Association of In-Ear Device Use With Communication Quality Among Individuals Wearing Personal Protective Equipment in a Simulated Operating Room.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic has brought forth new challenges for health care workers, such as the daily use of personal protective equipment, including reusable facial respirators. Poor communication while wearing respirators may have fatal complications for patients, and no solution has been proposed to date. Objective: To examine whether use of an in-ear communication device is associated with improved communication while wearing different personal protective equipment (N95 mask, half-face elastomeric respirator, and powered air-purifying respirator [PAPR]) in the operating room. Design, Setting, and Participants: This quality improvement study was conducted in June 2020. Surgical residents from the Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery at McGill University in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, were recruited. All participants had normal hearing, were fluent in English, and had access to the operating rooms at the Royal Victoria Hospital. Exposures: All participants performed the speech intelligibility tasks with and without an in-ear communication device. Main Outcomes and Measures: Speech intelligibility was measured using a word recognition task (Modified Rhyme Test) and a sentence recognition task (AzBio Sentence Test). A percentage correct score (0% to 100%) was obtained for each speech intelligibility test. Listening effort was assessed using the NASA Task Load Index. An overall workload score, ranging from 0 points (low workload) to 100 points (high workload), was obtained. Results: A total of 12 participants were included (mean [SD] age, 31.2 [1.9] years; 8 women [66.7%]). AzBio Sentence Test results revealed that, while wearing the N95 mask, the mean (SD) speech intelligibility was 98.8% (1.8%) without the in-ear device vs 94.3% (7.4%) with the device. While wearing the half-face elastomeric respirator, the mean speech intelligibility was 58.5% (12.4%) without the in-ear device vs 90.8% (8.9%) with the device. While wearing the PAPR, the mean speech intelligibility was 84.6% (9.8%) without the in-ear device vs 94.5% (5.5%) with the device. Use of the in-ear device was associated with a significant improvement in speech intelligibility while wearing the half-face elastomeric respirator (32.3%; 95% CI, 23.8%-40.7%; P < .001) and the PAPR (9.9%; 95% CI, 1.4%-18.3%; P = .01). Furthermore, use of the device was associated with decreased listening effort. The NASA Task Load Index results reveal that, while wearing the N95 mask, the mean (SD) overall workload score was 12.6 (10.6) points without the in-ear device vs 17.6 (9.2) points with the device. While wearing the half-face elastomeric respirator, the mean overall workload score was 67.7 (21.6) points without the in-ear device vs 29.3 (14.4) points with the in-ear device. While wearing the PAPR, the mean overall workload score was 42.2 (18.2) points without the in-ear device vs 23.8 (12.8) points with the in-ear device. Use of the in-ear device was associated with a significant decrease in overall workload score while wearing the half-face elastomeric respirator (38.4; 95% CI, 23.5-53.3; P < .001) and the PAPR (18.4; 95% CI, 0.4-36.4; P = .04). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that among participants using facial respirators that impaired communication, a novel in-ear device was associated with improved communication and decreased listening effort. Such a device may be a feasible solution for protecting health care workers in the operating room while allowing them to communicate safely, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Quality of vision in endoscopy in the midst of a pandemic: Does PPE influence quality of vision during gastrointestinal endoscopy? / Calidad de la visión en endoscopia en tiempos de pandemia: ¿Influyen los EPP en la calidad visual durante la endoscopia digestiva?

INTRODUCTION: In the midst of the SARS-CoV-2 virus (COVID-19) pandemic, health professionals, specifically gastroenterologists, have had to use personal protective equipment (PPE) to reduce contact with droplets and aerosols generated during gastrointestinal endoscopy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of the use of two types of PPE on quality of vision during gastrointestinal endoscopy. METHODS: A cross-sectional observational pilot study in gastroenterologists who undergo an ophthalmological examination of visual acuity and quality of vision when using two types of PPE. Type #1: 3M N95 1860 green respirator + 3M mono safety glasses + protective screen. Type #2: 3M 6800 full facepiece + 3M NIOSH 7093C HF/P100 filters. RESULTS: Visual acuity and quality of vison parameters while using the PPE that is routinely used when performing gastrointestinal endoscopy during the pandemic were evaluated. It was found that Modality #1 was associated with decreases of up to 37% in visual acuity, 25% in colour visualisation and 75% in contrast sensitivity among digestive endoscopists within minutes of placement. These figures worsened over the course of the procedure, rising to 75%, 60% and 100%, respectively. Modality #2 was not associated with any deterioration in quality of vision. CONCLUSIONS: The different PPE modalities used during gastrointestinal endoscopy could have an impact on the quality of endoscopy studies performed during the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic.

Prophylactic Dressings for Maintaining Skin Integrity of Healthcare Workers When Using N95 Respirators While Preventing Contamination Due to the Novel Coronavirus: A Quality Improvement Project.

PURPOSE: Extended use of N95 respirator masks is far more prevalent during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. As WOC nurses, we were tasked with formulating procedures for protecting the facial skin integrity of healthcare workers (HCWs) using personal protective devices when caring for patients with suspected or active COVID-19, while avoiding contamination when the masks are donned or doffed. This quality improvement project describes how we approached this project within the limited time frame available as we cared for patients with established and suspected COVID-19. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: This project focused on HCW use of N95 respirator masks and dressings currently available in our facility. The 4 WOC nurses acted as quality improvement project directors and as participants. The setting for our project was our facility's simulation laboratory. APPROACH: We evaluated 6 topical products (an alcohol-free liquid acrylate, thin film dressing, thin hydrocolloid dressing, hydrocolloid blister care cushion, thin foam transfer dressing, and thick foam dressing) applied to skin in contact with 3 N95 respirators; all are available on our facility's formulary and all are in widespread clinical use. After the product was applied to the face and nose, the N95 respirator was donned and evaluated for fit. Participants then wore the devices for 10 hours and doffed the mask using established facility procedures. In order to evaluate for potential contamination including possible aerosolization, we applied a commercially available fluorescent lotion to simulate the presence of infectious particles. Contamination was assessed using an ultraviolet light for all dressings except for the alcohol-free liquid acrylate. We also evaluated cutaneous responses (skin integrity, irritation, comfort) during this period. OUTCOMES: We found that contamination of the simulated pathogen did not occur with removal of any of the protective products. No skin irritation was noted with any of the tested products after a 10-hour wear time underneath the N95 respirator masks, but mild discomfort was experienced with 3 of the dressings (thin film dressing and both hydrocolloid dressings). CONCLUSION: Based on these experiences, we recommend application of an alcohol-free liquid acrylate film to prevent facial skin injury associated with friction from the extended use of an N95 respirator mask. We further recommend performing a fit test and user-performed seal check with the use of any topical dressing and especially those that add cushion. For the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic, we recommend use of protective dressings to maintain skin integrity and protection from coronavirus infection as HCWs continue to provide care to all of patients under their care.

Visual Field Artifacts in Glaucoma With Face Mask Use During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

PURPOSE: The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has changed how outpatient care is delivered in ophthalmology clinics, particularly with glaucoma care. This case series highlights the need for awareness of fogging and improper face mask fit as causes of standard automated perimetry artifacts in patients with ocular hypertension and glaucoma. CLINICAL PRESENTATIONS: Six patients with the diagnosis of ocular hypertension, glaucoma suspect, or glaucoma underwent standard automated perimetry (24-2 or 10-2 SITA, Humphrey Field Analyzer) while wearing ear-loop surgical face masks. Due to patient complaints of fogging during the testing, low test reliability, and unexpected results, the tests were repeated after taping securely the mask to the bridge of the nose. CLINICAL FINDINGS: Fogging may reduce visual field (VF) test reliability and induce artifacts that mimic glaucomatous defects. VF test reliability can be improved and artifacts minimized following mask taping. In 1 case there was worsening of VF defects after mask taping. This suggests that fogging may also disguise true VF defects. CONCLUSIONS: Fogging can result in unreliable VF testing with glaucoma-like artifacts. Secure taping of the face mask to the nose bridge may minimize this problem and reduce unnecessary additional testing and follow-up visits.

Impact of respiratory protective devices on respiration: Implications for panic vulnerability during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The wearing of respiratory protective devices (RPDs) correctly and continually in situations where people are at risk of respiratory infections is crucial for infection prevention. Certain people are poorly compliant with RPDs due to RPD-related annoyance, including respiratory discomfort. We hypothesized that individuals vulnerable to panic attacks are included in this group. No published studies on this topic are available. The evidence for our hypothesis was reviewed in this study as a starting point for future research. METHODS: We selected a set of experimental studies that measured the respiratory physiological burden in RPD wearers through objective and validated methods. We conducted a bibliographic search of publications in the PubMed database (January 2000-May 2020) to identify representative studies that may be of interest for panic respiratory pathophysiology. RESULTS: Five studies were included. Wearing RPDs exerted significant respiratory effects, including increased breathing resistance, CO2 rebreathing due to CO2 accumulation in the RPD cavity, and decreased inhaled O2 concentration. We discussed the implications of these effects on the respiratory pathophysiology of panic. LIMITATIONS: Most studies had a small sample size, with a preponderance of young participants. Different methodologies were used across the studies. Furthermore, differences in physical responses between wearing RPDs in experimental settings or daily life cannot be excluded. CONCLUSIONS: This research supports the idea that panic-prone individuals may be at higher risk of respiratory discomfort when wearing RPDs, thereby reducing their tolerance for these devices. Strategies to decrease discomfort should be identified to overcome the risk of poor compliance.

Face masks: benefits and risks during the COVID-19 crisis.

BACKGROUND: The German government has made it mandatory to wear respiratory masks covering mouth and nose (MNC) as an effective strategy to fight SARS-CoV-2 infections. In many countries, this directive has been extended on shopping malls or public transportation. The aim of this paper is to critically analyze the statutory regulation to wear protective masks during the COVID-19 crisis from a medical standpoint. METHODS: We performed an extensive query of the most recent publications addressing the prevention of viral infections including the use of face masks in the community as a method to prevent the spread of the infection. We addressed the issues of practicability, professional use, and acceptability based on the community and the environment where the user resided. RESULTS: Upon our critical review of the available literature, we found only weak evidence for wearing a face mask as an efficient hygienic tool to prevent the spread of a viral infection. However, the use of MNC seems to be linked to relevant protection during close contact scenarios by limiting pathogen-containing aerosol and liquid droplet dissemination. Importantly, we found evidence for significant respiratory compromise in patients with severe obstructive pulmonary disease, secondary to the development of hypercapnia. This could also happen in patients with lung infections, with or without SARS-CoV-2. CONCLUSION: Epidemiologists currently emphasize that wearing MNC will effectively interrupt airborne infections in the community. The government and the politicians have followed these recommendations and used them to both advise and, in some cases, mandate the general population to wear MNC in public locations. Overall, the results seem to suggest that there are some clinically relevant scenarios where the use of MNC necessitates more defined recommendations. Our critical evaluation of the literature both highlights the protective effects of certain types of face masks in defined risk groups, and emphasizes their potential risks.

Short-term skin reactions following use of N95 respirators and medical masks.

BACKGROUND: In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, cases of adverse skin reactions related to the wearing of masks have been observed. OBJECTIVES: To analyze the short-term effects of N95 respirators and medical masks, respectively, on skin physiological properties and to report adverse skin reactions caused by the protective equipment. METHODS: This study used a randomized crossover design with repeated measurements. Twenty healthy Chinese volunteers were recruited. Skin parameters were measured on areas covered by the respective masks and on uncovered skin 2 and 4 hours after donning, and 0.5 and 1 hour after removing the masks, including skin hydration, transepidermal water loss (TEWL), erythema, pH, and sebum secretion. Adverse reactions were clinically assessed, and perceived discomfort and non-compliance measured. RESULTS: Skin hydration, TEWL, and pH increased significantly with wearing the protective equipment. Erythema values increased from baseline. Sebum secretion increased both on the covered and uncovered skin with equipment-wearing. There was no significant difference in physiological values between the two types of equipment. More adverse reactions were reported following a N95 mask use than the use of a medical mask, with a higher score of discomfort and non-compliance. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that skin biophysical characters change as a result of wearing a mask or respirator. N95 respirators were associated with more skin reactions than medical masks.

Personal protective equipment and intensive care unit healthcare worker safety in the COVID-19 era (PPE-SAFE): An international survey.

PURPOSE: To survey healthcare workers (HCW) on availability and use of personal protective equipment (PPE) caring for COVID-19 patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). MATERIALS AND METHOD: A web-based survey distributed worldwide in April 2020. RESULTS: We received 2711 responses from 1797 (67%) physicians, 744 (27%) nurses, and 170 (6%) Allied HCW. For routine care, most (1557, 58%) reportedly used FFP2/N95 masks, waterproof long sleeve gowns (1623; 67%), and face shields/visors (1574; 62%). Powered Air-Purifying Respirators were used routinely and for intubation only by 184 (7%) and 254 (13%) respondents, respectively. Surgical masks were used for routine care by 289 (15%) and 47 (2%) for intubations. At least one piece of standard PPE was unavailable for 1402 (52%), and 817 (30%) reported reusing single-use PPE. PPE was worn for a median of 4 h (IQR 2, 5). Adverse effects of PPE were associated with longer shift durations and included heat (1266, 51%), thirst (1174, 47%), pressure areas (1088, 44%), headaches (696, 28%), Inability to use the bathroom (661, 27%) and extreme exhaustion (492, 20%). CONCLUSIONS: HCWs reported widespread shortages, frequent reuse of, and adverse effects related to PPE. Urgent action by healthcare administrators, policymakers, governments and industry is warranted.

The adverse skin reactions of health care workers using personal protective equipment for COVID-19.

In December 2019, a new coronavirus was found in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China, and spread rapidly throughout the country, attracting global attention. On February 11, the World Health Organization (WHO) officially named the disease caused by 2019-nCoV coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). With the increasing number of cases, health care workers (HCWs) from all over China volunteered to work in Hubei Province. Because of the strong infectivity of COVID-19, HCWs need to wear personal protective equipment (PPE), such as N95 masks, latex gloves, and protective clothing. Due to the long-term use of PPE, many adverse skin reactions may occur. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to explore the adverse skin reactions among HCWs using PPE.Questionnaires were used for the research; a quantitative study was carried out to determine the incidence of adverse skin reactions among HCWs using PPE.A total of 61 valid questionnaires were collected. The most common adverse skin reactions among HCWs wearing N95 masks were nasal bridge scarring (68.9%) and facial itching (27.9%). The most common adverse skin reactions among HCWs wearing latex gloves were dry skin (55.7%), itching (31.2%), and rash (23.0%). The most common adverse skin reactions among HCWs wearing protective clothing were dry skin (36.1%) and itching (34.4%).When most HCWs wear PPE for a long period of time, they will experience adverse skin reactions. The incidence of adverse skin reactions to the N95 mask was 95.1%, that to latex gloves was 88.5%, and that to protective clothing was 60.7%.