• 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.

J Hosp Infect . An analysis on fit-testing of Respiratory Protective equipment in the UK during the initial response to the Covid-19 pandemic

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
J Hosp Infect


. 2021 Apr 30;S0195-6701(21)00177-8.
doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2021.04.024. Online ahead of print.
An analysis on fit-testing of Respiratory Protective equipment in the UK during the initial response to the Covid-19 pandemic


S Green[SUP] 1 [/SUP], A Gani[SUP] 2 [/SUP], M Bailey[SUP] 3 [/SUP], O Brown[SUP] 2 [/SUP], C B Hing[SUP] 4 [/SUP]



Affiliations

Abstract

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 26[SUP]th[/SUP], 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 26[SUP]th[/SUP], 2020 to October 29[SUP]th[/SUP], 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.

Keywords: BAME; COVID-19; FFP3; Fit-testing; Freedom of Information Act.
 
Back
Top Bottom