Respiratory protection preparedness in critical care healthcare workers: An observational audit of facial hair at a major tertiary hospital in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Facial hair under a tight fitting P2/N95 respirator diminishes respiratory protection. There is limited guidance with respect to the threshold to be clean shaven in readiness to wear N95 respirators. METHODS: We performed a cross sectional audit in late August 2021 to observe whether staff had facial hair that could decrease respiratory protection of tight fitting respirators. The audit was conducted in three critical care areas at a major tertiary public hospital in Australia during a period of moderate-to-high community prevalence of COVID-19. All staff observed had previously successfully completed quantitative fit testing with a clean shaven face in the preceding 12 months. RESULTS: 110 consecutive male critical care staff were observed including thirty staff who were required to wear a N95/P2 respirator at the time. Forty - five percent of male staff observed were not clean shaven in the face seal zone of their respirators. CONCLUSIONS: The readiness to wear a tight-fitting respirator and hence the need to be clean shaven, should be guided by both state and local COVID-19 risk ratings, as well as the specific respiratory biohazard risks present in the clinical area at that time. During periods of significant community transmission of COVID-19, critical care clinical staff should be clean shaven, so they are fit-for-purpose and ready to wear a tight fitting respirator at short notice. Respiratory protection preparedness in critical care healthcare workers: An observational audit of facial hair at a major tertiary hospital in Australia.

Impacts on staff after implementation of a respiratory protection program in a Victorian public hospital.

BACKGROUND: In October 2020, the Royal Melbourne Hospital implemented a Respiratory Protection Program (RPP), which was initiated by the Victorian Government. This study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the program. METHODS: A cohort of 158 employees, who were identified as high risk to respiratory biohazard exposure, were invited to participate in the RPP. We provided a bundle of interventions, which included an online training package, and mandatory quantitative fit testing. The main outcomes included the participants' knowledge and attitude toward respiratory protection equipment (RPE), which were assessed via an online survey. Their donning and doffing skills, and user seal check techniques on four different types of N95 respirators were also assessed by an observer using a pre-determined marking sheet. We compared these outcomes before and after participation in the program. RESULTS: There was a total of 125 participants, all of whom completed the knowledge and attitude assessment, and 69 completed the skill assessment before and after the program. There was a statistically significant improvement in their knowledge scores, donning and doffing skills, and user seal check techniques after participation in the RPP. Participants also reported significant increased level of confidence in their RPE knowledge, training and skills; and workplace safety. CONCLUSION: This initial report of the implementation of a novel RPP in a Victorian major tertiary hospital provides guidance on the benefits to respiratory protection, staff knowledge, skills, confidence and morale that can be acquired from a scalable online training package combined with mandatory quantitative fit testing.

Quantitative fit testing of filtering face-piece respirators during the COVID-19 pandemic reveals anthropometric deficits in most respirators available in Iran.

PURPOSE: Frontline health care workers (HCWs) must wear a standard N95 or FFP2 respirator during worldwide pandemics of respiratory diseases including COVID-19 to protect against airborne infectious pathogens when performing care activities. This study aimed to quantitatively investigate the fit of most of the common FFRs used during the COVID-19 pandemic in Iran. METHODS: A total of 37 volunteers were fit tested in 20 selected FFRs in a randomized order. The selected FFRs were underwent quantitative fit testing by PortaCount® model 8038. To determine the effects of face sizes on respirator fit, the participants' facial dimensions were measured using a digital caliper. RESULTS: The rate of passing fit tests for the studied FFRs were surprisingly low with 11 out of 20 FFRs having less than 10% passing fit tests and the best performers having only 43% and 27% passing fit tests (brands 2 and 20, respectively). Cup-shaped respirators provided significantly greater fit than the vertical flat-fold ones (p < 0.001). A significantly different FFs were found among the respirator brands (F = 13.60, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Overall, unacceptably low fit factors were obtained from the studied FFRs. The main reasons for this are suspected to single size and style for each studied FFR. It confirms the importance and requirement of the proper respirator selection in that way fitted optimally into facial dimensions, appropriate usage, and properly performing the fit testing procedure. A unique fit test panel should be developed to guide respirator wearers in selecting the appropriate FFR for their specific face sizes.