Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic has made well-fitting face masks a critical piece of protective equipment for healthcare workers and civilians. While the importance of wearing face masks has been acknowledged, there remains a lack of understanding about the role of good fit in rendering protective equipment useful. In addition, supply chain constraints have caused some organizations to abandon traditional quantitative or/and qualitative fit testing, and instead, have implemented subjective fit checking. Our study seeks to quantitatively evaluate the level of fit offered by various types of masks, and most importantly, assess the accuracy of implementing fit checks by comparing fit check results to quantitative fit testing results. Methods Seven participants first evaluated N95 and KN95 respirators by performing a fit check. Participants then underwent quantitative fit testing wearing five N95 respirators, a KN95 respirator, a surgical mask, and fabric masks. Results N95 respirators offered higher degrees of protection than the other categories of masks tested; however, it should be noted that most N95 respirators failed to fit the participants adequately. Fit check responses had poor correlation with quantitative fit factor scores. KN95, surgical, and fabric masks achieved low fit factor scores, with little protective difference recorded between respiratory protection options. In addition, small facial differences were observed to have a significant impact on quantitative fit. Conclusion Fit is critical to the level of protection offered by respirators. For an N95 respirator to provide the promised protection, it must fit the participant. Performing a fit check via NHS selfassessment guidelines was an unreliable way of determining fit.@en

Objectives To systematically review the evidence base for a systems approach to healthcare design, delivery or improvement. Design Systematic review with meta-analyses. Methods Included were studies in any patients, in any healthcare setting where a systems approach was compared with usual care which reported quantitative results for any outcomes for both groups. We searched Medline, Embase, HMIC, Health Business Elite, Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO and CINAHL from inception to 28 May 2019 for relevant studies. These were screened, and data extracted independently and in duplicate. Study outcomes were stratified by study design and whether they reported patient and/or service outcomes. Meta-analysis was conducted with Revman software V.5.3 using ORs - heterogeneity was assessed using I 2 statistics. Results Of 11 405 records 35 studies were included, of which 28 (80%) were before-and-after design only, five were both before-and-after and concurrent design, and two were randomised controlled trials (RCTs). There was heterogeneity of interventions and wide variation in reported outcome types. Almost all results showed health improvement where systems approaches were used. Study quality varied widely. Exploratory meta-analysis of these suggested favourable effects on both patient outcomes (n=14, OR=0.52 (95% CI 0.38 to 0.71) I 2 =91%), and service outcomes (n=18, OR=0.40 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.52) I 2 =97%). Conclusions This study suggests that a systems approaches to healthcare design and delivery results in a statistically significant improvement to both patient and service outcomes. However, better quality studies, particularly RCTs are needed. PROSPERO registration number CRD42017065920.@en

In healthcare, patient safety has received substantial attention and, in turn, a number of approaches to managing safety have been adopted from other high-risk industries. One of these has been risk assessment, predominantly through the use of risk matrices. However, while other industries have criticized the design and use of these risk matrices, the applicability of such criticism has not been investigated formally in healthcare. This study examines risk matrices as used in acute hospitals in England and the guidance provided for their use. It investigates the applicability of criticisms of risk matrices from outside healthcare through a document analysis of the risk assessment policies, procedures, and strategies used in English hospitals. The findings reveal that there is a large variety of risk matrices used, where the design of some might increase the chance of risk misprioritization. Additionally, findings show that hospitals may provide insufficient guidance on how to use risk matrices as well as what to do in response to the existing criticisms of risk matrices. Consequently, this is likely to lead to variation in the quality of risk assessment and in the subsequent deployment of resources to manage the assessed risk. Finally, the article outlines ways in which hospitals could use risk matrices more effectively.@en

OBJECTIVE: We examined the ability of fabrics which might be used to create home-made face masks to filter out ultrafine (0.02-0.1 µm) particles at the velocity of adult human coughing. METHODS: Twenty commonly available fabrics and materials were evaluated for their ability to reduce air concentrations of ultrafine particles at coughing face velocities. Further assessment was made on the filtration ability of selected fabrics while damp and of fabric combinations which might be used to construct home-made masks. RESULTS: Single fabric layers blocked a range of ultrafine particles. When fabrics were layered, a higher percentage of ultrafine particles were filtered. The average filtration efficiency of single layer fabrics and of layered combination was found to be 35% and 45%, respectively. Non-woven fusible interfacing, when combined with other fabrics, could add up to 11% additional filtration efficiency. However, fabric and fabric combinations were more difficult to breathe through than N95 masks. CONCLUSIONS: The current coronavirus pandemic has left many communities without access to N95 face masks. Our findings suggest that face masks made from layered common fabric can help filter ultrafine particles and provide some protection for the wearer when commercial face masks are unavailable.@en

Design, delivery and improvement processes in healthcare is of great challenge due to increasing pressures on healthcare systems alongside inherent complexities, resulting in limited benefits or unforeseen consequences. A recent Systems Approach framework has aimed at responding to the calls about implementing a more holistic approach. Though being an approach in its own right that can iteratively and systematically structure, guide, and/or facilitate design and improvement projects in healthcare, it can also augment existing approaches that have already place in healthcare designers’ and improvement practitioners’ agendas. Thus, the objective of this paper is to compare and contrast the questions, activities, and tools of the Systems Approach with processes of other major improvement approaches in healthcare to demonstrate their coverages, overlaps, and extended and new opportunities to pursue in the light of the Systems Approach.@en