OBJECTIVE: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provided strategies, such as extended use and reuse, to preserve N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFR). We aimed to assess the prevalence of N95 FFR contamination with SARS-CoV-2 among healthcare personnel (HCP) in the Emergency Department (ED). DESIGN: Real-world, prospective, multicenter cohort study. N95 FFR contamination (primary outcome) was measured by real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction. Multiple logistic regression was used to assess factors associated with contamination. SETTING: Six academic medical centers. PARTICIPANTS: ED HCP who practiced N95 FFR reuse and extended use during the COVID-19 pandemic between April 2021 and July 2022. PRIMARY EXPOSURE: Total number of COVID-19-positive patients treated. RESULTS: Two-hundred forty-five N95 FFRs were tested. Forty-four N95 FFRs (18.0%, 95% CI 13.4, 23.3) were contaminated with SARS-CoV-2 RNA. The number of patients seen with COVID-19 was associated with N95 FFR contamination (adjusted odds ratio, 2.3 [95% CI 1.5, 3.6]). Wearing either surgical masks or face shields over FFRs was not associated with FFR contamination, and FFR contamination prevalence was high when using these adjuncts [face shields: 25% (16/64), surgical masks: 22% (23/107)]. CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to patients with known COVID-19 was independently associated with N95 FFR contamination. Face shields and overlying surgical masks were not associated with N95 FFR contamination. N95 FFR reuse and extended use should be avoided due to the increased risk of contact exposure from contaminated FFRs.

This cohort study examines the association of reuse of N95 filtering facepiece respirators and N95 filtration efficiency. | eng

Widespread disease outbreaks can result in prolonged wear times of National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Approved N95 filtering facepiece respirators by healthcare personnel. Prolonged wear times of these devices can cause the development of various adverse facial skin conditions. Healthcare personnel have been reported to apply "skin protectants" to the face to reduce pressure and friction of respirators. Because tight-fitting respirators rely on a good face seal to protect the wearer, it is important to understand if fit is affected when skin protectants are used. This laboratory pilot study included 10 volunteers who performed quantitative fit tests to evaluate respirator fit while wearing skin protectants. Three N95 filtering facepiece respirator models and three skin protectants were evaluated. Three replicate fit tests were performed for each combination of subject, skin protectant (including a control condition of no protectant), and respirator model. Fit Factor (FF) was affected differently by the combination of protectant type and respirator model. The main effects of protectant type and respirator model were both significant (p <0.001); additionally, their interaction was significant (p = 0.02), indicating FF is affected by the combined effects of protectant type and respirator model. Compared to the control condition, using a bandage-type or surgical tape skin protectant decreased the odds of passing the fit test. Using a barrier cream skin protectant also decreased the odds of passing the fit test across all models compared to the control condition; however, the probability of passing a fit test was not statistically significantly different from the control condition (p = 0.174). These results imply that all three skin protectants reduced mean fit factors for all N95 filtering facepiece respirator models tested. The bandage-type and surgical tape skin protectants both reduced fit factors and passing rates to a greater degree than the barrier cream. Respirator users should follow respirator manufacturers' guidance on the use of skin protectants. If a skin protectant is to be worn with a tight-fitting respirator, the fit of the respirator should be evaluated with the skin protectant applied before use in the workplace.

Fire-based emergency management service (EMS) personnel are dispatched to various incidents daily, many of which have unique occupational risks. To fully understand the variability of incident types and how to best prepare and respond, an exploration of the U.S. coding system of incident types is necessary. This study uses potential exposure to SARS-CoV-2 as a case example to understand if and how coding categories for incident call types may be updated to improve data standardization and emergency response decision making. Researchers received emergency response incident data generated by three fire department computer-aided dispatch (CAD) systems between March and September 2020. Each incident was labeled EMS, Fire, or Other. Of the 162,766 incidents, approximately 8.1% (n = 13,144) noted potential SARS-CoV-2 exposure within their narrative descriptions of which 86.3% were coded as EMS, 9.9% as Fire, and 3.9% as Other. To assess coding variability across incident types, researchers used the original 3-incident type variable and a new 5-incident type variable reassigned by researchers into EMS, Fire, Other, Hazmat, and Motor Vehicle. Logit regressions compared differences in potential exposure using the 3- and 5-incident type variables. When evaluating the 3-incident type variable, those responding to a Fire versus an EMS incident were 84% less likely to be associated with potential exposure to SARS-CoV-2. For the 5-incident type variable, those responding to Fire incidents were 77% less likely to be associated with a potential exposure than those responding to EMS incidents. Changes in potential exposure between the 3- and 5-incident type models show the need to understand how incident types are assigned. This demonstrates the need for data standardization to accurately categorize incident types to improve emergency preparedness and response. Results have implications for incident type coding at fire department municipality and national levels.

During emergencies, areas with higher social vulnerability experience an increased risk for negative health outcomes. However, research has not extrapolated this concept to understand how the workers who respond to these areas may be affected. Researchers from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) merged approximately 160,000 emergency response calls received from three fire departments during the COVID-19 pandemic with the CDC’s publicly available Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) to examine the utility of SVI as a leading indicator of occupational health and safety risks. Multiple regressions, binomial logit models, and relative weights analyses were used to answer the research questions. Researchers found that higher social vulnerability on household composition, minority/language, and housing/transportation increase the risk of first responders’ exposure to SARS-CoV-2. Higher socioeconomic, household, and minority vulnerability were significantly associated with response calls that required emergency treatment and transport in comparison to fire-related or other calls that are also managed by fire departments. These results have implications for more strategic emergency response planning during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as improving Total Worker Health® and future of work initiatives at the worker and workplace levels within the fire service industry. © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.

During a public health emergency, respirator shortages can have a profound impact on the national response, such as for the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Due to a severe shortage of respirators (particularly filtering facepiece respirators [FFRs]), there may be contexts in which understanding the performance of FFRs that are approved for use as part of a crisis capacity strategy is desired. This includes FFRs that are not covered under the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Respirator Approval Program because they have been stored past their designated shelf life, have been decontaminated, or are approved by international certification bodies other than NIOSH. The purpose of this document is to provide a general framework to assess the performance of FFRs that are only being used as a crisis capacity strategy. The intended audience are those who are responsible for managing large amounts of FFRs. This framework includes a four-step process consisting of: 1) defining the population of FFRs to be sampled; 2) providing sampling strategy options; 3) inspecting and testing the sampled units; and 4) evaluating the results. In addition to the four-step process, we provide an example of how NIOSH recently evaluated the quality of FFRs sampled from ten U.S. stockpiles.