Dataset Information

Adapted full-face snorkel masks as an alternative for COVID-19 personal protection during aerosol generating procedures in South Africa: A multi-centre, non-blinded in-situ simulation study.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

SARS-CoV-2 has resulted in increased worldwide demand for personal protective equipment (PPE). With pressure from ongoing epidemic and endemic episodes, we assessed an adapted snorkel mask that provides full-face protection for healthcare workers (HCWs), particularly during aerosol-generating procedures. These masks have a custom-made adaptor which allows the fitment of standard medical respiratory filters. The aim of this study was to evaluate the fit, seal and clinical usability of these masks.

Methods

This multicentre, non-blinded in-situ simulation study recruited fifty-two HCWs to don and doff the adapted snorkel mask. Negative pressure seal checks and a qualitative fit test were performed. The HCWs completed intubation and extubation of a manikin in a university skills training laboratory, followed by a web-based questionnaire on the clinical usability of the masks.

Results

Whilst fit and usability data were generally satisfactory, two of the 52 participants (3.8%) felt that the mask did not span the correct distance from the nose to the chin, and 3 of 34 participants (8.8%) who underwent qualitative testing with a Bitrex test failed. The majority of users reported no fogging, humidity or irritation. It was reportedly easy to speak while wearing the mask, although some participants perceived that they were not always understood. Twenty-one participants (40%) experienced a subjective physiological effect from wearing the mask; most commonly a sensation of shortness of breath.

Discussion

A fit-tested modified full-face snorkel mask may offer benefit as a substitute for N95 respirators and face shields. It is, however, important to properly select the correct mask based on size, fit testing, quality of the three-dimensional (3D) printed parts and respiratory filter to be used. Additionally, HCWs should be trained in the use of the mask, and each mask should be used by a single HCW and not shared.

SUBMITTER: Herselman R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8435371 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThis study evaluated particle spread associated with various common periodontal aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) in simulated and clinical settings.Materials and methodsA simulation study visualized the aerosols, droplets, and splatter spread with and without high-volume suction (HVS, 325 L/min) during common dental AGPs, namely ultrasonic scaling, air flow prophylaxis, and implant drilling after fluorescein dye was added to the water irrigant as a tracer. Each procedure was repeated 10 times. A complementary clinical study measured the spread of contaminated particles within the dental operatory and quantified airborne protein dispersion following 10 min of ultrasonic supragingival scaling of 19 participants during routine periodontal treatment.ResultsThe simulation study data showed that air flow produced the highest amount of splatters and the ultrasonic scaler generated the most aerosol and droplet particles at 1.2 m away from the source. The use of HVS effectively reduced 37.5-96% of splatter generation for all three dental AGPs, as well as 82-93% of aerosol and droplet particles at 1.2 m for the ultrasonic scaler and air polisher. In the clinical study, higher protein levels above background levels following ultrasonic supragingival scaling were detected in fewer than 20% of patients, indicating minimal particle spread.ConclusionsWhile three common periodontal AGPs produce aerosols and droplet particles up to at least 1.2 m from the source, the use of HVS is of significant benefit. Routine ultrasonic supragingival scaling produced few detectable traces of salivary protein at various sites throughout the 10-min dental operatory.Clinical relevanceThe likelihood of aerosol spread to distant sites during common periodontal AGPs is greatly reduced by high-volume suction. Clinically, limited evidence of protein contaminants was found following routine ultrasonic scaling, suggesting that the the majority of the contamination consisits of the irrigant rather than organic matter from the oral cavity.

Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 is considered to be very contagious as it can be spread through multiple ways. Therefore, exposure risk of healthcare workers (HCWs) treating COVID-19 patients is a highly salient topic in exposure risk management. From a managerial perspective, wearing personal protective equipment and the risk of accidents occurring during aerosol generating procedures applied to COVID-19 patients are two interconnected issues encountered in all COVID-19 hospitals.ObjectiveThe study was conducted to understand the realistic impact of exposure risk management on HCWs exposed to risks of SARS-CoV-2 virus infection in a healthcare unit. In particular, this study discusses the role of personal protective equipment (PPEs) used in aerosol generating procedures (AGPs) to protect HCWs, and the related risk of accidents occurring when performing AGPs.MethodologyThis is a cross-sectional single-hospital study conducted at the "Sf. Ioan cel Nou" Hospital in Suceava, Romania, that had to ensure safety of healthcare workers (HCWs) getting in contact with COVID-19 cases. Data used in the study were collected between 10.12.2020-19.03.2021 by means of a questionnaire that collected information on risk assessment and healthcare workers' exposure management, and which was translated and adapted from the World Health Organization (WHO) and applied to respondents online. For this purpose, ethical approval was obtained, doctors and nurses from all hospital departments being invited to complete the questionnaire. Data processing, as well as descriptive, correlation and regression analyses have been done by using the 21.0 version of the Statistical Package for Social Sciences software.ResultsMost of the 312 HCWs reported having always used disposable gloves (98.13%), medical masks N95 (or equivalent) (92.86%), visors or googles (91.19%), disposable coverall (91.25%) and footwear protection (95.00%) during AGPs. The waterproof apron had always been worn only by 40% of the respondents, and almost 30% of staff had not used it at all during AGPs. Over the last three months, the period when the questionnaire was completed, 28 accidents were reported while performing AGPs: 11 accidents with splashing of biological fluids/ respiratory secretions in the eyes, 11 with splashing of biological fluids/ respiratory secretions on the non-idemn skin, 3 with splashing of biological fluids/ respiratory secretions in the oral/ nasal mucosa and 3 with puncture/ sting with any material contaminated with biological fluids/ respiratory secretions. Also, 84.29% of respondents declared having changed their routine, at least, moderately due to COVID-19.ConclusionAn effective risk exposure management is based on wearing protective equipment. The only protection offered by the disposable coverall, as it results from our analysis, is related to splashing of biological fluids/ respiratory secretions on the non-idemn skin. In addition, the results show that the number of accidents should decrease due to the fact that disposable gloves and footwear protection are used while performing AGPs on patients with COVID-19 and hand hygiene is practised before and after touching a patient with COVID-19 (regardless of glove wearing).