Dataset Information

HALO CleanSpace PAPR evaluation: Communication, respiratory protection, and usability.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate a relatively new half-face-piece powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR) device called the HALO (CleanSpace). We assessed its communication performance, its degree of respiratory protection, and its usability and comfort level.

Design and setting

This simulation study was conducted at the simulation center of the Royal Melbourne Hospital.

Participants

In total, 8 voluntary healthcare workers participated in the study: 4 women and 4 men comprising 3 nursing staff and 5 medical staff.

Methods

We performed the modified rhyme test, outlined by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), for the communication assessment. We conducted quantitative fit test and simulated workplace protection factor studies to assess the degree of respiratory protection for participants at rest, during, and immediately after performing chest compression. We also invited the participants to complete a usability and comfort survey.

Results

The HALO PAPR met the NIOSH minimum standard for speech intelligibility, which was significantly improved with the addition of wireless communication headsets. The HALO provided consistent and adequate level of respiratory protection at rest, during and after chest compression regardless of the device power mode. It was rated favorably for its usability and comfort. However, participants criticized doffing difficulty and perceived communication interference.

Conclusions

The HALO device can be considered as an alternative to a filtering face-piece respirator. Thorough doffing training and mitigation planning to improve the device communication performance are recommended. Further research is required to examine its clinical outcomes and barriers that may potentially affect patient or healthcare worker safety.

SUBMITTER: Ng I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9929704 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

HALO CleanSpace PAPR evaluation: Communication, respiratory protection, and usability.

Ng Irene I Lee Keat K Kave Benjamin B Kluger Michael M Paynter Camille C Segal Reny R Krieser Roni Benjamin RB Mezzavia Paul Mario PM Hung Shan S Chen Yinwei Y Sindoni Teresa T Williams Daryl Lindsay DL

Infection control and hospital epidemiology 20220401 2

<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate a relatively new half-face-piece powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR) device called the HALO (CleanSpace). We assessed its communication performance, its degree of respiratory protection, and its usability and comfort level.<h4>Design and setting</h4>This simulation study was conducted at the simulation center of the Royal Melbourne Hospital.<h4>Participants</h4>In total, 8 voluntary healthcare workers participated in the study: 4 women and 4 men comprising 3 nur ...[more]

PMID: 35361300

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRisk identification and communication tools have the potential to improve health care by supporting clinician-patient or family discussion of treatment risks and benefits and helping patients make more informed decisions; however, they have yet to be tailored to pediatric surgery. User-centered design principles can help to ensure the successful development and uptake of health care tools.ObjectiveWe aimed to develop and evaluate the usability of an easy-to-use tool to communicate a child's risk of postoperative pain to improve informed and collaborative preoperative decision-making between clinicians and families.MethodsWith research ethics board approval, we conducted web-based co-design sessions with clinicians and family participants (people with lived surgical experience and parents of children who had recently undergone a surgical or medical procedure) at a tertiary pediatric hospital. Qualitative data from these sessions were analyzed thematically using NVivo (Lumivero) to identify design requirements to inform the iterative redesign of an existing prototype. We then evaluated the usability of our final prototype in one-to-one sessions with a new group of participants, in which we measured mental workload with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Task Load Index (TLX) and user satisfaction with the Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire (PSSUQ).ResultsA total of 12 participants (8 clinicians and 4 family participants) attended 5 co-design sessions. The 5 requirements were identified: (A) present risk severity descriptively and visually; (B) ensure appearance and navigation are user-friendly; (C) frame risk identification and mitigation strategies in positive terms; (D) categorize and describe risks clearly; and (E) emphasize collaboration and effective communication. A total of 12 new participants (7 clinicians and 5 family participants) completed a usability evaluation. Tasks were completed quickly (range 5-17 s) and accurately (range 11/12, 92% to 12/12, 100%), needing only 2 requests for assistance. The median (IQR) NASA TLX performance score of 78 (66-89) indicated that participants felt able to perform the required tasks, and an overall PSSUQ score of 2.1 (IQR 1.5-2.7) suggested acceptable user satisfaction with the tool.ConclusionsThe key design requirements were identified, and that guided the prototype redesign, which was positively evaluated during usability testing. Implementing a personalized risk communication tool into pediatric surgery can enhance the care process and improve informed and collaborative presurgical preparation and decision-making between clinicians and families of pediatric patients.

Project description:BackgroundNumerous studies have revealed widespread clinician frustration with the usability of electronic health records (EHRs) that is counterproductive to adoption of EHR systems to meet the aims of health-care reform. With poor system usability comes increased risk of negative unintended consequences. Usability issues could lead to user error and workarounds that have the potential to compromise patient safety and negatively impact the quality of care.[1] While there is ample research on EHR usability, there is little information on the usability of laboratory information systems (LISs). Yet, LISs facilitate the timely provision of a great deal of the information needed by physicians to make patient care decisions.[2] Medical and technical advances in genomics that require processing of an increased volume of complex laboratory data further underscore the importance of developing user-friendly LISs. This study aims to add to the body of knowledge on LIS usability.MethodsA survey was distributed among LIS users at hospitals across the United States. The survey consisted of the ten-item System Usability Scale (SUS). In addition, participants were asked to rate the ease of performing 24 common tasks with a LIS. Finally, respondents provided comments on what they liked and disliked about using the LIS to provide diagnostic insight into LIS perceived usability.ResultsThe overall mean SUS score of 59.7 for the LIS evaluated is significantly lower than the benchmark of 68 (P < 0.001). All LISs evaluated received mean SUS scores below 68 except for Orchard Harvest (78.7). While the years of experience using the LIS was found to be a statistically significant influence on mean SUS scores, the combined effect of years of experience and LIS used did not account for the statistically significant difference in the mean SUS score between Orchard Harvest and each of the other LISs evaluated.ConclusionsThe results of this study indicate that overall usability of LISs is poor. Usability lags that of systems evaluated across 446 usability surveys.

Project description:Inhalation of ash can be of great concern for affected communities, during and after volcanic eruptions. Governmental and humanitarian agencies recommend and distribute a variety of respiratory protection (RP), commonly surgical masks but, also, industry-certified N95-style masks. However, there is currently no evidence on how wearable they are within affected populations or how protective wearers perceive them being against volcanic ash (which will influence the likelihood of uptake of recommended interventions). Volunteers living near Mt. Sinabung, Sumatra, Indonesia, participated in a field wearability study, which included a high-efficiency mask certified to industry standards (N95-equiv.); a standard, pleated surgical mask (Surgical); a Basic flat-fold mask (Flat-fold), and the surgical mask plus a scarf tied over the top (Surgical Plus) to improve fit. These types of RP had all performed well during earlier laboratory filtration efficiency tests. The N95-equiv. mask had performed significantly better than the other RP in the subsequent total inward leakage volunteer trials, whilst the Flat-fold and Surgical masks performed poorly, letting in a third of PM2.5 particles (data published elsewhere). Thirty volunteers wore each mask for a 15-min walk before being asked to rate the comfort, breathability and perceived protection and fit of each. After wearing all of the masks, volunteers compared and identified their preferred type of protection. The feedback received from the volunteers suggested that the Surgical Plus and N95-equiv. masks were rated as being significantly hotter and more humid than other masks. The Flat-fold was rated to have better breathability than the other masks. The N95-equiv. mask was ranked as providing the best level of effectiveness of the four masks tested. Ultimately, when asked which type of mask they would choose to wear during ashfall, 33% selected the Flat-fold mask due to its comfort and simplicity, with the Surgical Plus being the least likely to be chosen of the four tested. The study findings are of benefit to agencies who need to make informed decisions on the procurement and distribution of RP for use by those affected in future eruptions and the provision of advice to communities on their usage.

Project description:BackgroundWearable devices have the potential to promote a healthy lifestyle because of their real-time data monitoring capabilities. However, device usability is a critical factor that determines whether they will be adopted on a large scale. Usability studies on wearable devices are still scarce.ObjectiveThis study aims to compare the functions and attributes of seven mainstream wearable devices and to evaluate their usability.MethodsThe wearable devices selected were the Apple Watch, Samsung Gear S, Fitbit Surge, Jawbone Up3, Mi Band, Huawei Honor B2, and Misfit Shine. A mixed method of feature comparison and a System Usability Scale (SUS) evaluation based on 388 participants was applied; the higher the SUS score, the better the usability of the product.ResultsFor features, all devices had step counting, an activity timer, and distance recording functions. The Samsung Gear S had a unique sports track recording feature and the Huawei Honor B2 had a unique wireless earphone. The Apple Watch, Samsung Gear S, Jawbone Up3, and Fitbit Surge could measure heart rate. All the devices were able to monitor sleep, except the Apple Watch. For product characteristics, including attributes such as weight, battery life, price, and 22 functions such as step counting, activity time, activity type identification, sleep monitoring, and expandable new features, we found a very weak negative correlation between the SUS scores and price (r=-.10, P=.03) and devices that support expandable new features (r=-.11, P=.02), and a very weak positive correlation between the SUS scores and devices that support the activity type identification function (r=.11, P=.02). The Huawei Honor B2 received the highest score of mean 67.6 (SD 16.1); the lowest Apple Watch score was only 61.4 (SD 14.7). No significant difference was observed among brands. The SUS score had a moderate positive correlation with the user's experience (length of time the device was used) (r=.32, P<.001); participants in the medical and health care industries gave a significantly higher score (mean 61.1, SD 17.9 vs mean 68.7, SD 14.5, P=.03).ConclusionsThe functions of wearable devices tend to be homogeneous and usability is similar across various brands. Overall, Mi Band had the lowest price and the lightest weight. Misfit Shine had the longest battery life and most functions, and participants in the medical and health care industries had the best evaluation of wearable devices. The perceived usability of mainstream wearable devices is unsatisfactory and customer loyalty is not high. A consumer's SUS rating for a wearable device is related to their personal situation instead of the device brand. Device manufacturers should put more effort into developing innovative functions and improving the usability of their products by integrating more cognitive behavior change techniques.

Dataset Information

HALO CleanSpace PAPR evaluation: Communication, respiratory protection, and usability.

Objective

Design and setting

Participants

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

HALO CleanSpace PAPR evaluation: Communication, respiratory protection, and usability.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets