The clinical predictors of sleepiness correlated with the multiple sleep latency test in an Asian Singapore population.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To explore the clinical predictors of sleepiness as objectively determined by the Multiple Sleep Latency Test with the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, age, body mass index, and overnight polysomnographic parameters at a tertiary referral center Sleep Disorders Unit. DESIGN: Retrospective, consecutive case series review. SETTING: A multidisciplinary sleep disorders unit in Singapore General Hospital, a tertiary-care university-affiliated hospital. PATIENTS: 72 consecutive patients evaluated for sleep disorders with overnight polysomnograms and Multiple Sleep Latency Tests between March 2002 and September 2002. INTERVENTIONS: N/A. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Mean sleep latency on the Multiple Sleep Latency Test was 9.0 +/- 4.4 minutes, and mean Epworth Sleepiness Scale score was 10.8 +/- 5.8. On univariate analysis, mean sleep latency on the Multiple Sleep Latency Test showed a significant negative correlation with the Epworth Sleepiness Scale score, apnea-hypopnea index, body mass index, arousal index, and time spent below 90% oxygen saturation during overnight polysomnography. After performing multiple linear regression, only Epworth Sleepiness Scale score and apnea-hypopnea index remained significantly correlated (P = .039 and P = .008, respectively). An Epworth Sleepiness Scale score of 8 or above predicted a mean sleep latency on the Multiple Sleep Latency Test of less than 10 minutes with a sensitivity of 73.9% and specificity of 50.0%. CONCLUSIONS: The Epworth Sleepiness Scale and apnea-hypopnea index are useful predictors of sleepiness in our Asian Singapore population.

The changing face of healthcare worker perceptions on powered air-purifying respirators during the SARS outbreak.

OBJECTIVES: Before the advent of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), use of the powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR) in the setting of pulmonary tuberculosis has been controversial. Data regarding health care worker (HCW) perceptions and problems encountered with the use of the PAPRs were lacking. METHODOLOGY: A questionnaire-based survey was conducted of HCWs who had used the PAPR in clinical practice during the SARS outbreak, when use of the PAPR was mandatory and widespread. Evaluations of the question of whether HCWs were receptive to the use of the PAPR and their perceptions of common problems that were encountered were made. Perceptions of comfort, ease of use, visual, hearing, breathing and speech impairment, perceived protection against SARS and usage preferences were recorded. RESULTS: Only a minority of respondents found the PAPR uncomfortable, despite some interference with communication. Despite its much higher cost, the majority (84%) preferred to use the PAPR rather than the N-95 respirator when treating suspected SARS patients. However, opinions were equally divided regarding its use when treating patients with pulmonary tuberculosis; with 51% being in favour. CONCLUSIONS: With the advent of highly contagious diseases that pose a major occupational hazard to HCWs, the use of the PAPR has become more acceptable in clinical practice.