Fit-testing of respiratory protective equipment in the UK during the initial response to the COVID-19 pandemic

被引:12
|
作者
Green, S. [1 ]
Gani, A. [2 ]
Bailey, M. [3 ]
Brown, O. [2 ]
Hing, C. B. [2 ]
机构
[1] St Georges Univ, London, England
[2] St Georges Univ Hosp NHS Fdn Hosp, Dept Trauma & Orthopaed, Blackshaw Rd, London SW17 0QT, England
[3] Hampshire Hosp NHS Fdn Hosp, Dept Trauma & Orthopaed, Basingstoke, Hants, England
基金
英国工程与自然科学研究理事会;
关键词
COVID-19; Fit-testing; Freedom of Information Act; FFP3; BAME;
D O I
10.1016/j.jhin.2021.04.024
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Background: Public Health England guidance stipulates the use of filtering facepiece (FFP3) masks for healthcare workers engaged in aerosol-generating procedures. Mask fit testing of respiratory protective equipment is essential to protect healthcare workers from aerosolized particles. Aim: To analyse the outcome of mask fit-testing across National Health Service (NHS) hospitals in the UK during the first wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Methods: Using the Freedom of Information Act, 137 NHS hospitals were approached on May 26th, 2020 by an independent researcher to provide data on the outcome of fit-testing at each site. Findings: Ninety-six hospitals responded to the request between May 26th, 2020 to October 29th, 2020. There was a total of 86 mask types used across 56 hospitals, 13 of which were used in at least 10% of these hospitals; the most frequently used was the FFP3M1863, used by 92.86% of hospitals. Overall fit-testing pass rates were provided by 32 hospitals with mean pass rate of 80.74%. The most successful masks, in terms of fit-test failure rates, were the Alpha Solway 3030V and the Alpha Solway S-3V (both reporting mean fit-test failures of 2%). Male-and female-specific pass and failure rates were provided by seven hospitals. Across the seven hospitals, 20.1% of men tested failed the fit-test for all masks used, whereas 19.9% of women tested failed the fit-test for all masks used. Failure rates were significantly higher in staff from Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic (BAME) backgrounds 644/2507 (25.69%) across four hospitals. Conclusion: Twenty percent of healthcare workers tested during the first response to the pandemic failed fit-testing for masks. A small sample revealed that this was most prominent in staff from BAME backgrounds. (C) 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of The Healthcare Infection Society.
引用
收藏
页码:180 / 186
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Occupational Dermatoses Related to Personal Protective Equipment Used During the COVID-19 Pandemic
    Abdali, Selli
    Yu, JiaDe
    DERMATOLOGIC CLINICS, 2021, 39 (04) : 555 - 568
  • [42] Auscultating with personal protective equipment (PPE) during COVID-19 pandemic - Challenges and solutions
    Babu, Thirunavukkarasu Arun
    Sharmila, Vijayan
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY AND REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY, 2021, 256 : 509 - 510
  • [43] Precautions, Utilization of Personal Protective Equipment, and Conservation Strategies During the COVID-19 Pandemic
    Sampathkumar, Priya
    Beam, Elena
    Breeher, Laura E.
    O'Horo, John C.
    MAYO CLINIC PROCEEDINGS, 2020, 95 (09) : S11 - S13
  • [44] Perspectives on personal protective equipment in acute care facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic
    Ng-Kamstra, Josh
    Stelfox, Henry T.
    Fiest, Kirsten
    Conly, John
    Leigh, Jeanna Parsons
    CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION JOURNAL, 2020, 192 (28) : E805 - E809
  • [45] Impact of personal protective equipment use in migraine patients during the COVID-19 pandemic
    Oliveira, R.
    Placido, M.
    Pereira, L.
    Machado, S.
    Parreira, E.
    Gil-Gouveia, R.
    CEPHALALGIA, 2021, 41 (1_SUPPL) : 51 - 51
  • [46] Human factors issues of working in personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic
    Hignett, S.
    Welsh, R.
    Banerjee, J.
    ANAESTHESIA, 2021, 76 (01) : 134 - 135
  • [47] Personal Protective Equipment as a Potential Source of Phthalate Exposure during the COVID-19 Pandemic
    Oteef, Mohammed D. Y.
    Otaif, Khadejah D.
    Idris, Abubakr M.
    APPLIED SCIENCES-BASEL, 2023, 13 (16):
  • [48] Severe allergic systemic reaction to personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic
    Italiano, Pasquale Filippo
    Krummenacher, Matthew
    Lucas, Michaela
    BMJ CASE REPORTS, 2023, 16 (07)
  • [49] Personal protective equipment and possible routes of airborne spread during the COVID-19 pandemic
    Brown, J.
    Pope, C.
    ANAESTHESIA, 2020, 75 (08) : 1116 - 1117
  • [50] Impact of personal protective equipment use in migraine patients during the COVID-19 pandemic
    Oliveira, R.
    Placido, M.
    Pereira, L.
    Machado, S.
    Parreira, E.
    Gil-Gouveia, R.
    JOURNAL OF HEADACHE AND PAIN, 2021, 22 (SUPPL 1): : 34 - 34