Bubble-PAPR: Phase I clinical evaluation of an in-house developed prototype powered air-purifying respirator for use by healthcare workers
McGrath, B. A.; Shelton, C. L.; Gardner, A.; Coleman, R.; Lynch, J.; Alexander, P. G.; Cooper, G.
Show abstract
Structured abstractO_ST_ABSObjectivesC_ST_ABSWe aimed to design and produce a low-cost, ergonomic, hood-integrated Powered Air-Purifying Respirator (Bubble-PAPR) for pandemic healthcare use, offering optimal and equitable protection to all staff. We hypothesised that participants would rate Bubble-PAPR more highly than current FFP3 face mask respiratory protective equipment (RPE). DesignRapid design and evaluation cycles occurred based on the identified user needs. We conducted diary card and focus group exercises to identify relevant tasks requiring RPE. Lab-based safety standards established against British Standard BS-EN-12941 and EU2016/425. Questionnaire-based usability data from participating frontline healthcare staff before (usual RPE) and after using Bubble-PAPR. SettingOverseen by a trial safety committee, evaluation progressed sequentially through laboratory, simulated, low-risk, then high-risk clinical environments of a single tertiary NHS hospital. Participants15 staff completed diary cards and focus groups. 91 staff from a range of clinical and non-clinical roles completed the study, wearing Bubble-PAPR for a median of 45 minutes (IQR 30-80 [15-120]). Participants self-reported a range of heights (mean 1.7m [SD 0.1, range 1.5-2.0]), weights (72.4kg [16.0, 47-127]) and body mass indices (25.3 [4.7,16.7-42.9]). Outcome measuresPrimary: "How comfortable do you feel in your PPE?" (Likert scale bounded by 1 [very uncomfortable] to 7 [very comfortable]). Secondary outcomes: perceived safety, communication, anxiety, discomfort, and performance. ResultsBubble-PAPR mean comfort score was 5.64(SD 1.55) versus usual FFP3 2.96(1.44) (mean difference 2.68 (95% CI 2.23-3.14, p<0.001). There was a significant difference in favour of Bubble-PAPR across all secondary outcomes. ConclusionsBubble-PAPR achieved its primary purpose of keeping staff safe from airborne particulate material whilst improving comfort and the user experience. The design and development of Bubble-PAPR were conducted using a careful evaluation strategy addressing key regulatory and safety steps, in contrast to many devices rapidly developed and deployed during the pandemic. Trial registrationIRAS ID:288493, REC Ref:21/WA/0018. ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04681365). Strengths and limitations of this studyO_LIWe employed user-centred design, engineering optimisation and staged feasibility testing to develop a novel Powered Air-Purifying Respirator (Bubble-PAPR) for use specifically in frontline healthcare settings. C_LIO_LIDiverse, frontline healthcare staff compared Bubble-PAPR with usual FFP3 face masks. C_LIO_LIThe design and development of Bubble-PAPR were conducted using a careful strategy addressing key regulatory and safety steps, in contrast to many devices rapidly developed and deployed during the pandemic. C_LIO_LIBubble-PAPR is an excellent example of developing a cosmopolitan network that could become a key feature of future system resilience. C_LI
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Measuring the fitted filtration efficiency of cloth masks, medical masks and respirators 96%
- Pneumask: Modified Full-Face Snorkel Masks as Reusable Personal Protective Equipment for Hospital Personnel 95%
- Exploring options for reprocessing of N95 Filtering Facepiece Respirators (N95-FFRs) amidst COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Decontamination of filtering facepiece respirators in primary care using medical autoclave 94%
- Triaging of Respiratory Protective Equipment on the assumed risk of SARS-CoV-2 aerosol exposure in patient-facing healthcare workers delivering secondary care: a rapid review 94%
- Frontline healthcare workers’ experiences with personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: a rapid qualitative appraisal 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- N95 Filtering Facepiece Respirators Remain Effective After Extensive Reuse During the COVID-19 Pandemic 95%
- Extended use or re-use of single-use surgical masks and filtering facepiece respirators: A rapid evidence review 94%
- Scalable In-hospital Decontamination of N95 Filtering Facepiece Respirator with a Peracetic Acid Room Disinfection System 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Exposition to airborne SARS-CoV-2 in household and hospitals settings as studied by a vacuum cleaner as a high-powered air sampler 93%
- A quantitative evaluation of aerosol generation from upper airway suctioning during tracheal intubation and extubation sequences 92%
- Use, reuse or discard: quantitatively defined variance in N95 respirator integrity following vaporized hydrogen peroxide decontamination during the COVID-19 pandemic 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Use of respirator vs. surgical masks in healthcare personnel and its impact on SARS-CoV-2 acquisition – a prospective multicentre cohort study 93%
- The effect of eye protection on SARS-CoV-2 transmission: a systematic review 90%
- Non-adherence to surgical antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines: findings from a mixed-methods study in a developing country 88%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.