all-hazard preparedness, health promotion, safety, productivity, environmental health, case management, workers'' compensation, business and leadership, compliance and information management.
×
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