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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Face masks reduce disease transmission by protecting the wearer from inhaled pathogens and reducing the emission of infectious aerosols. Although methods quantifying efficiency for wearer protection are established, current methods for assessing face mask containment efficiency rely on measurement of a low concentration of aerosols emitted from an infected or noninfected individual.

A small port enabled the introduction of 0.05 µm sodium chloride particles at a constant rate behind the mask worn by a study participant. A condensation particle counter monitored ambient particle numbers 60 cm in front of the participant over 3-minute periods of rest, speaking, and coughing. The containment efficiency (%) for each mask and procedure was calculated as follows: 100 × (1 − average ambient concentration with face covering worn/average ambient concentration with a sham face covering in place). The protection efficiency (%) was also measured using previously published methods. The probability of transmission (%) from infected to uninfected (a function of both the containment efficiency and the protection efficiency) was calculated as follows: {1 − (containment efficiency/100)}×{1 − (protection efficiency/100)}×100.

The average containment efficiencies for each mask over all procedures and repeated measures were 94.6%, 60.9%, 38.8%, and 43.2%, respectively, for the N95 mask, the KN95 mask, the procedure face mask, and the gaiter. The corresponding protection efficiencies for each mask were 99.0%, 63.7%, 45.3%, and 24.2%, respectively. For example, the transmission probability for 1 infected and 1 uninfected individual in close proximity was ∼14.2% for KN95 masks, compared to 36%–39% when only 1 individual wore a KN95 mask.

Overall, we detected a good correlation between the protection and containment that a face covering afforded to a wearer.

To evaluate the efficacy of a new continuously active disinfectant (CAD) to decrease bioburden on high-touch environmental surfaces compared to a standard disinfectant in the intensive care unit.

A single-blind randomized controlled trial with 1:1 allocation.

Medical intensive care unit (MICU) at an urban tertiary-care hospital.

Adult patients admitted to the MICU and on contact precautions.

A new CAD wipe used for daily cleaning.

Samples were collected from 5 high-touch environmental surfaces before cleaning and at 1, 4, and 24 hours after cleaning. The primary outcome was the mean bioburden 24 hours after cleaning. The secondary outcome was the detection of any epidemiologically important pathogen (EIP) 24 hours after cleaning.

In total, 843 environmental samples were collected from 43 unique patient rooms. At 24 hours, the mean bioburden recovered from the patient rooms cleaned with the new CAD wipe (intervention) was 52 CFU/mL, and the mean bioburden was 92 CFU/mL in the rooms cleaned the standard disinfectant (control). After log transformation for multivariable analysis, the mean difference in bioburden between the intervention and control arm was −0.59 (95% CI, −1.45 to 0.27). The odds of EIP detection were 14% lower in the rooms cleaned with the CAD wipe (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.31–2.32).

The bacterial bioburden and odds of detection of EIPs were not statistically different in rooms cleaned with the CAD compared to the standard disinfectant after 24 hours. Although CAD technology appears promising in vitro, larger studies may be warranted to evaluate efficacy in clinical settings.

To evaluate variables that affect risk of contamination for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic ultrasound endoscopes.

Observational, quality improvement study.

University medical center with a gastrointestinal endoscopy service performing ∼1,000 endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and ∼1,000 endoscopic ultrasound endoscope procedures annually.

Duodenoscope and linear echoendoscope sampling (from the elevator mechanism and instrument channel) was performed from June 2020 through September 2021. Operational changes during this period included standard reprocessing with high-level disinfection with ethylene oxide gas sterilization (HLD–ETO) was switched to double high-level disinfection (dHLD) (June 16, 2020–July 15, 2020), and duodenoscopes changed to disposable tip model (March 2021). The frequency of contamination for the co-primary outcomes were characterized by calculated risk ratios.

The overall pathogenic contamination rate was 4.72% (6 of 127). Compared to duodenoscopes, linear echoendoscopes had a contamination risk ratio of 3.64 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69–19.1). Reprocessing using HLD-ETO was associated with a contamination risk ratio of 0.29 (95% CI, 0.06–1.54). Linear echoendoscopes undergoing dHLD had the highest risk of contamination (2 of 18, 11.1%), and duodenoscopes undergoing HLD-ETO and the lowest risk of contamination (0 of 53, 0%). Duodenoscopes with a disposable tip had a 0% contamination rate (0 of 27).

We did not detect a significant reduction in endoscope contamination using HLD-ETO versus dHLD reprocessing. Linear echoendoscopes have a risk of contamination similar to that of duodenoscopes. Disposable tips may reduce the risk of duodenoscope contamination.

The ethical implications of infection prevention and control (IPAC) are recognized, yet a framework to guide the application of ethical principles is lacking. We adapted an ethical framework to provide a systematic approach for fair and transparent IPAC decision making.

We conducted a literature search for existing ethical frameworks in IPAC. Working with practicing healthcare ethicists, an existing ethical framework was adapted for use in IPAC. Indications were developed for application to practice, with integration of ethical principles and process conditions specifically relevant to IPAC. Practical refinements were made to the framework based on end-user feedback and application to 2 real-world situations.

In total, 7 articles were identified that discussed ethical principles within IPAC, but none proposed a systematic framework to guide ethical decision making. The adapted framework, named the Ethical Infection Prevention and Control (EIPAC) framework, takes the user through 4 intuitive and actionable steps, centering key ethical principles that facilitate reasoned and just decision making. In applying the EIPAC framework to practice, weighing the predefined ethical principles in different scenarios was a challenge. Although no hierarchy of principles can apply to all contexts in IPAC, our experience highlighted that the equitable distribution of benefits and burdens, and the proportional impacts of options under review, are particularly important considerations for IPAC.

The EIPAC framework can serve as an actionable ethical principles-based decision-making tool for use by IPAC professionals encountering complex situations in any healthcare context.