Search

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.

ObjectivesTo systematically review the evidence base for a systems approach to healthcare design, delivery or improvement.DesignSystematic review with meta-analyses.MethodsIncluded were studies in any patients, in any healthcare setting where a systems approach was compared with usual care which reported quantitative results for any outcomes for both groups. We searched Medline, Embase, HMIC, Health Business Elite, Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO and CINAHL from inception to 28 May 2019 for relevant studies. These were screened, and data extracted independently and in duplicate. Study outcomes were stratified by study design and whether they reported patient and/or service outcomes. Meta-analysis was conducted with Revman software V.5.3 using ORs—heterogeneity was assessed using I2statistics.ResultsOf 11 405 records 35 studies were included, of which 28 (80%) were before-and-after design only, five were both before-and-after and concurrent design, and two were randomised controlled trials (RCTs). There was heterogeneity of interventions and wide variation in reported outcome types. Almost all results showed health improvement where systems approaches were used. Study quality varied widely. Exploratory meta-analysis of these suggested favourable effects on both patient outcomes (n=14, OR=0.52 (95% CI 0.38 to 0.71) I2=91%), and service outcomes (n=18, OR=0.40 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.52) I2=97%).ConclusionsThis study suggests that a systems approaches to healthcare design and delivery results in a statistically significant improvement to both patient and service outcomes. However, better quality studies, particularly RCTs are needed.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017065920.

Objective:Qualitative fit testing is a popular method of ensuring the fit of sealing face masks such as N95 and FFP3 masks. Increased demand due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to shortages in testing equipment and has forced many institutions to abandon fit testing. Three key materials are required for qualitative fit testing: the test solution, nebulizer, and testing hood. Accessible alternatives to the testing solution have been studied. This exploratory qualitative study evaluates alternatives to the nebulizer and hoods for performing qualitative fit testing.Methods:Four devices were trialed to replace the test kit nebulizer. Two enclosures were tested for their ability to replace the test hood. Three researchers evaluated promising replacements under multiple mask fit conditions to assess functionality and accuracy.Results:The aroma diffuser and smaller enclosures allowed participants to perform qualitative fit tests quickly and with high accuracy.Conclusions:Aroma diffusers show significant promise in their ability to allow individuals to quickly, easily, and inexpensively perform qualitative fit testing. Our findings indicate that aroma diffusers and homemade testing hoods may allow for qualitative fit testing when conventional apparatus is unavailable. Additional research is needed to evaluate the safety and reliability of these devices.