Liam Hackett , Melanie (Meilun) Zhang , Matthew Casey , Joseph Miller , Jesse Smith , Caitlin Low , Emogene Aldridge , Patrick J. Owen , Paul Buntine
{"title":"医院员工对 N-95/P2 呼吸器是否符合密合度测试建议以及对呼吸器的满意度。","authors":"Liam Hackett , Melanie (Meilun) Zhang , Matthew Casey , Joseph Miller , Jesse Smith , Caitlin Low , Emogene Aldridge , Patrick J. Owen , Paul Buntine","doi":"10.1016/j.idh.2024.04.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Filtering Facepiece Respirators (FFRs) are an important and readily scalable infection control measure; however their effectiveness is ultimately determined by compliance. We aimed to examine staff compliance and satisfaction with wearing the N95/P2 FFRs assigned to them via the standardised fit testing protocol implemented in a single large healthcare network in Victoria, Australia.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>In this cross-sectional survey, employees from five hospital campuses who participated in the health networks N95/P2 FFR fit testing process were invited in person to participate in the study. Data were analysed descriptively, after which chi-squared analysis was performed to determine differences between respirator types, gender, and age groups.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Amongst the 258 staff members surveyed, 28% had either never or only sometimes worn an FFR to which they had been successfully fit tested, and 11% had experienced facial changes that potentially rendered their most recent fit test invalid. More than half (53%) of those surveyed had experienced side effects, the most common being skin irritation and pressure sores. A majority (87%) of staff felt that wearing an FFR had some impact on their ability to perform their duties. Pooled mean self-reported satisfaction ratings were highest for three-panel flat-fold and duckbill models.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>28% of HCWs surveyed described not wearing N-95/P2 FFRs for which they had successfully been fit tested. Reasons for non-compliance remain unclear, but rates of side effects and interference with duties were high. Further research is required to determine and address potential causative factors and ascertain ongoing optimal organisation-level fit test strategies.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":45006,"journal":{"name":"Infection Disease & Health","volume":"29 3","pages":"Pages 144-151"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468045124000233/pdfft?md5=f12481f72dc7413415ee31cdb60baa3f&pid=1-s2.0-S2468045124000233-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"N-95/P2 respirator compliance with fit testing recommendations and respirator satisfaction amongst hospital staff\",\"authors\":\"Liam Hackett , Melanie (Meilun) Zhang , Matthew Casey , Joseph Miller , Jesse Smith , Caitlin Low , Emogene Aldridge , Patrick J. Owen , Paul Buntine\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.idh.2024.04.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Filtering Facepiece Respirators (FFRs) are an important and readily scalable infection control measure; however their effectiveness is ultimately determined by compliance. We aimed to examine staff compliance and satisfaction with wearing the N95/P2 FFRs assigned to them via the standardised fit testing protocol implemented in a single large healthcare network in Victoria, Australia.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>In this cross-sectional survey, employees from five hospital campuses who participated in the health networks N95/P2 FFR fit testing process were invited in person to participate in the study. Data were analysed descriptively, after which chi-squared analysis was performed to determine differences between respirator types, gender, and age groups.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Amongst the 258 staff members surveyed, 28% had either never or only sometimes worn an FFR to which they had been successfully fit tested, and 11% had experienced facial changes that potentially rendered their most recent fit test invalid. More than half (53%) of those surveyed had experienced side effects, the most common being skin irritation and pressure sores. A majority (87%) of staff felt that wearing an FFR had some impact on their ability to perform their duties. Pooled mean self-reported satisfaction ratings were highest for three-panel flat-fold and duckbill models.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>28% of HCWs surveyed described not wearing N-95/P2 FFRs for which they had successfully been fit tested. Reasons for non-compliance remain unclear, but rates of side effects and interference with duties were high. Further research is required to determine and address potential causative factors and ascertain ongoing optimal organisation-level fit test strategies.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45006,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Infection Disease & Health\",\"volume\":\"29 3\",\"pages\":\"Pages 144-151\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468045124000233/pdfft?md5=f12481f72dc7413415ee31cdb60baa3f&pid=1-s2.0-S2468045124000233-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Infection Disease & Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468045124000233\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Infection Disease & Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468045124000233","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
N-95/P2 respirator compliance with fit testing recommendations and respirator satisfaction amongst hospital staff
Background
Filtering Facepiece Respirators (FFRs) are an important and readily scalable infection control measure; however their effectiveness is ultimately determined by compliance. We aimed to examine staff compliance and satisfaction with wearing the N95/P2 FFRs assigned to them via the standardised fit testing protocol implemented in a single large healthcare network in Victoria, Australia.
Methods
In this cross-sectional survey, employees from five hospital campuses who participated in the health networks N95/P2 FFR fit testing process were invited in person to participate in the study. Data were analysed descriptively, after which chi-squared analysis was performed to determine differences between respirator types, gender, and age groups.
Results
Amongst the 258 staff members surveyed, 28% had either never or only sometimes worn an FFR to which they had been successfully fit tested, and 11% had experienced facial changes that potentially rendered their most recent fit test invalid. More than half (53%) of those surveyed had experienced side effects, the most common being skin irritation and pressure sores. A majority (87%) of staff felt that wearing an FFR had some impact on their ability to perform their duties. Pooled mean self-reported satisfaction ratings were highest for three-panel flat-fold and duckbill models.
Conclusion
28% of HCWs surveyed described not wearing N-95/P2 FFRs for which they had successfully been fit tested. Reasons for non-compliance remain unclear, but rates of side effects and interference with duties were high. Further research is required to determine and address potential causative factors and ascertain ongoing optimal organisation-level fit test strategies.
期刊介绍:
The journal aims to be a platform for the publication and dissemination of knowledge in the area of infection and disease causing infection in humans. The journal is quarterly and publishes research, reviews, concise communications, commentary and other articles concerned with infection and disease affecting the health of an individual, organisation or population. The original and important articles in the journal investigate, report or discuss infection prevention and control; clinical, social, epidemiological or public health aspects of infectious disease; policy and planning for the control of infections; zoonoses; and vaccination related to disease in human health. Infection, Disease & Health provides a platform for the publication and dissemination of original knowledge at the nexus of the areas infection, Disease and health in a One Health context. One Health recognizes that the health of people is connected to the health of animals and the environment. One Health encourages and advances the collaborative efforts of multiple disciplines-working locally, nationally, and globally-to achieve the best health for people, animals, and our environment. This approach is fundamental because 6 out of every 10 infectious diseases in humans are zoonotic, or spread from animals. We would be expected to report or discuss infection prevention and control; clinical, social, epidemiological or public health aspects of infectious disease; policy and planning for the control of infections; zoonosis; and vaccination related to disease in human health. The Journal seeks to bring together knowledge from all specialties involved in infection research and clinical practice, and present the best work in this ever-changing field. The audience of the journal includes researchers, clinicians, health workers and public policy professionals concerned with infection, disease and health.