AUTHOR=England Rory , Haynes Marina , Mee Harry , Farmer Jon 

TITLE=An evaluation of the performance of medical helmets used in healthcare for the protection of vulnerable patients

JOURNAL=Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology

VOLUME=Volume 13 - 2025

YEAR=2025

URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/bioengineering-and-biotechnology/articles/10.3389/fbioe.2025.1575075

DOI=10.3389/fbioe.2025.1575075

ISSN=2296-4185

ABSTRACT=IntroductionMedical helmets (MHs) are used by individuals with an increased vulnerability to falls and are essentially unregulated in the UK; therefore, their impact performance is unproven. This study investigated the performance of a selection of medical helmets available to clinicians using general techniques to determine their protective performance against impacts. Additionally, clinicians have stated that medical helmets need to consider focal vulnerabilities to impact (often a postsurgical site of a decompressive craniectomy); therefore, novel techniques were specifically employed for measuring the protection of a focal site.Materials and MethodsA freefall drop test methodology was used to assess six medical helmets (MH1–6) and two sports helmets (SH1 and SH2). The headform was instrumented with six degrees of freedom instrumentation to quantify global kinematics metrics related to injury risk (peak linear acceleration (PLA), peak angular velocity (PAV), peak angular acceleration (PAA), head injury criterion (HIC), and brain injury criterion (BrIC)), and a thin-film contact pressure measurement system was used to quantify the contact area (above a threshold of 560 kPa) focal to the impact. Due to the advanced nature of these measurements, a novel biofidelic headform was used to more accurately represent local deformation. Additionally, impact performance was plotted against two proxy measures of comfort.ResultsThe difference in performance between the worst and best helmets ranged from 90% to 2844%, showing a substantial variation. HIC, PLA, and PAA showed the largest range, whereas PAV showed the smallest range. Nonetheless, there was good agreement between each kinematic metric regarding the rank order of the medical helmets. The contact pressure was a consistent outlier. Each metric included at least one injury threshold, which MH4 and MH6 consistently exceeded (15/18 occasions).DiscussionMH2 and MH3 were the only medical helmets comparable to sports helmets in terms of both comfort and performance. MH1 showed excellent performance metrics but exhibited possible discomfort, while MH4 was above average across both measurement categories. MH4 and MH6 were significantly deficient compared to the sample of helmets. These results highlight the need for standardisation.