Department of Medicine, Division of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, The University of Maryland-Baltimore, School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
Department of Medicine, Division of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, The University of Maryland-Baltimore, School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
Am J Infect Control. 2019 Jun;47(6):648-655. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2018.11.021. Epub 2019 Jan 10.
Inclusion of reusable respirators, such as elastomeric half-face respirators (EHFRs) and powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs), in hospital respiratory protection inventories may represent 1 solution to the problem of N95 respirator shortages experienced during pandemics. User acceptance of these devices is 1 potential barrier to implementing such a strategy in respiratory protection programs.
To assess user attitudes toward various respirators, health care workers enrolled in respiratory protection programs in a medical system using EHFRs, N95s, and PAPRs and completed an online questionnaire that addressed attitudes, beliefs, and respirator preferences under different risk scenarios. Responses were compared between user groups.
Of 1,152 participants, 53% currently used N95s, 24% used EHFRs, and 23% used PAPRs. N95 users rated their respirators more favorably compared with EHFR and PAPR users (P < .001) regarding comfort and communication, however, EHFR users rated their respirators much more highly regarding sense of protection (P < .001). For all user groups, reusable respirators were significantly more likely (odds ratios 2.3-7.7) to be preferred over N95 filtering facepiece respirators in higher risk scenarios compared to "usual circumstance" scenarios.
Despite somewhat less favorable ratings on comfort and communication, experienced EHFR and PAPR users still prefer reusable respirators over N95s in certain higher risk scenarios. This suggests that reusable respirators are an acceptable alternative to N95 respirators in health care and offer 1 viable solution to prevent pandemic-generated respirator shortages.
在医院呼吸保护用品库存中纳入可重复使用的呼吸器，如弹性半面罩呼吸器（EHFR）和动力空气净化呼吸器（PAPR），可能是解决大流行期间 N95 呼吸器短缺问题的 1 种解决方案。这些设备的用户接受度是在呼吸保护计划中实施此类策略的 1 个潜在障碍。
为了评估使用者对各种呼吸器的态度，使用 EHFR、N95 和 PAPR 的医疗系统中的呼吸保护计划参与者注册并完成了 1 项在线问卷调查，该问卷涉及在不同风险情况下的态度、信念和呼吸器偏好。对用户组之间的反应进行了比较。
在 1152 名参与者中，53%目前使用 N95，24%使用 EHFR，23%使用 PAPR。与 EHFR 和 PAPR 用户相比，N95 用户对其呼吸器的舒适性和沟通性评价更高（P <.001），但 EHFR 用户对其呼吸器的保护感评价更高（P <.001）。对于所有用户群体，与“通常情况”相比，在高风险情况下，可重复使用的呼吸器比 N95 过滤式面罩呼吸器更有可能（比值比 2.3-7.7）被优先选择。
尽管在舒适性和沟通方面的评价稍差，但有经验的 EHFR 和 PAPR 用户在某些高风险情况下仍更喜欢可重复使用的呼吸器而不是 N95。这表明，在医疗保健中，可重复使用的呼吸器是 N95 呼吸器的可接受替代品，并提供了 1 种可行的解决方案来防止大流行引起的呼吸器短缺。
