Prospective observational study of gender and ethnicity biases in respiratory protective equipment for healthcare workers in the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To describe success rates of respiratory protective equipment (RPE) fit testing and factors associated with achieving suitable fit. DESIGN: Prospective observational study of RPE fit testing according to health and safety, and occupational health requirements. SETTING: A large tertiary referral UK healthcare facility. POPULATION: 1443 healthcare workers undergoing quantitative fit testing. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Quantitative fit test success (pass/fail) and the count of tests each participant required before successful fit. RESULTS: Healthcare workers were fit tested a median (IQR) 2 (1-3) times before successful fit was obtained. Males were tested a median 1 (1-2) times, while females were tested a median 2 (1-2) times before a successful fit was found. This difference was statistically significant (p<0.001). Modelling each fit test as its own independent trial (n=2359) using multivariable logistic regression, male healthcare workers were significantly more likely to find a well-fitting respirator and achieve a successful fit on first attempt in comparison to females, after adjusting for other factors (adjusted OR=2.07, 95% CI): 1.66 to 2.60, p<0.001). Staff who described their ethnicity as White were also more likely to achieve a successful fit compared with staff who described their ethnicity as Asian (OR=0.47, 95% CI: 0.38 to 0.58, p<0.001), Black (OR=0.54, 95% CI: 0.41 to 0.71, p<0.001), mixed (OR=0.50 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.80, p=0.004) or other (OR=0.53, 95% CI: 0.29 to 0.99, p=0.043). CONCLUSIONS: Male and White ethnicity healthcare workers are more likely to achieve RPE fit test success. This has broad operational implications to healthcare services with a large female and Black, Asian and minority ethnic group population. Fit testing is imperative in ensuring RPE effectiveness in protecting healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.

Influence of respiratory protective equipment on simulated advanced airway skills by specialist tracheal intubation teams during the COVID-19 pandemic

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of respiratory protective equipment for clinicians performing airway management. Aim To evaluate the impact of powered air-purifying respirators, full-face air-purifying respirators and filtering facepieces on specially trained anaesthesiologists performing difficult airway procedures. Methods All our COVID-19 intubation team members carried out various difficult intubation drills: unprotected, wearing a full-face respirator, a filtering facepiece or a powered respirator. Airway management times and wearer comfort were evaluated and analysed. Results Total mean (SD) intubation times did not show significant differences between the control, the powered, the full-face respirator and the filtering facepiece groups: Airtraq 6.1 (4.4) vs. 5.4 (3.1) vs. 6.1 (5.6) vs. 7.7 (7.6) s;videolaryngoscopy 11.4 (9.0) vs. 7.7 (4.3) vs. 9.8 (8.4) vs. 12.7 (9.8) s;fibreoptic intubation 16.6 (7.8) vs.13.8 (6.7) vs. 13.6 (8.1) vs. 16.9 (9.2) s;and standard endotracheal intubation by direct laryngoscopy 8.1 (3.5) vs. 6.5 (5.6) vs. 6.2 (4.2) vs. 8.0 (4.4) s, respectively. Use of the Airtraq achieved the shortest intubation times. Anaesthesiologists rated temperature and vision significantly better in the powered respirator group. Conclusions: Advanced airway management remains unaffected by the respiratory protective equipment used if performed by a specially trained, designated team. Glossary of Terms : AGPs: Aerosol-generating procedures. CBRN: Chemical, Biological and Radio-Nuclear. COVID-19: Coronavirus disease 2019. FFP: Filtering Facepiece. HCID: High consequence infectious diseases. HCW: Healthcare worker. MERIT: Mobile endotracheal rapid intubation team. PAPR: Powered air-purifying respirator. PPE: Personal protective equipment. RPE: Respiratory protective equipment. SARS: Severe acute respiratory syndrome. Conclusions We conclude that when advanced airway skills are performed by a designated, specially trained team, airway management times remain unaffected by the respiratory protective equipment used.

A crossover study assessing the protective efficacy of improvised snorkel-based improvised respirators.

Introduction: This study was designed to determine whether improvised respirators based on modified full-face snorkel masks are able to pass a standard qualitative fit test. Methods: This is a prospective crossover study conducted in 16 staff. Fit-tests were conducted on masks mated to (1) an anaesthetic breathing circuit heat and moisture exchange filter and (2) a CE-marked P3 grade filter. P3 filters were mounted using both epoxy-coated and uncoated adaptors. Results: None of the tests using anaesthetic filters passed. Only one overall pass was observed using the P3-rated filter mated to the snorkel mask. Conclusions: These data suggest that improvised PPE designs cannot provide reliable protection against aerosols. Failures are likely due to poor fit, but the suitability of 3D printed materials is also uncertain as fused-filament manufacturing yields parts that are not reliably gas-tight. Improvised PPE cannot be recommended as a substitute for purpose designed systems.