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.

Modified telehealth for care of chronic wounds during the Coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: A rapid literature review of alternative care modalities.

Due to the changes in delivering medical care during the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, such as the heavy reliance on telehealth, it is worth exploring if this is suitable when treating complex wounds. A literature rapid review was performed to explore the existing evidence around alternative service delivery modalities. While there are organisations that have successful telehealth systems and infrastructure, for services that do not already widely use telehealth it is difficult to implement a standardised system in the current state of emergency. The evidence reviewed demonstrates that telehealth appears to currently have a limited place in chronic wound management; therefore, standardisation on determining suitability in conjunction with evaluation of telehealth during this period is needed to shape implementation of telehealth systems in the future.