Background: Protection of healthcare providers (HCP) has been a serious challenge in the management of patients during the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Additional physical barriers have been created to enhance personal protective equipment (PPE). In this study, user acceptability of two novel barriers was evaluated and the performance of airway management using PPE alone versus PPE plus the additional barrier were compared. Methods: An open-label, double-armed simulation pilot study was conducted. Each participant performed bag-mask ventilation and endotracheal intubation using a GlideScope in two scenarios: 1) PPE donned, followed by 2) PPE donned plus the addition of either the isolation chamber (IC) or aerosol box (AB). Endotracheal intubation using videolaryngoscopy was timed. Participants completed pre- and post-simulation questionnaires. Results: Twenty-nine participants from the Department of Anesthesia were included in the study. Pre- and post-simulation questionnaire responses supported the acceptance of additional barriers. There was no significant difference in intubating times across all groups (PPE vs. IC 95% CI, 26.3–35.1; PPE vs. AB 95% CI, 25.9–35.5; IC vs. AB 95% CI, 23.6–39.1). Comparison of post-simulation questionnaire responses between IC and AB showed no significant difference. Participants did not find the additional barriers negatively affected communication, visualization, or maneuverability. Conclusions Overall, the IC and AB were comparable, and there was no negative impact on performance under testing conditions. Our study suggests the positive acceptance of additional patient protection barriers by anesthesia providers during airway management.

Background: Protection of healthcare providers (HCP) has been a serious challenge in the management of patients during the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Additional physical barriers have been created to enhance personal protective equipment (PPE). In this study, user acceptability of two novel barriers was evaluated and the performance of airway management using PPE alone versus PPE plus the additional barrier were compared. Methods: An open-label, double-armed simulation pilot study was conducted. Each participant performed bag-mask ventilation and endotracheal intubation using a GlideScope in two scenarios: 1) PPE donned, followed by 2) PPE donned plus the addition of either the isolation chamber (IC) or aerosol box (AB). Endotracheal intubation using videolaryngoscopy was timed. Participants completed pre- and post-simulation questionnaires. Results: Twenty-nine participants from the Department of Anesthesia were included in the study. Pre- and post-simulation questionnaire responses supported the acceptance of additional barriers. There was no significant difference in intubating times across all groups (PPE vs. IC 95% CI, 26.3–35.1; PPE vs. AB 95% CI, 25.9–35.5; IC vs. AB 95% CI, 23.6–39.1). Comparison of post-simulation questionnaire responses between IC and AB showed no significant difference. Participants did not find the additional barriers negatively affected communication, visualization, or maneuverability. Conclusions Overall, the IC and AB were comparable, and there was no negative impact on performance under testing conditions. Our study suggests the positive acceptance of additional patient protection barriers by anesthesia providers during airway management.