Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-mzp66 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-02T05:10:54.406Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of a Large-Scale Quantitative Respirator-Fit Testing Program for Healthcare Workers: Survey Results

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Irene J. Wilkinson ,
Dino Pisaniello ,
Junaid Ahmad  and
Suzanne Edwards
Irene J. Wilkinson*
Affiliation:
Communicable Disease Control Branch, Department of Health, Government of South Australia, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia
Dino Pisaniello
Affiliation:
Discipline of Public Health, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia
Suzanne Edwards
Affiliation:
Data Management and Analysis Centre, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia
*
Infection Control Service, Department of Health, PO Box 6, Rundle Mall, Adelaide SA 5000, Australia ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective.

To present the evaluation of a large-scale quantitative respirator-fit testing program.

Design.

Concurrent questionnaire survey of fit testers and test subjects.

Setting.

Ambulatory care, home nursing care, and acute care hospitals across South Australia.

Methods.

Quantitative facial-fit testing was performed with TSI PortaCount instruments for healthcare workers (HCWs) who wore 5 different models of a disposable P2 (N95-equivalent) respirator. The questionnaire included questions about the HCWs age, sex, race, occupational category, main area of work, smoking status, facial characteristics, prior training and experience in use of respiratory masks, and number of attempts to obtain a respirator fit.

Results.

A total of 6,160 HCWs were successfully fitted during the period from January through July 2007. Of the 4,472 HCWs who responded to the questionnaire and were successfully fitted, 3,707 (82.9%) were successfully fitted with the first tested respirator, 551 (12.3%) required testing with a second model, and 214 (4.8%) required 3 or more tests. We noted an increased pass rate on the first attempt over time. Asians (excluding those from South and Central Asia) had the highest failure rate (16.3% [45 of 276 Asian HCWs were unsuccessfully fitted]), and whites had the lowest (9.8% [426 of 4,338 white HCWs]). Race was highly correlated with facial shape. Among occupational groups, doctors had the highest failure rate (13.4% [81 of 604 doctors]), but they also had the highest proportion of Asians. Prior education and/or training in respirator use were not associated with a higher pass rate.

Conclusions.

Certain facial characteristics were associated with higher or lower pass rates with regard to fit testing, and fit testers were able to select a suitable respirator on the basis of a visual assessment in the majority of cases. For the fit tester, training and experience were important factors; however, for the HCW being fitted, prior experience in respirator use was not an important factor.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 31 , Issue 9 , September 2010 , pp. 918 - 925
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Fauci, AS. Pandemic influenzathrt it and preparedness. Emerg Infect Dis 2006;12:73–77.Google Scholar
2. Cooper, NJ, Sutton, AJ, Abrams, KR, Wailoo, A, Turner, D, Nicholson, KG. Effectiveness of neuraminidase inhibitors in treatment and prevention of influenza A and B: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2003;326:1235.Google Scholar
3. World Health Organization (WHO). Infection prevention and control of epidemic- and pandemic-prone acute respiratory diseases in health care. WHO Interim Guidelines. June 2007. http://www.who.int/csr/resources/publications/WHO_CDS_EPR_2007_6c.pdf. Accessed February 12, 2010.Google Scholar
4. Department of Health, England. Health Protection Agency. Pandemic influenza: guidance for infection control in hospitals and primary care settings. October 19, 2005. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4121752. Accessed February 12, 2010.Google Scholar
5. Australian Government. Department of Health and Ageing. Australian health management plan for pandemic influenza 2008. http://www.flupandemic.gov.au/internet/panflu/publishing.nsf/Content/ahmppi. Accessed February 12, 2010.Google Scholar
6. World Health Organization (WHO). Infection prevention and control in health care for confirmed or suspected cases of pandemic (H1N1) 2009 and influenza-like illnesses. Updated December 16, 2009. http://www.who.int/csr/resources/publications/cp 150_2009_1612_ipc_interim_guidance_hlnl.pdf. Accessed February 12, 2010.Google Scholar
7. Department of Health and Health Protection Agency of National Health Service in England. Pandemic (H1N1 ) 2009 influenza: a summary of guidance for infection control in healthcare settings, http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_110902. Accessed February 15, 2010.Google Scholar
8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Interim guidance for infection control for care of patients with confirmed or suspected novel influenza a (H1N1) virus infection in a healthcare Setting. October 14,2009. http://www.cdc.gov/hlnlflu/guidelines_infection_control.htm. Accessed February 19, 2010.Google Scholar
9. Standards Australia. AS/NZS 1715:2009: Selection, use and maintenance of respiratory protective devices. Sydney, Australia: Standards Australia & Standards New Zealand, 2009.Google Scholar
10. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. US Department of Labor. Pandemic influenza preparedness and response guidance for healthcare workers and healthcare employers. Document OSHA 3328-05R. Washington, DC: US Department of Labor, 2009.Google Scholar
11. Coffey, CC, Lawrence, RB, Campbell, DL, Zhuang, Z, Calvert, CA, Jensen, PA. Fitting characteristics of eighteen N95 filtering-facepiece respirators. J Occup Environ Hyg 2004;1:262–271.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Yassi, A, Moore, D, FitzGerald, JM, et al. Research gaps in protecting healthcare workers from SARS and other respiratory pathogens: An interdisciplinary, multi-stakeholder, evidence-based approach. J Occup Environ Med 2005;47:41–50.Google Scholar
13. Vars McCullough, N, Brosseau, LM. Selecting respirators for control of worker exposure to infectious aerosols. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999;20:136–144.Google Scholar
14. Coffey, CC, Lawrence, RB, Zhuang, Z, Campbell, DL, Jensen, PA, Myers, WR. Comparison of five methods for fit-testing N95 filtering-facepiece respirators. Appi Occup Environ Hyg 2002;17:723–730.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Coffey, CC, Lawrence, RB, Zhuang, Z, Duling, MG, Campbell, DL. Errors associated with three methods of assessing respirator fit. J Occup Environ Hyg 2006;3:44–52.Google Scholar
16. Lau, JTF, Fung, KS, Wong, TW, et al. SARS transmission among hospital workers in Hong Kong. Emerg Infect Dis 2004;10:280–286.Google Scholar
17. Gamage, B, Moore, D, Copes, R, Yassi, A, Bryce, E. Protecting health care workers from SARS and other respiratory pathogens: A review of the infection control literature. Am } Infect Control 2005;33:114–121.Google Scholar
18. Shigayeva, A, Green, K, Raboud, JM, et al. Factors associated with critical-care healthcare workers' adherence to recommended barrier precautions during the Toronto severe acute respiratory syndrome outbreak. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2007;28:1275–1283.Google Scholar
19. Yang, L, Shen, H, Wu, G. Racial differences in respirator fit testing: a pilot study of whether American fit panels are representative of Chinese faces. Ann Occup Hyg 2007;51:415–421.Google Scholar
20. Zhuang, Z, Bradtmiller, B. Head-and-face anthropometric survey of U.S. respirator users. J Occup Environ Hyg 2005;2:567–576.Google Scholar
21. Ahmad, J, Pisaniello, D, Wilkinson, IJ. Organizational issues in implementation of a large-scale, quantitative respirator fit-testing program. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010;31(9):971–972 (in this issue).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Health and community services labour force 2006. Canberra, Australia: Government of Australia, 2009.Google Scholar
23. SA Health. South Australia: our health and health services. Adelaide, Australia: Government of South Australian, 2008.Google Scholar
24. Government of South Australia. Department of Health. Pandemic influenza: a summary of health's operational plan. August 2007. http://www.pandemicinfluenza.sa.gov.au/SouthAustralianPlans.aspx. Accessed February 12, 2010.Google Scholar
25. Goldrick, BA, Goetz, AM. Pandemic influenza: what infection control professionals should know. Am J Infect Control 2007;35:7–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26. McMahon, E, Wada, K, Dufresne, A. Implementing fit testing for N95 filtering facepiece respirators: practical information from a large cohort of hospital workers. Am J Infect Control 2008;36:298–300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27. Hannum, D, Cycan, K, Jones, L, et al. The effect of respirator training on the ability of healthcare workers to pass a qualitative fit test. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1996;17:636–640.Google Scholar
28. Campbell, DL, Coffey, CC, Jensen, PA, Zhuang, Z. Reducing respirator fit test errors: a multi-donning approach. J Occup Environ Hyg 2005;2:391–399.Google Scholar