CleanSpace HALO PPE easy to use but still interferes with patient communication

Compared to other personal protective equipment (PPE), the CleanSpace HALO is less disruptive to patient care while still providing high levels of safety, comfort, and ease of use, according to a new Singapore study.

“CleanSpace HALO was rated highly in terms of safety and comfort, ease in donning and doffing and was less disruptive to patient care compared to existing powered air-purifying respirators (PAPR). However, with this device the inability to communicate and incomplete facial protection were noted by the participants,” the researchers said.

Ninety-three frontline healthcare workers (mean age 38.1 years, 58 percent women) participated in the present survey. All had extensive practical experience with using respiratory PPEs. Questionnaires assessed the following parameters as regards the CleanSpace HALO PPE: ease of use, perceived effectiveness, motivators and barriers to use, communication challenges with patients, and general ability to provide care.

Participant assessments were compared against other PPE devices, such as surgical masks, N95 masks, and the PAPR.

Most participants worked in the allied healthcare setting (52 percent), while 31 percent were nurses and 16 percent were medical doctors. While 20 percent of respondents said that PAPRs caused major disruption in their ability to provide care, only 8 percent provided the same feedback for CleanSpace HALO. In comparison, 1 percent and 2 percent of respondents said N95 masks and surgical masks, respectively, disrupted their work. [J Hosp Infect 2022;doi:10.1016/j.jhin.2022.03.004]

Similarly, surgical masks and N95 masks were superior in terms of patient communication, with 97 percent and 81 percent of respondents, respectively, saying that using these PPEs caused minor or no trouble at all when talking to patients. On the other hand, around a quarter said that the PAPR (25 percent) and CleanSpace HALO (22 percent) devices led to major difficulties in communication.

In terms of ease-of-use 63 percent of participants said they experienced some or great difficulty with donning and doffing PAPRs, while 53 percent said they found doing the same for CleanSpace HALO to be easy or very easy. The amount of time needed to clean and disinfect the two devices was comparable.

All devices were perceived to be highly effective, with most participants saying that the risk of infection was low when using the CleanSpace HALO (92 percent), PAPR (95 percent), or N95 masks (87 percent). However, respondents pointed out the potentially incomplete protection of CleanSpace HALO due to its lack of eye and forehead cover.

“Respiratory protective devices are integral to infection control, but they can hinder patient care and their effectiveness may be limited by incorrect use. We found the CleanSpace HALO provided many advantages over a ‘traditional’ PAPR device, although common issues remained,” the researchers said.

“Manufacturers should strive to overcome communication challenges in newer iterations of respiratory PPE. Efforts should also go into educating users on the effectiveness of CleanSpace HALO to improve confidence,” they added.