ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To compare the accuracy of monitoring personal protective equipment (PPE) donning and doffing process between an artificial intelligent (AI) machine collaborated with remote human buddy support system and an onsite buddy, and to determine the degree of AI autonomy at the current development stage. DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a pilot simulation study with 30 procedural scenarios (15 donning and 15 doffing, performed by one individual) incorporating random errors in 55 steps. In total, 195 steps were assessed. METHODS: The human-AI machine system and the onsite buddy assessed the procedures independently. The human-AI machine system performed the assessment via a tablet device, which was positioned to allow full-body visualization of the donning and doffing person. RESULTS: The overall accuracy of PPE monitoring using the human-AI machine system was 100% and the overall accuracy of the onsite buddy was 99%. There was a very good agreement between the 2 methods (κ coefficient, 0.97). The current version of the AI technology was able to perform autonomously, without the remote human buddy's rectification in 173 (89%) of 195 steps. It identified 67.3% of all the errors independently. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides preliminary evidence suggesting that a human-AI machine system may be able to serve as a substitute or enhancement to an onsite buddy performing the PPE monitoring task. It provides practical assistance using a combination of a computer mirror, visual prompts, and verbal commands. However, further studies are required to examine its clinical efficacy with a diverse range of individuals performing the donning and doffing procedures.
ABSTRACT
The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound psychological impact on our frontline healthcare workers. Throughout the entire second COVID-19 wave at one major tertiary hospital in Melbourne Australia, longitudinal qualitative data between perioperative staff members, and analyses of intrapersonal changes were reported. Inductive analysis of three open-ended questions generated four major themes: Organisational Response to the Pandemic, Psychological Impact, Changes in Feelings of Support Over Time and Suggestions for Changes. Understanding the challenges, perception and suggestions from this longitudinal study allows us to provide a range of support services and interventions to minimise the long-term negative psychological impact and be better prepared should another similar situation arises again.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Some manufacturers provide information on similar-fit model pairings of filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs), suggesting that fit-test outcome of one model helps predict the other. This guidance may be useful during crisis capacity when FFR supplies and/or fit tests are constrained. The purpose of this study was to compare quantitative fit-test (QNFT) results and concordance between a pair of similar-fit 3M Aura FFRs: the 3M 9320A+ and 3M 1870+. METHODS: All participants completed online training and a QNFT with both respirators. The order of the respirator being examined first was randomly allocated. The outcomes included QNFT pass rate, concordance between the 2 models, overall and individual fit factors, and percentage of male and female participants who passed or failed the QNFT. RESULTS: We recruited 1,000 participants (668 females and 332 males). The QNFT pass rate, overall fit factors, and individual fit factors were significantly higher for the 3M 9320A+ than the 3M 1870+ FFR. The concordance between the models was "fair" (κ coefficient, 0.38). Male participants who passed a QNFT with either of the FFRs had 96% chance of passing the QNFT for the alternate model. Female participants who passed the 3M 1870+ had 97% chance of passing the QNFT for the 3M 9320A+ model. However, â¼1 in 12 females who passed the QNFT for the 3M 9320A+ failed the QNFT for the 3M 1870+ FFR. CONCLUSIONS: Similar-fit paired FFR models may provide a consequentially different level of respiratory protection, especially for women. Our findings are important for FFR stockpiling and fit-testing strategies, especially during crisis capacity.
ABSTRACT
Individuals who are unable to be clean shaven for religious, medical or cultural reasons are unable to wear a filtering facepiece respirator (FFR), as the respirator cannot provide adequate protection against aerosol-transmissible diseases. There is currently a paucity of validated techniques to ensure the safe inclusion of bearded healthcare workers in the pandemic workforce. We propose to undertake a healthcare-based multi-modal evaluation study on the elastic band beard cover for FFR technique, examining the quantitative fit test (QNFT) results, usability and skill level of participants with repeated assessments over time. This is a prospective study conducted through the Respiratory Protection Program at the Royal Melbourne Hospital. Healthcare workers are invited to participate if they require respiratory protection and cannot shave for religious, cultural or medical reasons. An online education package on the use of respiratory protective equipment and the elastic band beard cover for FFR technique is provided. This is followed by a face-to-face session, where the participant will receive: one-on-one training; undergo a skill assessment on their donning, doffing and user seal check techniques; complete QNFTs and a usability survey. Participants will be invited to repeat the assessment within 3 months of the first session and at 12 months. This study involves multimodal and repeated assessments of an elastic band beard cover for FFRs. The findings of this study will provide information on: whether this simple technique can provide safe, consistent and effective respiratory protection; whether it will interfere with occupational activities; and whether it is comfortable and tolerable for the duration of wear. This is of significant importance to the health workforce around the world, who cannot shave but require access to respiratory protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Occupational Exposure , Respiratory Protective Devices , Humans , Prospective Studies , Pandemics/prevention & control , Occupational Exposure/prevention & control , Equipment Design , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Ventilators, Mechanical , Delivery of Health CareABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The rapid spread of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) has presented immeasurable challenges to health care workers who remain at the frontline of the pandemic. A rapidly evolving body of literature has quantitatively demonstrated significant psychological impacts of the pandemic on health care workers. However, little is known about the lived experience of the pandemic for frontline medical staff. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the qualitative experience of perioperative staff from a large trauma hospital in Melbourne, Australia. METHODS: Inductive thematic analysis using a critical realist approach was used to analyze data from 9 semistructured interviews. RESULTS: Four key themes were identified. Hospital preparedness related to the perceived readiness of the hospital to respond to the pandemic and encompassed key subthemes around communication of policy changes, team leadership, and resource availability. Perceptions of readiness contributed to the perceived psychological impacts of the pandemic, which were highly varied and ranged from anger to anxiety. A number of coping strategies were identified in response to psychological impacts which incorporated both internal and external coping mechanisms. Finally, adaptation with time reflected change and growth over time, and encompassed all other themes. CONCLUSIONS: While frontline staff and hospitals have rapidly marshalled a response to managing the virus, relatively less consideration was seen regarding staff mental health in our study. Findings highlight the vulnerability of health care workers in response to the pandemic and reinforce the need for a coordinated approach to managing mental health.