title: Respiratory protection devices.
abstract: OSHA authority and responsibility have led to the requirement that health care workers potentially exposed to patients with active tuberculosis in situations where engineering controls are not feasible for protection must utilize personal protective equipment at least equivalent to HEPA respirators. ICPs generally believe that this approach is unnecessarily conservative and imposes undue burdens on patient care. The arguments on both sides of this controversy have some merit. Reported cases of tuberculosis and skin-test conversions among health care workers since 1988 and the absence of a demonstrated safe level of exposure have led many to the conclusion that HEPA respirators are justified. On the other side, tuberculosis currently is not a major problem in some areas of the country, and many believe that less stringent personal protective devices (e.g., DM respirators) may provide protection equivalent to HEPA filters--at least in terms of preventing infection if not in terms of filtration efficiency. They believe that the lesser discomfort and lower cost associated with DM respirators justify the argument for a more flexible standard. Perhaps additional research can help to resolve the remaining controversy. Definitive answers are unlikely to surface quickly, however, and it is likely that the controversy and confusion will continue for at least awhile longer.
authors.affiliation: Division of Occupational and Environmental Health, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis 55455, USA.
authors.forename: D L
authors.initials: DL
authors.lastname: Vesley
mesh_terms: D006282:Health Personnel; D006801:Humans; D017053:Infection Control / Q000379:methods; D009314:National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S.; D016273:Occupational Exposure; D010316:Particle Size; D012134:Respiratory Protective Devices / Q000145:classification; D014397:Tuberculosis, Pulmonary / Q000517:prevention & control*; D014481:United States