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.

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.

A longitudinal study of the psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on frontline perioperative healthcare staff in an Australian tertiary public hospital.

OBJECTIVE: This longitudinal study examined changes in psychological outcomes of perioperative frontline healthcare workers at one of Australia's most COVID-19 affected hospitals, following the surge and decline of a pandemic wave. METHOD: A single-centred longitudinal online survey was conducted between 26 May and 17 November 2020. Recruitment was via poster advertisement and email invitation. The survey was sent out every 4 weeks, resulting in seven time-points. RESULTS: In total, 385 survey results were analysed from 193 staff (about 64% response rate), 72 (37%) of whom completed the survey more than once. The prevalence of moderate-to-severe anxiety and depressive symptoms peaked at 27% and 25%, respectively, during the pandemic surge. Up to 35% displayed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms. Although not statistically significant, the trend of depressive and PTSD symptoms worsened over time, especially among females and anaesthetic/surgical trainees, despite subsidence of the pandemic curve. Technicians and anaesthetic/scrub nurses were the at-risk groups with worst psychological outcomes. CONCLUSION: We found persistent mental health impacts on frontline perioperative HCWs despite subsidence of the pandemic wave. Further research is needed to determine the extent and trajectory of such impacts with larger sample sizes to determine generalisability to frontline HCWs in general.

A randomised crossover study to compare the user seal check and quantitative fit test between two types of duckbill N95 particulate respirator masks: The Halyard Fluidshield® N95 and the BSN Medical ProShield® N-95 particulate respirator masks.

N95 particulate respirator masks are currently recommended for all healthcare workers who care for patients with suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease (COVID-19) when performing aerosol-generating procedures. The protection provided by N95 particulate respirator masks is dependent on the filter's efficiency and seal quality. In this prospective randomised crossover study, we conducted the user seal check and the quantitative fit test on two readily available duckbill models of N95 masks, the Halyard Fluidshield® N95 (Halyard, Alpharetta, GA, USA) and the BSN Medical ProShield® N-95 (BSN Medical, Mount Waverley, Victoria) particulate respirator masks. We recruited a total of 96 anaesthetic staff, of whom 26% were of South-East Asian ethnicity. We found that both types of masks provided reasonably high fit test pass rates among our participants and there was no significant difference between the two brands (77% for the Fluidshield and 65% for the ProShield, P = 0.916). Ninety-two percent of the participants could find at least one well-fitted mask among these two types of masks. We also demonstrated that the user seal check had low accuracy and low concordance (kappa coefficient of 0.16 for the Fluidshield and 0.08 for the ProShield) when compared to the quantitative fit test, and hence was not a reliable method to test seal quality.