No description available.

Bakgrund: Vid operativa ingrepp finns en risk för överföring av smitta mellan personal och patienter. Lokala riktlinjer ska reglera användningen av personlig skyddsutrustning. Huvudskydd används för att hindra hår och partiklar att falla ner på sterilt område. Ögonskydd skyddar personalens ögonslemhinna mot stänk av kroppsvätskor och användandet av dubbla handskar minskar risk för blodsmitta vid stick- och skärskador. Syfte: Syftet med denna studie är att undersöka preoperativa val av och motivering till val av huvudskydd, ögonskydd och handskar hos operatörer och operationssjuksköterskor.  Metod: I en empirisk, deskriptiv studie med tvärsnittsdesign undersöktes val av och motivering till val av huvudskydd, ögonskydd och handskar. Operationssjuksköterskor och operatörer observerades och tillfrågades med stöd av ett strukturerat frågeformulär. Resultat: På två operationsavdelningar i Stockholms län utfördes 240 observationer. Hjälmmössa valdes vid samtliga observationer inom ortopedi och vid mindre än hälften av övriga tillfällen. Ögonskydd valdes i mycket liten utsträckning av operatörer med motiveringen att de var obekväma. Operationssjuksköterskor valde att använda ögonskydd vid mer än hälften av observationerna med säkerhet som motivering. Dubbla handskar valdes vid 232 av 240 tillfällen. Slutsats: Mössa valdes för att den var bekväm och hjälm för att den rekommenderades. Ögonskydd valdes sällan. Förekomsten av att välja att använda dubbla handskar var god. Klinisk betydelse: Denna studie visar behov av information och utbildning om risken för smittoöverföring under operation. Fler och mer utförliga lokala riktlinjer för personlig skyddsutrustning skulle kunna öka användningen av hjälm och ögonskydd. / Background: Local guidelines are supposed to regulate the use of personal protective equipment to reduce the risk of transmission of infection between patients and staff during surgery. Headwear prevents hair and debris from falling down on the sterile field. Eyewear protects the eye mucosa from splashes of body fluids and the use of double gloving reduces the risk of blood contamination from sharps injuries. Objective: The aim of this study is to investigate the preoperative choices and motives of headwear, protective eyewear and gloves for surgeons and surgical nurses. Method: This is an empirical, descriptive study with cross-sectional design, examining the choices and motives of headwear, protective eyewear and gloves. Surgical nurses and surgeons were observed and questioned using structured questionnaires’. Results: A total of 240 observations were conducted in two surgical wards in the province of Stockholm. The staff chose to wear surgical helmets in all orthopedic surgeries and in less than half of the other surgical procedures. Surgeons did not choose to were protective eyewear, claiming they were uncomfortable. In more than half of the observations surgical nurses wore protective eyewear motivated by security reasons. Double gloving occurred in 232 occasions out of 240. Conclusion: Surgical helmets were chosen due to recommendations. Other types of headwear were chosen because they were comfortable. Eye protection was rarely chosen. The occurrence of double gloving was good. Clinical significance: This study demonstrates the need for information and education regarding the risk of transmission of infection during surgery. More and detailed local guidelines for personal protective equipment could increase the use of helmets and eye protection.

Through the simple action of covering one’s head with the wrong type of apparel, at the wrong time, and in the wrong spaces, Black and racialized youth exist in a hostile environment where their identities are reconstructed and relabeled according to dominant economic-political needs. This study interrogates and ruptures dominant notions of how space, identity and power are constructed, confronted, engaged, negotiated and resisted by Black and racialized youth in greater Toronto Area (GTA) schools. In an atmosphere of zero-tolerance toward policing youth violence, the anti-gang focus of the Safe Schools headwear policies institutionalize a ‘colour-coded’ link between crime, violence and race. Through ethnographic narrative inquiry this study critically interrogates the multiplicity of ways how the collision between zero-tolerance approaches toward regulating school violence and the policing of specific types of headwear and bodies results in differential outcomes and impacts on Black students and other racialized groups.

Through the simple action of covering one’s head with the wrong type of apparel, at the wrong time, and in the wrong spaces, Black and racialized youth exist in a hostile environment where their identities are reconstructed and relabeled according to dominant economic-political needs. This study interrogates and ruptures dominant notions of how space, identity and power are constructed, confronted, engaged, negotiated and resisted by Black and racialized youth in greater Toronto Area (GTA) schools. In an atmosphere of zero-tolerance toward policing youth violence, the anti-gang focus of the Safe Schools headwear policies institutionalize a ‘colour-coded’ link between crime, violence and race. Through ethnographic narrative inquiry this study critically interrogates the multiplicity of ways how the collision between zero-tolerance approaches toward regulating school violence and the policing of specific types of headwear and bodies results in differential outcomes and impacts on Black students and other racialized groups.