{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.028001534330648253, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0007671653241273494, 'mean_word_length': 5.739018087855297, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 2, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
An assessment of workplace programmes designed to control inhalation risks using respiratory protective equipment.

OBJECTIVES
Few studies have assessed respiratory protective equipment (RPE) failures at the organizational level despite evidence to suggest that compliance with good practice may be low. The aim of this study was to develop an understanding of what current RPE programmes look like across industry and how this compares with good practice.


METHODS
Twenty cross-industry site visits were conducted with companies that had RPE programmes in place. Visits involved management interviews to explore current RPE systems and procedures and the decision making underpinning these. Observations of RPE operatives were included followed by short interviews to discuss the behaviours observed. Post-site assessments jointly undertaken by an RPE scientist and psychologist produced ratings for each site on six critical aspects of RPE programmes (knowledge/awareness, selection, use, training/information, supervision, and storage/cleaning/maintenance). Overall ratings for theoretical competence (i.e. management knowledge of RPE) and practical control (i.e. actual RPE practice on the shop floor) were also given. Qualitative analysis was performed on all interview data.


RESULTS
The performance of RPE programmes varied across industry. Fewer than half the companies visited were considered to have an acceptable level of theoretical competence and practical control. Four distinct groups emerged from the 20 sites studied, ranging from Learners (low theoretical competence and practical control--four sites), Developers (acceptable theoretical competence and low practical control--five sites), and Fortuitous (low theoretical competence and acceptable practical control--two sites), to Proficient (acceptable theoretical competence and practical control--nine sites). None of the companies visited were achieving optimal control through the use of RPE. Widespread inadequacies were found with programme implementation, particularly training, supervision, and maintenance.


CONCLUSIONS
Our taxonomy based on the four groups (Learners, Developers, Fortuitous, and Proficient) provided a useful expert-informed tool for explaining the variation in performance of RPE programmes across industry. Although further research and development are required, this taxonomy offers a useful starting point for the development of practical tools that may assist managers in making the much-needed improvements to all facets of programme implementation, particularly training, supervision, and maintenance.