Rank: New forum user 
|
I am H&S adviser for an NHS Trust.
We use a 3M FFP3 recommended for the NHS and have fit-tested everyone. Now, 3M have changed their
1863 for a new 1863+ version and tell us we need to re-test eveyone, an arm-and-leg expense.
Don't get me wrong, we will if we need to. Any one else looking at this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Yes, because the fit test is mask and person specific.
Did the old mask fit everyone? we use a variety of masks as we had a few who needed alternatives to achieve a pass on the test.
Who does the fit testing for you? individuals can be trained to do it which could bring the costs 'in house' rather than using contractors. Still time consuming.
Regards,
S
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
I am in NHS Grampian.
I assume when you said youve tested everyone you mean everyone in the trust hence why you are using disposables?
We are moving away from Disposables to Half masks and full masks depending on the nature and risk of the work.
I am based in Facilities department so Im only looking at Non Clinical personell.
As per the other poster SNS- If the company are changing the mask and the former masks are no longer available you will have to retest irrespective of the 4 year timescale.
Best Wishes
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
We are aware of course that face-fit testing isn't a one-off and needs to be revalidated at regular intervals.
It would help in this instance if 3M were to provide a wee bit more info. to allow you to prioritise the matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
TRB wrote:I am H&S adviser for an NHS Trust.
We use a 3M FFP3 recommended for the NHS and have fit-tested everyone. Now, 3M have changed their
1863 for a new 1863+ version and tell us we need to re-test everyone, an arm-and-leg expense.
Don't get me wrong, we will if we need to. Any one else looking at this?
I'm looking at lots of clinical staff mainly for 'flu protection. Otherwise no-one on clinical staff uses RPE except for bio-hazards in theatres, pathology etc. Non-clinical maintenance staff use other types for toxics/irritants etc but numbers are low and they have half-masks and one or two full-face. 3M organised our fit-testing so I am looking at in-house (thanks, SNS) and yes it is time consuming but at least cheaper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
OK I now have a question :)
Fit testing confirms that the mask offers the factor of protection specified by the manufacturer: For biological agents there is no does /; effect relationship and so what benefit does fit testing bring?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
teh_boy wrote:OK I now have a question :)
Fit testing confirms that the mask offers the factor of protection specified by the manufacturer: For biological agents there is no does /; effect relationship and so what benefit does fit testing bring?
Are you saying that if your people are working with bioagents then you do not bother with face fit testing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I don't know is the answer, my bio hazard knowledge is limited...
RPE being worn for comfort only can be exempt from fit test - e.g. worn for a substance below its WEL against odour for example
But for Bio agents there is no dose effect - so you might still get ill even if it is fit tested?
Maybe we need Ian's advices on this one?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
We do issue RPE for biological agents. And we face fit test. It is definitely worth using the right RPE when dealing with situations where airborne bioagents are a risk.
I was just surprised that you seemed to be advocating not bothering with face fit testing for bioagents.
For more information about using RPE in relation to bioagents see “Biological agents: Managing the risks in laboratories and healthcare premises” from the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens- see http://www.hse.gov.uk/biosafety/biologagents.pdf. page 14 which mentions face fit testing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Good link! Thanks for that..
I wasn't intending to imply anything I was just fishing for a more scientific argument for fit testing against bio agents - especially when considering the risk from biological agents present in the wider community such as flu.
As a trainer - people always ask why, it's nice to know the back ground :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
The HSL ACDP/83/P9 study (with no follow-up details I can find although promised) tells us what we already know - that effectiveness against flu in creases from P1 to P3 with surgical masks being useless. So we're left with using P3 as the best option.
FFP3 is our best method with so many people using them but using them infrequently and not therefore needing a big issuing/collecting/cleaning/training programme as you would with re-usables.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Why are you testing every one? the current guidance recommends FFP3 only those undertaking aerosol generating procedure (flu). Aerosol according to the research is only present at less than a meter around the individual. Projectile droplets from a sneeze that travel further, would not present the same hazard as the much lighter size in an aerosol as they settle and do not remain in the air, therefore Type 11R fluid resistant surgical masks are recommended.
The bio bit I think that although the biological agent may pass through the respirator the liquid droplet that it is intrinsically bound will not (Need to Check this).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.