JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

The design of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) may affect well-being and clinical work. PPE as an integrated item may improve usability and increase adherence by health workers (HW) and reduce occupational-acquired diseases. As integrated PPE, a lightweight battery-powered air-purifying respirator (L-PAPR) could be used during health procedures where HWs are exposed to airborne pathogens. The human factors affecting the implementation of alternative PPE such as L-PAPR have not been thoroughly studied. The population of interest is healthcare professionals, the intervention is the performance by task type, and the comparators are N95 and Face Shield, Traditional PAPR, and L-PAPR. The outcomes are user-error, communications, safety, and end-user preferences.

Objective:

Does the lightweight PAPR improve HW comfort in terms of perceived workload and physical and psychological burden during direct patient care when compared to the traditional PAPR and N95 and Faceshield?”This study aims to evaluate human factors during the comparison of the use of lightweight PAPR versus a combination of N95s plus face shields or traditional powered air-purifying respirators (PAPR).

Methods:

This is an interventional randomized crossover quality improvement feasibility study consisting of a 3site simulation Phase with 10 participants per site and field testing in 2 sites with 30 participants at each site. Three types of respiratory PPE will be compared across medical tasks and while donning and doffing. We will evaluate, the user's perceived workload, usability, usage errors, and heart rate. We will conduct semi-structured interviews to identify barriers and enablers to implementation across each PPE type over a single continuous wear episode and observe interpersonal communications across conditions and PPE types.

Results:

We expect the research may highlight communication challenges, and differences in usability and convenience across PPE types along with error frequency during PPE use across PPE types, tasks, and time, Our expectation is that final data collection and analysis will take place by December 10th 2022

Conclusions:

The design of PPE may affect overall well-being and hinder or facilitate clinical work. Combining two pieces of PPE into a single integrated item may improve usability and reduce occupational-acquired diseases. The human factors affecting the implementation of an alternative PPE such as L-PAPR or PAPR have not been thoroughly studied. Clinical Trial: Stanford Simulation, Field Applications and Aerosol Dispersion Bundle #59352 and WHO ERC COVID-19 ERC Review Summary – Approval #0100