scholarly journals Fit for purpose? The role of fit testing in respiratory protection

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. e0245688
Author(s):  
Eugenia O’Kelly ◽  
Anmol Arora ◽  
Sophia Pirog ◽  
James Ward ◽  
P. John Clarkson

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic has made well-fitting face masks a critical piece of protective equipment for healthcare workers and civilians. While the importance of wearing face masks has been acknowledged, there remains a lack of understanding about the role of good fit in rendering protective equipment useful. In addition, supply chain constraints have caused some organizations to abandon traditional quantitative or/and qualitative fit testing, and instead, have implemented subjective fit checking. Our study seeks to quantitatively evaluate the level of fit offered by various types of masks, and most importantly, assess the accuracy of implementing fit checks by comparing fit check results to quantitative fit testing results. Methods Seven participants first evaluated N95 and KN95 respirators by performing a fit check. Participants then underwent quantitative fit testing wearing five N95 respirators, a KN95 respirator, a surgical mask, and fabric masks. Results N95 respirators offered higher degrees of protection than the other categories of masks tested; however, it should be noted that most N95 respirators failed to fit the participants adequately. Fit check responses had poor correlation with quantitative fit factor scores. KN95, surgical, and fabric masks achieved low fit factor scores, with little protective difference recorded between respiratory protection options. In addition, small facial differences were observed to have a significant impact on quantitative fit. Conclusion Fit is critical to the level of protection offered by respirators. For an N95 respirator to provide the promised protection, it must fit the participant. Performing a fit check via NHS self-assessment guidelines was an unreliable way of determining fit.


2021 ◽  
pp. 194016122110067
Author(s):  
Mária Žuffová

Despite great volume of research into press–state relations, we know little about how journalists use information that has been generated through independent bureaucratic processes. The present study addresses this gap by investigating the role of freedom of information (FOI) laws in journalism practice. By surveying journalists ( n = 164), interviewing activists and civil servants ( n = 7) and submitting FOI requests to twenty-one ministerial departments in the United Kingdom, this study explores press-state interactions and the limits of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) application to advance the media’s monitorial function. The results show that journalists perceive FOIA as an essential tool for their work. However, they often described their experience as negative. They reported refusals lacking legal ground, delays, not responding at all or differential treatment. In response to gating access, journalists might also adopt tactics that use loopholes in the law. The press-state interactions, already marked by suspicion, thus, continue to perpetuate distrust. These findings might have implications for journalism practices, FOIAs’ potential for government oversight and democracy. In particular, the differential treatment of requests undermines equality under the law, one of the fundamental democratic principles. The study concludes with several policy recommendations for FOIA reform to meet journalists’ needs better.


2017 ◽  
Vol 66 (4) ◽  
pp. 173-182 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marzieh Honarbakhsh ◽  
Mehdi Jahangiri ◽  
Haleh Ghaem ◽  
Payam Farhadi

In hospitals, health care workers (HCWs) are exposed to a wide range of respiratory hazards, which requires using respiratory protective equipment and implementing Respiratory Protection Programs (RPPs). The aim of this cross-sectional study was to investigate RPP implementation in 36 teaching hospitals located in the Fars province of Iran. A researcher-developed checklist, including nine components of the RPP standard, was completed by industrial hygienists in the study hospitals. The Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process (FAHP) was used to determine the weight coefficient of RPP components. Finally, a Respiratory Protection Program Index (RPPI) was developed to calculate hospital compliance with RPP. The results showed that RPP were not fully implemented in the studied hospitals, and the highest and lowest RPPI scores were related to training and fit testing, respectively. To promote the implementation of RPP, significant efforts are required for all components, especially fit testing and worker evaluation.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Adam Lothian Holloway

<p>This paper examines the role of the Health and Disability Commissioner. It does so by first describing the Commissioner's origins and place in the overall regulatory landscape for doctors in New Zealand. Different frameworks are then described within which the Commissioner's purpose, practice and outcomes can be assessed. Applying these frameworks, an assessment is made of the Commissioner's jurisdiction. Finally, informed by the foregoing assessment, this paper examines the regulatory landscape from a broader perspective, making tentative proposals for reforms.</p>


2018 ◽  
Vol 51 (3) ◽  
pp. 319-338 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yvonne Jewkes

This article develops the notion that institutional places and spaces are layered with meaning and that their architecture and design have a profound psychological and physiological influence on those who live and work within them. Mindful of the intrinsic link between ‘beauty’ and ‘being just’, the article explores the potential ‘healing’ or rehabilitative role of penal aesthetics. As many countries modernise their prison estates, replacing older facilities that are no longer fit-for-purpose with new, more ‘efficient’ establishments, this article discusses examples of international best (and less good) practice in penal and hospital settings. It reflects on what those who commission and design new prisons might learn from pioneering design initiatives in healthcare environments and asks whether the philosophies underpinning the ‘architecture of hope’ that Maggie’s Cancer Care Centres exemplify could be incorporated into prisons of the future. The article was originally presented as a public lecture in the annual John V Barry memorial lecture series at the University of Melbourne on 24 November 2016.


2020 ◽  
Vol 70 (8) ◽  
pp. 556-563
Author(s):  
J D M Douglas ◽  
N McLean ◽  
C Horsley ◽  
G Higgins ◽  
C M Douglas ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Fluid Resistant Surgical Masks have been implemented in UK personal protective equipment (PPE) guidelines for COVID-19 for all care sites that do not include aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs). FFP3 masks are used in AGP areas. Concerns from the ENT and plastic surgery communities out with intensive care units have questioned this policy. Emerging evidence on cough clouds and health care worker deaths has suggested that a review is required. Aims To test the efficacy of Fluid Resistant Surgical Mask with and without adaptions for respiratory protection. To test the efficacy of FFP and FFP3 regarding fit testing and usage. Methods A smoke chamber test of 5 min to model an 8-h working shift of exposure while wearing UK guideline PPE using an inspiratory breathing mouthpiece under the mask. Photographic data were used for comparison. Results The Fluid Resistant Surgical Mask gave no protection to inhaled smoke particles. Modifications with tape and three mask layers gave slight benefit but were not considered practical. FFP3 gave complete protection to inhaled smoke but strap tension needs to be ‘just right’ to prevent facial trauma. Facial barrier creams are an infection risk. Conclusions Surgical masks give no protection to respirable particles. Emerging evidence on cough clouds and health care worker deaths suggests the implementation of a precautionary policy of FFP3 for all locations exposed to symptomatic or diagnosed COVID-19 patients. PPE fit testing and usage policy need to improve to include daily buddy checks for FFP3 users


2011 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
pp. 267-270 ◽  
Author(s):  
Quinn Danyluk ◽  
Chun-Yip Hon ◽  
Mike Neudorf ◽  
Annalee Yassi ◽  
Elizabeth Bryce ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document