0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Testing the Feasibility of Operating a Helicopter While Wearing Different Masks

      letter

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Dear Editors: Emergency medical service agencies at all levels have spent the last year dealing with dramatic changes as a result of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Air medical transport has been no exception. 1 Services have instituted various measures to ensure patients and crews are well protected from in-flight exposures, such as wearing personal protective equipment (PPE). 2 An overwhelming body of evidence suggests that masks and various degrees of PPE can acceptably reduce the risk of contracting COVID-19. Furthermore, all PPE is not created equal; specific types of masks seem to offer more protective effects. 3 Anecdotally, some health care providers and pilots have reported masks contributing to fogged eyeglasses and a reduced ability to perform various job-related tasks; for air medical flight crews, excessively fogged eyeglasses or a reduced ability to perform job-related tasks could be a significant safety concern. There is not much literature on how wearing infection control PPE affects an individual's ability to operate an aircraft. To understand how wearing various types of masks affects an individual's ability to operate a helicopter, I attempted to fly a helicopter while wearing 5 different types of masks: a cloth mask, a surgical mask, a KN95 mask, an N95 mask, and an elastomeric mask (Figure 1 ). I specifically wanted to identify if these masks led to fogged eyeglasses or hindered my ability to operate the aircraft. An unmasked pilot was seated next to me and could intervene if necessary. Figure 1 Aditya Shekhar, pilot and author, testing the feasibility of operating a helicopter while wearing different masks. Figure 1 I was able to maintain control of the helicopter while wearing all types of masks. However, in my testing, specific advantages and disadvantages with the various types of masks became apparent (Table 1). None of the masks appreciably hampered my field of vision, but all masks slightly reduced my ability to communicate through the headset to varying degrees. The elastomeric mask (3M, St. Paul, MN) I tested rendered my headset unusable; even while shouting, the microphone was only able to register parts of sentences, and I was not able to safely communicate. With the other masks, I was able to position the microphone receiver close enough for it to register my voice; this allowed me to easily communicate with others in the helicopter and air traffic control. In general, I found masks that wrapped around my head, as opposed to around the ears, felt most secure and comfortable during long intervals and interfered the least with my headset. All masks did increase the incidence of glasses fogging to varying degrees. Placing my glasses over the nose bridge of the mask did reduce this effect, and I found a well-fitted N95 mask and an elastomeric mask were the most effective at reducing fogging, most likely because of the tight fit of the mask regulating the flow of moisture. KN95 masks were slightly less effective, whereas cloth masks and surgical masks allowed air to seep over my glasses. Temperature also seemed to affect my glasses’ propensity to fog; on colder lenses, warm exhaled air was more likely to condense. Of course, this test is far from exhaustive; rather, I wanted to open a dialogue about how individual pilots and air medical services are approaching infection control among flight crewmembers and ensuring the safe operation of both rotor wing and fixed wing air ambulances. Mask Type Benefits Disadvantages Surgical mask Relatively cost-effectiveRelatively easy to obtainDoes not require fitting Contributes to glasses foggingComparatively low level of COVID transmission prevention Cloth mask Relatively cost-effectiveRelatively easy to obtainReusableDoes not require fitting Contributes to glasses foggingComparatively low level of COVID transmission prevention KN95 mask Reduced glass fogging compared with cloth and surgical masksCould be more effective than cloth and surgical masks Contributes to some glasses foggingExpensive and hard to procure N95 mask Considered highly effective against COVID transmissionWraps around the head instead of the earsReusable Puts pressure on the nose, which could be uncomfortable during long periods of timeExpensive and hard to procureRequires fitting Elastomeric mask Considered extremely effective against COVID transmissionHighly reusable Most expensive and hard to procureMight prevent adequate use of headsetRequires fitting

          Related collections

          Most cited references3

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Medical masks vs N95 respirators for preventing COVID‐19 in healthcare workers: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized trials

          Abstract Background Respiratory protective devices are critical in protecting against infection in healthcare workers at high risk of novel 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID‐19); however, recommendations are conflicting and epidemiological data on their relative effectiveness against COVID‐19 are limited. Purpose To compare medical masks to N95 respirators in preventing laboratory‐confirmed viral infection and respiratory illness including coronavirus specifically in healthcare workers. Data Sources MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL from January 1, 2014, to March 9, 2020. Update of published search conducted from January 1, 1990, to December 9, 2014. Study Selection Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the protective effect of medical masks to N95 respirators in healthcare workers. Data Extraction Reviewer pair independently screened, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence. Data Synthesis Four RCTs were meta‐analyzed adjusting for clustering. Compared with N95 respirators; the use of medical masks did not increase laboratory‐confirmed viral (including coronaviruses) respiratory infection (OR 1.06; 95% CI 0.90‐1.25; I 2 = 0%; low certainty in the evidence) or clinical respiratory illness (OR 1.49; 95% CI: 0.98‐2.28; I 2 = 78%; very low certainty in the evidence). Only one trial evaluated coronaviruses separately and found no difference between the two groups (P = .49). Limitations Indirectness and imprecision of available evidence. Conclusions Low certainty evidence suggests that medical masks and N95 respirators offer similar protection against viral respiratory infection including coronavirus in healthcare workers during non–aerosol‐generating care. Preservation of N95 respirators for high‐risk, aerosol‐generating procedures in this pandemic should be considered when in short supply.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Coronavirus forces helicopter EMS safety strictures

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              HEMS operators use PPE training & tracking to keep pilots safe through pandemic

              D. Fedy (2024)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Air Med J
                Air Med J
                Air Medical Journal
                Air Medical Journal Associates. Published by Elsevier Inc.
                1067-991X
                1532-6497
                5 April 2021
                5 April 2021
                Affiliations
                [1 ]The University of Minnesota , Minneapolis, MN
                [2 ]The University of Chicago , Chicago , IL
                Article
                S1067-991X(21)00031-6
                10.1016/j.amj.2021.02.001
                8020178
                1a994b7e-e8e6-4600-a02c-02e0ea0c3dea
                © 2021 Air Medical Journal Associates. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

                Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

                History
                Categories
                Letter to the Editor

                Comments

                Comment on this article