The changing face of healthcare worker perceptions on powered air‐purifying respirators during the SARS outbreak

Abstract

With the advent of highly contagious diseases that pose a major occupational hazard to HCWs, the use of the PAPR has become more acceptable in clinical practice.

Comparison of powered and conventional air-purifying respirators during simulated resuscitation of casualties contaminated with hazardous substances

“…This effect should become even more advantageous during extended operation times. Our results are consistent with a survey of healthcare workers who used the PAPR in clinical practice during the SARS outbreak in Singapore when use of a PAPR was mandatory and widespread 28. Only a minority of respondents found the PAPR uncomfortable, despite some interference with communication.…”

Subjective Response to Respirator Type: Effect of Disease Status and Gender

“…24 The evaluation process should be standardized because acceptability to users may depend on the magnitude of the perceived health threat. 32 …”

Powered air-purifying respirator use in healthcare: Effects on thermal sensations and comfort

“…[1] Recently, much interest has been directed towards the role of powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs) in healthcare settings during infectious disease outbreaks, based upon multiple advantageous features, [3] including possible amelioration of some heat-related issues via cooling effects of PAPR air currents. [4,5] Respiratory protective equipment-related heat perceptions are plausibly attributable to associated increases in either core temperature (rectal, brain, tympanic) or the temperature of the skin covered by the respirator. Research studies addressing physiological responses to N95 filtering facepiece respirators (N95 FFR), at sedentary and low-moderate work rates in temperate ambient environments over 1–2 hr, have reported no significant effects on core (intestinal, rectal) temperatures [1,6] or on indirect measurements of brain temperature.…”