Extended use or reuse of single-use surgical masks and filtering face-piece respirators during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: A rapid systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Shortages of personal protective equipment during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have led to the extended use or reuse of single-use respirators and surgical masks by frontline healthcare workers. The evidence base underpinning such practices warrants examination. OBJECTIVES: To synthesize current guidance and systematic review evidence on extended use, reuse, or reprocessing of single-use surgical masks or filtering face-piece respirators. DATA SOURCES: We used the World Health Organization, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Public Health England websites to identify guidance. We used Medline, PubMed, Epistemonikos, Cochrane Database, and preprint servers for systematic reviews. METHODS: Two reviewers conducted screening and data extraction. The quality of included systematic reviews was appraised using AMSTAR-2. Findings were narratively synthesized. RESULTS: In total, 6 guidance documents were identified. Levels of detail and consistency across documents varied. They included 4 high-quality systematic reviews: 3 focused on reprocessing (decontamination) of N95 respirators and 1 focused on reprocessing of surgical masks. Vaporized hydrogen peroxide and ultraviolet germicidal irradiation were highlighted as the most promising reprocessing methods, but evidence on the relative efficacy and safety of different methods was limited. We found no well-established methods for reprocessing respirators at scale. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence on the impact of extended use and reuse of surgical masks and respirators is limited, and gaps and inconsistencies exist in current guidance. Where extended use or reuse is being practiced, healthcare organizations should ensure that policies and systems are in place to ensure these practices are carried out safely and in line with available guidance.

Pro-judge study: Nurses' professional judgement in nurse staffing systems.

AIMS: Aim of this study is to better understand the role of nurses' professional judgment in nurse staffing systems. DESIGN: Qualitative comparative case study design of nurse staffing systems in England and Wales. METHODS: Data will be collected through a variety of sources: individual interviews, observations of relevant meetings and analysis of key documents. Ethical approval for the study was granted in August 2020 from The Healthcare Research Ethics Committee (SREC reference: REC741). Data generation will be informed by science and technology studies and practice theories. DISCUSSION: Ensuring adequate numbers of nurses are available to care for patients in response to shifting demand is an international policy priority. Emerging evidence on the use of formal workforce planning methodologies across the developed world highlights both the centrality of nurses' professional judgement in nurse staffing methodologies and the urgent need for theoretically informed research to better understand and conceptualise its contribution to decision-making. This study is designed to address this gap in understanding. It takes advantage of nurses' experiences of managing the service and staffing impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic and differences in strategic approaches to nurse staffing systems between England and Wales. IMPACT: The research will: make visible the knowledge and skills that underpin professional judgement in nurse staffing decisions and provide a conceptual language with which to articulate this; lay the foundations for evidence-based programmes of nurse education and continuing professional development; furnish the evidence to inform the development of nurse-led decision support tools to augment professional judgement; and generate wider insights into the effectiveness of nurse staffing systems in practice.