| Literature DB >> 26320728 |
Hyunwook Kim1, Jung-Eun Baek, Hye-Kyung Seo, Jong-Eun Lee, Jun-Pyo Myong, Seung-Joo Lee, Jin-Ho Lee.
Abstract
To assess performances of N95 respirators for Health Care Workers (HCWs) in a simulated health-care setting, we measured the Simulated Workplace Protection Factors (SWPFs) in real-time from the volunteers. A total of 49 study subjects, wearing 3 M respirator Model N95 1860 and 1860S, were fit tested using the OSHA Exercise Regimen. The test subjects were asked to perform simulated scenarios, including patient assessments, suction, and intravenous injection (IV) treatment. Two TSI PortaCount instruments continuously measured concentrations in the respirator and the room concentration. For Quantitative Fit Testing (QNFT), 36 out of 49 (73.5%) passed the fit factor (FF) criteria set at 100 and 13 (26.5%) failed. The results of QNFT were found to have a low correlation with SWPF, with R(2)=0.32. The geometric means (GM) and geometric standard deviations (GSD) of SWPF were 68.8 (1.1) for those subjects who passed and 39.6 (1.3) for those who failed. Real-time assessments of SWPF showed that lower SWPFs were; moving head up and down, and bending at the waist. This study identifies the needs for providing different sizes of respirators for HCWs and the importance of performing fit tests for HCWs regularly. And particular movements were identified as attributing factors affecting more on SWPFs.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26320728 PMCID: PMC4667046 DOI: 10.2486/indhealth.2014-0259
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ind Health ISSN: 0019-8366 Impact factor: 2.179
Fig. 2.View of health care setting environment.
Fig. 1.Facial dimensions measured.
Fig. 3.Relationship between the two instrument for ambient particle concentration (p/cm3).
Health care scenarios developed for the study
| Scenarios 1 (Assessment) | Scenarios 2 (Suction) | Scenarios 3 (IV Treatment) |
|---|---|---|
| 41 s to 1 min 48 s | 58 s to 1 min 44 s | 48 sec to 1 min 42 s |
| 1. Patient bedside diagnostics | 1. Upper airway suction | 1. Administer IV care |
| · Vitals : blood pressure | · Suction : by aspirator | · IV : Injection of vein |
| 2. Ask question | 2. Notify aspirator | 2. Notify IV care |
| 3. Check blood pressure | 3. Knock chest and put on gloves | 3. Clean alcohol |
| 4. Raise/lower stretcher as need | 4. Raise/lower stretcher as need | 4. Tie tourniquet, push IV medication |
| 5. Clean hands | 5. Perform aspirator | 5. Raise/lower stretcher as need |
General characteristics of the study subjects
| Classification | N (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Sex | Male | 16 (32.7%) |
| Female | 33 (67.3%) | |
| Age | 20–24 | 36 (73.5%) |
| 25–29 | 9 (18.4%) | |
| 30–34 | 3 (6.1%) | |
| ≥35 | 1 (2.0%) | |
| Job | Nursing student | 37 (75.5%) |
| Nurse | 12 (24.5%) | |
| N95 Size | Medium | 3 (6.1%) |
| Small | 46 (93.9%) |
N: Number of subjects
Summary statistics of facial dimension measurements
| Item | Male (N=16) | Female (N=33) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M±SD | 95th percentile | M±SD | 95th percentile | ||||
| LCL | UCL | LCL | UCL | ||||
| Face length | 117.2 ± 5.0 | 114.4 | 120.0 | 110.8 ± 4.2 | 109.3 | 112.3 | 0.356 |
| Lip length | 40.1 ± 3.4 | 38.2 | 41.9 | 37.9 ± 2.4 | 37.1 | 38.8 | 0.026* |
| Nose width | 35.4 ± 2.0 | 34.3 | 36.5 | 31.7 ± 2.5 | 30.8 | 32.5 | 0.435 |
| Nasale root breadth | 33.6 ± 3.2 | 31.8 | 35.3 | 31.6 ± 3.4 | 30.4 | 32.9 | 0.777 |
| Bitragion-subnasale arc | 179.4 ± 22.1 | 167.2 | 191.6 | 176.4 ± 19.3 | 169.5 | 183.2 | 0.229 |
| Bizygomatic breadth | 138.6 ± 8.1 | 134.2 | 143.1 | 131.6 ± 6.0 | 129.5 | 133.8 | 0.161 |
| Menton-subnasale length | 70.6 ± 3.7 | 68.5 | 72.6 | 65.7 ± 4.4 | 64.1 | 67.3 | 0.193 |
M ± SD: Mean and standard deviation (mm). LCL: Lower control limit, UCL: Upper control limit. *Statistically significant difference between gender by t-test.
Fig. 4.Distribution of test subjects in the NIOSH panel constructed.
Fit test result
| Fit test | N (%) | GM (GSD) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pass | Fail | Pass (FF≥100) | Fail (FF<100) | |
| 36 (73.5) | 13 (26.5) | 156.3 (1.3) | 37.0 (1.7) | |
GM: Geometric means, GSD: Geometric standard deviations
SWPFs by subject who passed or failed the fit test
| SWPF | N (%) | GM (GSD) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pass | Fail | Pass (FF≥100) | Fail (FF<100) | |
| 36 (73.5) | 13 (26.5) | 68.8 (1.1) | 39.6 (1.3) | |
GM: Geometric means, GSD: Geometric standard deviations
Fig. 5.Relationship between the overall SWPFs and FFs for three scenarios.
Fig. 6.Fluctuations of particle concentrations (ambient and respirator) and overall SWPFs by exercise for three different scenarios from test subjects who passed the fit test.
Fig. 7.Fluctuations of particle concentrations (ambient and respirator) and overall SWPFs by exercise for three different scenarios from test subjects who failed the fit test.