Gene/Protein Disease Symptom Drug Enzyme Compound
Pivot Concepts:   Target Concepts:
Query: UNIPROT:Q9UID3 (FFR)
 233 document(s) hit in 31,850,051 MEDLINE articles (0.00 seconds)

Many agencies recommend that health care workers wear N95 filtering facepiece respirators (N95-FFR) to minimize occupational exposure to bioaerosols, such as tuberculosis and pandemic influenza. Published standards outline procedures for the proper selection of an N95-FFR model, including user seal checks and respirator fit-testing. Some health officials have argued that the respirator fit-test step should be eliminated altogether, given its additional time and cost factors, and that only a user seal check be utilized to ensure that an adequate face seal has been achieved. One of the aims of the current study is to examine whether a user seal check is an appropriate surrogate for respirator fit-testing. Subjects were assigned an N95-FFR and asked to perform a user seal check (as per manufacturer's instructions) after which they immediately underwent a respirator fit-test. Successfully passing a respirator fit-test was based on not detecting a leakage through the face seal (either qualitatively with a test agent or quantitatively with a particulate counter). The sample population consisted of 647 subjects who had never been previously fit-tested (naive), while the remaining 137 participants were experienced respirator users. Only four of the 647 naive subjects (0.62%) identified an inadequate seal during their user seal check. Of the 643 remaining naive subjects who indicated that they had an adequate face seal prior to fit-testing, 158 (25%) failed the subsequent quantitative fit-test and 92 (14%) failed the qualitative fit-test. All 137 experienced users indicated that they had an adequate seal after performing the user seal check; however, 41 (30%) failed the subsequent quantitative fit-test, and 30 (22%) failed the qualitative fit-test. These findings contradict the argument to eliminate fit-testing and rely strictly on a user seal check to evaluate face seal.
 ...
PMID:Health care workers and respiratory protection: is the user seal check a surrogate for respirator fit-testing? 2146 67

The objective of this study was to assess respiratory protection programs for aerosol-transmissible diseases in acute care hospitals for conformance with regulatory requirements and public health guidelines. Twenty-eight representative hospitals were selected by size, location, and ownership in Minnesota and Illinois. Interviews were conducted with 363 health care workers and 171 managers from high-risk departments. Written programs from each hospital were reviewed for required elements. Seventy-seven health care workers were observed donning and doffing a FFR. The most serious deficiency in many written programs was failure to identify a program administrator. Most written programs lacked adequate details about medical evaluation, fit-testing, and training and did not include a comprehensive risk assessment for aerosol transmissible diseases; tuberculosis was often the only pathogen addressed. Employees with the highest probability of tuberculosis exposure were most likely to pick a respirator for close contact, but higher levels of respiratory protection were rarely selected for aerosol-generating procedures. Surgical masks were most commonly selected for close contact with droplet disease- or influenza-infected patients; better protection (e.g., respirator) was rarely selected for higher-risk exposures. Most of the observed health care workers had access to a NIOSH-certified N95 FFR, properly positioned the facepiece, and formed the nose clip. The most frequent deficiencies were failure to correctly place straps, perform a user seal check, and remove the respirator using straps.
...
PMID:Evaluation of Minnesota and Illinois hospital respiratory protection programs and health care worker respirator use. 2491 55