Impact on quantitative fit-test results after application of prophylactic hydrocolloid dressing under N95 respirators.

OBJECTIVE: Discomfort and device-related pressure injury (DRPI) caused by N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) are common. The use of prophylactic hydrocolloid dressings is one of the strategies that may improve comfort and reduce DRPI. In this study, we investigated the impact of these dressings on N95 respirator fit. METHODS: We performed a repeat quantitative fit testing through the Respiratory Protection Program on 134 healthcare workers (HCWs), who applied hydrocolloid dressings on the bridge of their nose under the N95 FFRs that they passed the initial fit test with, but reported discomfort with the FFR. RESULTS: With the hydrocolloid dressings in place, the fit-test pass rate for the semirigid cup style (3M 1860) was 94% (108 of 115); for the the vertical flat-fold style (BYD), the pass rate was 85% (44 of 52); for the duckbill style (BSN medical ProShield and Halyard Fluidshield), the pass rate was 81% (87 of 108); and for the 3-panel flat-fold style (3M Aura) N95 FFRs, the pass rate was 100% (3 of 3). There was a statistically significant reduction in the overall fit factors for both the vertical flat-fold and duckbill type N95 respirators after the application of hydrocolloid dressings. CONCLUSIONS: Hydrocolloid dressings are likely to disturb the mask seal for nonrigid-style N95 FFRs, particularly the vertical flat-fold style and the duckbill style N95 FFRs. Given the risk of mask seal disturbance of N95 respirators as shown in this study, we advocate that any HCW requiring the use of prophylactic dressings should undergo repeat quantitative fit testing with the dressing in place prior to using the dressing and mask in combination.

Quantitative fit-test concordance of a pair of similar-fit 3M Aura respirator models, 3M 9320A+ and 3M 1870+: A randomized crossover study.

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, ∼1 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.

Protocol of a prospective comprehensive evaluation of an elastic band beard cover for filtering facepiece respirators in healthcare.

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.

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.