Protecting the invisible health workforce: experiences and occupational safety challenges of facial protective equipment use among central sterile supply department workers

Background Central sterile supply department (CSSD) personnel may be exposed to blood, body fluids, splashes, and aerosols while reprocessing contaminated medical devices. Evidence remains limited on how CSSD personnel experience facial personal protective equipment (facial PPE) during routine work and what shapes their reported protective practices. This study explored CSSD personnel’s experiences of facial PPE use and the factors they perceived as influencing these practices. Methods A qualitative descriptive study was conducted from January to February 2026 in the CSSD of a tertiary hospital in Chongqing, China. Purposive sampling was used to recruit frontline personnel who had worked in the CSSD for at least 1 year and routinely used facial PPE. Data collection ceased after two consecutive interviews produced no new themes. Individual semi-structured interviews lasting 30–45 min were audio-recorded and transcribed. Data were analyzed using an inductive thematic approach with NVivo 12. Two researchers independently reviewed and coded the transcripts, compared their interpretations, and developed and refined the themes through discussion. Results Twenty CSSD personnel participated in the study. Six themes were identified: ① perceptions of facial protection as a means of safeguarding personnel, medical devices, patients, and others; ② protective decisions shaped by perceived risk, work context, comfort, and emergency conditions; ③ policies, multilevel training, supervision, and peer feedback supporting standardized facial protection; ④ discomfort, poor fit, fogging, and communication difficulties associated with facial PPE; ⑤ the influence of heat, inadequate ventilation, repetitive workflow, and prolonged continuous work on sustained use; and ⑥ differences in risk perception, workplace relationships, and passive responses to mandatory requirements. Participants recognized the value of facial protection, but reported facial PPE practices were shaped by the interaction between equipment characteristics, physical working conditions, organizational arrangements, and interpersonal dynamics. Conclusion Participants’ reported facial PPE practices reflected the interaction of perceived risk, equipment usability, working conditions, workflow, institutional support, and workplace relationships. The findings suggest that task-based protective requirements, well-fitting and tolerable equipment, practical training, supportive feedback, and environmental and workflow adjustments may support appropriate and sustained facial PPE use in CSSDs.