0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Examining the Roles of Training, Fit Testing, and Safety Climate on User Confidence in Respiratory Protection: A Case Example with Reusable Respirators in Health Delivery Settings

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          A lack of confidence in the efficacy of respiratory protection can contribute to uncertainty among workers and cast doubt on workplace safety. To date, no research has been conducted to study and understand the introduction of elastomeric half-mask respirators (EHMRs)—without exhalation valves (EVs) or with exhalation valve filters (EVFs), both representing new designs that address source control—in the workplace. To study this issue, researchers collaborated with partners at 32 health delivery settings that received EHMRs from the Strategic National Stockpile during the COVID-19 pandemic. EHMR users (n = 882) completed an online survey between October 2021 and September 2022. Analyses demonstrated that employees were statistically significantly more confident in the efficacy of EHMRs with no EV/with an EVF (including the efficacy in protecting the user from COVID-19) if they had been fit tested and received training. Respondents were also statistically significantly more confident in the efficacy of their EHMR if they had a more positive perception of their organization’s safety climate. The results provide insights for tailored fit testing and training procedures as manufacturers continue to improve respirator models to enhance worker comfort and use. Results also show that, even during a public health emergency, the role of safety climate cannot be ignored as an organizational factor to support worker knowledge, attitudes, and participation in health and safety behaviors specific to respirator use.

          Related collections

          Most cited references41

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support.

          Research electronic data capture (REDCap) is a novel workflow methodology and software solution designed for rapid development and deployment of electronic data capture tools to support clinical and translational research. We present: (1) a brief description of the REDCap metadata-driven software toolset; (2) detail concerning the capture and use of study-related metadata from scientific research teams; (3) measures of impact for REDCap; (4) details concerning a consortium network of domestic and international institutions collaborating on the project; and (5) strengths and limitations of the REDCap system. REDCap is currently supporting 286 translational research projects in a growing collaborative network including 27 active partner institutions.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Surviving Sepsis Campaign: guidelines on the management of critically ill adults with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

            Background The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed. Methods We formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations. Results The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which 4 are best practice statements, 9 are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for 6 questions. The topics were: (1) infection control, (2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, (3) hemodynamic support, (4) ventilatory support, and (5) COVID-19 therapy. Conclusion The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. When available, we will provide new recommendations in further releases of these guidelines. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s00134-020-06022-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Personal protective equipment and intensive care unit healthcare worker safety in the COVID-19 era (PPE-SAFE): An international survey

              Purpose To survey healthcare workers (HCW) on availability and use of personal protective equipment (PPE) caring for COVID-19 patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Materials and method A web-based survey distributed worldwide in April 2020. Results We received 2711 responses from 1797 (67%) physicians, 744 (27%) nurses, and 170 (6%) Allied HCW. For routine care, most (1557, 58%) reportedly used FFP2/N95 masks, waterproof long sleeve gowns (1623; 67%), and face shields/visors (1574; 62%). Powered Air-Purifying Respirators were used routinely and for intubation only by 184 (7%) and 254 (13%) respondents, respectively. Surgical masks were used for routine care by 289 (15%) and 47 (2%) for intubations. At least one piece of standard PPE was unavailable for 1402 (52%), and 817 (30%) reported reusing single-use PPE. PPE was worn for a median of 4 h (IQR 2, 5). Adverse effects of PPE were associated with longer shift durations and included heat (1266, 51%), thirst (1174, 47%), pressure areas (1088, 44%), headaches (696, 28%), Inability to use the bathroom (661, 27%) and extreme exhaustion (492, 20%). Conclusions HCWs reported widespread shortages, frequent reuse of, and adverse effects related to PPE. Urgent action by healthcare administrators, policymakers, governments and industry is warranted.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                101579976
                45874
                Sustainability
                Sustainability
                Sustainability
                2071-1050
                18 July 2024
                2023
                26 July 2024
                : 15
                : 17
                : 10.3390/su151712822
                Affiliations
                National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Pittsburgh, PA 15236, USA
                Author notes

                Author Contributions: Conceptualization, E.J.H.; methodology, E.J.H. and M.E.; software, M.E.; validation, E.J.H.; formal analysis, M.E.; investigation, E.J.H. and M.E.; writing—original draft preparation, M.E. and E.J.H.; writing—review and editing, E.J.H. and M.E.; project administration, E.J.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

                Article
                HHSPA2009902
                10.3390/su151712822
                11274855
                8c2ecc1a-3b84-4285-b112-98bdd37402a2

                Submitted for possible open access publication under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                Categories
                Article

                elastomeric half-mask respirator,emergency preparedness,fit testing,healthcare,respiratory protection,reusable respirator,program sustainability,safety climate

                Comments

                Comment on this article