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.

Aircrew Performance and Safety While Using Protective Masks in Response to Coronavirus Disease.

INTRODUCTION: In response to the urgent need for safe aircrew respiratory protection due to the COVID-19 pandemic, three small descriptive evaluations were conducted with aircrew and air traffic controllers (ATC) that assessed the impact of mask use on safety and performance onboard rotary wing aircraft.METHODS: A series of evaluations assessed aircrew performance using the 3MTM Model 1860 N95 respiratory protection mask, two aviation-specific cloth mask prototypes, and a commercial off-the-shelf aviation-specific cloth mask. The series of evaluations included different sets of subjects consisting of up to five Black Hawk helicopter aircrew members, air traffic control (ATC), and 12 CH-47 aircrew members. The Modified Rhyme Test was used to measure speech intelligibility and was administered in the UH-60 among crewmembers of the same aircraft, between pilots of different aircraft, and between the pilots and ATC. Measures of workload, usability, comfort, and pulse oximetry were also administered.RESULTS: Results from the Modified Rhyme Test indicated that all subjects scored greater than 80% accuracy given the proper microphone positioning relative to the mask. With respect to workload, NASA-TLX total scores for the perform radio communications task was 50.83.DISCUSSION: Despite an elevated perceived degree of workload on the communications flight task, results from the speech intelligibility test indicated that performance was maintained within the acceptable range as defined by MIL-STD-1474E, Design Criteria Standard Noise Limit. This abbreviated evaluation suggests that the face masks tested are safe for use by helicopter aircrew under the conditions tested.Cave KM, Kelley AM, Feltman KA, Gerstner JA, Stewart JL, Crowley JS. Aircrew performance and safety while using protective masks in response to coronavirus disease. Aerosp Med Hum Perform. 2021; 92(4):274280.

Influence of Protective Face Coverings on the Speech Recognition of Cochlear Implant Patients.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to characterize the effects of wearing face coverings on: 1) acoustic speech cues, and 2) speech recognition of patients with hearing loss who listen with a cochlear implant. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was performed in a tertiary referral center between July and September 2020. A female talker recorded sentences in three conditions: no face covering, N95 mask, and N95 mask plus a face shield. Spectral differences were analyzed between speech produced in each condition. The speech recognition in each condition for twenty-three adult patients with at least 6 months of cochlear implant use was assessed. RESULTS: Spectral analysis demonstrated preferential attenuation of high-frequency speech information with the N95 mask plus face shield condition compared to the other conditions. Speech recognition did not differ significantly between the uncovered (median 90% [IQR 89%-94%]) and N95 mask conditions (91% [IQR 86%-94%]; P = .253); however, speech recognition was significantly worse in the N95 mask plus face shield condition (64% [IQR 48%-75%]) compared to the uncovered (P < .001) or N95 mask (P < .001) conditions. CONCLUSIONS: The type and combination of protective face coverings used have differential effects on attenuation of speech information, influencing speech recognition of patients with hearing loss. In the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, there is a need to protect patients and clinicians from spread of disease while maximizing patient speech recognition. The disruptive effect of wearing a face shield in conjunction with a mask may prompt clinicians to consider alternative eye protection, such as goggles, in appropriate clinical situations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Laryngoscope, 131:E2038-E2043, 2021.