Medical fitness evaluation for respirator users: results of a national survey of private sector employers

Evaluation of Respiratory Protection Program in Petrochemical Industries: Application of Analytic Hierarchy Process

BACKGROUND

Respiratory protection equipment (RPE) is the last resort to control exposure to workplace air pollutants. A comprehensive respiratory protection program (RPP) ensures that RPE is selected, used, and cared properly. Therefore, RPP must be well integrated into the occupational health and safety requirements. In this study, we evaluated the implementation of RPP in Iranian petrochemical industries to identify the required solutions to improve the current status of respiratory protection.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was conducted among 24 petrochemical industries in Iran. The survey instrument was a checklist extracted from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration respiratory protection standard. An index, Respiratory Protection Program Index (RPPI), was developed and weighted by analytic hierarchy process to determine the compliance rate (CR) of provided respiratory protection measures with the RPP standard. Data analysis was performed using Excel 2010.

RESULTS

The most important element of RPP, according to experts, was respiratory hazard evaluation. The average value of RPPI in the petrochemical plants was 49 ± 15%. The highest and lowest of CR among RPP elements were RPE selection and medical evaluation, respectively.

CONCLUSION

None of studied petrochemical industries implemented RPP completely. This can lead to employees' overexposure to hazardous workplace air contaminants. Increasing awareness of employees and employers through training is suggested by this study to improve such conditions.

Behavioural interventions to promote workers' use of respiratory protective equipment

BACKGROUND

Respiratory hazards are common in the workplace. Depending on the hazard and exposure, the health consequences may include: mild to life-threatening illnesses from infectious agents, acute effects ranging from respiratory irritation to chronic lung conditions, or even cancer from exposure to chemicals or toxins. Use of respiratory protective equipment (RPE) is an important preventive measure in many occupational settings. RPE only offers protection when worn properly, when removed safely and when it is either replaced or maintained regularly. The effectiveness of behavioural interventions either directed at employers or organisations or directed at individual workers to promote RPE use in workers remains an important unanswered question.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of any behavioural intervention either directed at organisations or at individual workers on observed or self-reported RPE use in workers when compared to no intervention or an alternative intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Work Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 07), MEDLINE (1980 to 12 August 2016), EMBASE (1980 to 20 August 2016) and CINAHL (1980 to 12 August 2016).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled before and after (CBA) studies and interrupted time-series (ITS) comparing behavioural interventions versus no intervention or any other behavioural intervention to promote RPE use in workers.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four authors independently selected relevant studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted investigators to clarify information. We pooled outcome data from included studies where the studies were sufficiently similar.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 studies that evaluated the effect of training and education on RPE use, which involved 2052 participants. The included studies had been conducted with farm, healthcare, production line, office and coke oven workers as well as nursing students and people with mixed occupations. All included studies reported the effects of interventions as use of RPE, as correct use of RPE or as indirect measures of RPE use. We did not find any studies where the intervention was delivered and assessed at the whole organization level or in which the main focus was on positive or negative incentives. We rated the quality of the evidence for all comparisons as low to very low. Training versus no trainingOne CBA study in healthcare workers compared training with and without a fit test to no intervention. The study found that the rate of properly fitting respirators was not considerably different in the workers who had received training with a fit test (RR 1.17, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.10) or training without a fit test (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.42) compared to those who had no training. Two RCTs that evaluated training did not contribute to the analyses because of lack of data. Conventional training plus additions versus conventional training aloneOne cluster-randomised trial compared conventional training plus RPE demonstration versus training alone and reported no significant difference in appropriate use of RPE between the two groups (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.96 to 2.07).One RCT compared interactive training with passive training, with an information screen, and an information book. The mean RPE performance score for the active group was not different from that of the passive group (MD 2.10, 95% CI -0.76 to 4.96). However, the active group scored significantly higher than the book group (MD 4.20, 95% CI 0.89 to 7.51) and the screen group (MD 7.00, 95% CI 4.06 to 9.94).One RCT compared computer-simulation training with conventional personal protective equipment (PPE) training but reported only results for donning and doffing full-body PPE. Education versus no educationOne RCT found that a multifaceted educational intervention increased the use of RPE (risk ratio (RR) 1.69, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.58) at three years' follow-up when compared to no intervention. However, there was no difference between intervention and control at one year's, two years' or four years' follow-up. Two RCTs did not report enough data to be included in the analysis.Four CBA studies evaluated the effectiveness of education interventions and found no effect on the frequency or correctness of RPE use, except in one study for the use of an N95 mask (RR 4.56, 95% CI 1.84 to 11.33, 1 CBA) in workers. Motivational interviewing versus traditional lecturesOne CBA study found that participants given motivational group interviewing-based safety education scored higher on a checklist measuring PPE use (MD 2.95, 95% CI 1.93 to 3.97) than control workers given traditional educational sessions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very low quality evidence that behavioural interventions, namely education and training, do not have a considerable effect on the frequency or correctness of RPE use in workers. There were no studies on incentives or organisation level interventions. The included studies had methodological limitations and we therefore need further large RCTs with clearer methodology in terms of randomised sequence generation, allocation concealment and assessor blinding, in order to evaluate the effectiveness of behavioural interventions for improving the use of RPE at both organisational and individual levels. In addition, further studies should consider some of the barriers to the successful use of RPE, such as experience of health risk, types of RPE and the employer's attitude to RPE use.

Respirator use among U.S. farm operators: evidence from the 2006 Farm and Ranch Safety Survey

The objective of this study was to estimate the national prevalence of respirator use among primary farm operators in the United States. The authors analyzed the 2006 Farm and Ranch Safety Survey data collected for 12,278 actively farming primary farm operators. Weighted prevalence and adjusted prevalence ratios (PRs) of respirator use were calculated by farm operator characteristics, farm characteristics, and selected exposures/hazards. Of the estimated 2.1 million farm operators, 37.2% used a respirator on their farm. Respirator use prevalence was significantly higher among operators aged 16-34 years than those aged ≥65 years (46.9% vs. 30.0%; PR = 1.6); male than female operators (39.0% vs. 24.4%; PR = 1.6); operators managing crop farms than operators managing livestock farms (40.9% vs. 33.7%; PR = 1.2); and operators managing farms with value of sales ≥$100,000 than operators managing farms with value of sales ≤$9999 (57.4% vs. 31.4%; PR = 1.8). Of the operators who used a respirator, 69.9% used while working in a dusty environment, 22.6% used while applying/handling pesticides, and 30.4% used while doing other farm-related activities. These results show that an estimated one third of operators used respirators in 2006, and respirator use is most frequent among operators working in a dusty environment. Additional research identifying specific exposures for which respirators or dust masks are used, barriers to respirator or dust mask use, motivators for wearing respirators, and opportunities to increase the use of respiratory protection among farm operators, particularly on smaller farms, is needed.

Cardiopulmonary fitness and respirator clearance: an update

This review addresses five key questions regarding respirator clearance: What is the efficacy of different methods of respirator clearance? Which diagnostic test is most predictive of cardiac event during respirator use? Is spirometry accurate in predicting respiratory distress/insufficiency during respirator use? Is exercise tolerance testing accurate in predicting cardiac injury during respirator use? Which periodicity of clearance evaluations is most protective against cardiac event during respirator use? The medical literature was searched using PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Relevant articles were reviewed to assess current recommendations and practices in respirator clearance. Between the years 1970 and 2011, 144 articles were identified, and 21 were included in this review. Current recommendations for respirator clearance are based on consensus rather than outcome studies, and opinions differed between expert sources. Many authors observed the need for cost-effective respirator clearance, but none proposed evidence-based strategies. Prospective studies on respirator clearance that evaluate cardiac and pulmonary outcomes are necessary to establish an evidence base for improving the validity, efficiency, and consistency of respirator clearance testing.