ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the adequacy of the user seal check (USC) in predicting N95 respirator fit. DESIGN: This was a prospective, observational study conducted from May to September 2020. SETTING: The study setting included three private intensive care units (ICUs) in Victoria, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: ICU staff members in three private ICUs in Melbourne and regional Victoria participated in this study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measure is the proportion of participants who passed a USC and subsequently failed fit testing of an N95 respirator. INTERVENTION: Three different respirators were available: two N95 respirator brands and CleanSpace HALO® powered air-purifying respirator. Participants were sequentially tested on N95 respirators followed by powered air-purifying respirators until either successful fit testing or failure of all three respirators. The first N95 tested was based on the availability on the day of testing. The primary outcome was failure rate of fit testing on the first N95 respirator type passing a USC. RESULTS: Of 189 participants, 22 failed USC on both respirators, leaving 167 available for the primary outcome. Fifty-one of 167 (30.5%, 95% confidence interval = 23.7-38.1) failed fit testing on the first respirator type used that had passed a USC. CONCLUSION: USC alone was inadequate in assessing N95 respirator fit and failed to detect inadequate fit in 30% of participants. Mandatory fit testing is essential to ensure adequate respiratory protection against COVID-19 and other airborne pathogens. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12620001193965.
ABSTRACT
The use of face masks has assumed a leading spot among nonspecific prevention measures during the coronavirus pandemic. The effectiveness of this protective measure depends on the specifics of individual use. The purpose of our study was to analyze the use of respiratory protective equipment (RPE) by medical students during the COVID-19 pandemic. The evaluation of face mask use was based on the results of a survey of medical students at Sechenov University. There were 988 participants in the study: 97.5% used RPE during the pandemic, 89.1% used disposable medical and hygienic face masks, 27.4% used reusable cloth face masks, and 13.2% used respirators. The majority of respondents (75.2%) were found to wear face masks correctly. However, 17.0% of the respondents were found to cover only their mouths with a face mask, while 7.8% reported often shifting their face mask under the chin due to perceived discomfort. Only 25.1% of respondents changed their disposable face mask after 2-3 h of wearing, while 13.0% decontaminated and used it several times. Most cloth face mask users (93.7%) decontaminated their marks, but only 55.7% of respondents did so daily. Face masks were most often worn in medical organizations (91.5%), and 1.4% of respondents did not use respiratory protection anywhere. In conclusion, we consider it necessary to introduce a special module on nonspecific prevention in the discipline of hygiene.