• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

Anaesth Intensive Care . More than half of front-line healthcare workers unknowingly used an N95/P2 mask without adequate airborne protection: An au

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
Anaesth Intensive Care


. 2021 Jul 29;310057X211007861.
doi: 10.1177/0310057X211007861. Online ahead of print.
More than half of front-line healthcare workers unknowingly used an N95/P2 mask without adequate airborne protection: An audit in a tertiary institution


Adrian Regli[SUP] 1 2 3 [/SUP], Priya Thalayasingam[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Emily Bell[SUP] 4 5 [/SUP], Aine Sommerfield[SUP] 4 5 [/SUP], Britta S von Ungern-Sternberg[SUP] 4 5 6 [/SUP]



Affiliations

Abstract

Front-line staff routinely exposed to aerosol-generating procedures are at a particularly high risk of transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. We aimed to assess the adequacy of respiratory protection provided by available N95/P2 masks to staff routinely exposed to aerosol-generating procedures. We performed a prospective audit of fit-testing results. A convenience sample of staff from the Department of Anaesthesia and Pain Medicine, who opted to undergo qualitative and/or quantitative fit-testing of N95/P2 masks was included. Fit-testing was performed following standard guidelines including a fit-check. We recorded the type and size of mask, pass or failure and duration of fit-testing. Staff completed a short questionnaire on previous N95/P2 mask training regarding confidence and knowledge gained through fit-testing. The first fit-pass rate using routinely available N95/P2 masks at this institution was only 47%. Fit-pass rates increased by testing different types and sizes of masks. Confidence 'that the available mask will provide adequate fit' was higher after fit-testing compared with before fit-testing; (median, interquartile range) five-point Likert-scale (4.0 (4.0-5.0) versus 3.0 (2.0-4.0); P<0.001). This audit highlights that without fit-testing over 50% of healthcare workers were using an N95/P2 mask that provided insufficient airborne protection. This high unnoticed prevalence of unfit masks among healthcare workers can create a potentially hazardous false sense of security. However, fit-testing of different masks not only improved airborne protection provided to healthcare workers but also increased their confidence around mask protection.

Keywords: COVID-19; FFP; N95; P2; PPE; aerosol; airborne; facemask; fit-check; fit-test; healthcare worker; leak; respirator; seal; virus.
 
Back
Top Bottom