Author
Listed:
- Martina Michaelis
(Research Centre for Occupational and Social Medicine (FFAS), 79098 Freiburg, Germany)
- Felix Martin Hofmann
(Research Centre for Occupational and Social Medicine (FFAS), 79098 Freiburg, Germany)
- Albert Nienhaus
(Department of Occupational Medicine, Hazardous Substances and Health Sciences, German Statutory Accident Insurance and Prevention in the Health and Welfare Services (BGW), 20357 Hamburg, Germany
Competence Center for Epidemiology and Health Services Research for Dermatology and Nursing (IVDP), University Medical Center, 20251 Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany)
- Udo Eickmann
(Department of Occupational Medicine, Hazardous Substances and Health Sciences, German Statutory Accident Insurance and Prevention in the Health and Welfare Services (BGW), Hazardous Substances and Toxicology Division, 50968 Cologne, Germany)
Abstract
(1) Background: Hazardous substances in surgical smoke that is generated during laser or electrosurgery pose a potential health hazard. In Germany, the Technical Rules for Hazardous Substances (TRGS 525) have included recommendations for appropriate protective measures since 2014. Up to now, no empirical data has been available on the extent to which recommendations have been implemented in practice. (2) Methods: In 2018, 7089 surgeons in hospitals and outpatient practices were invited by email to participate in an online survey. In addition, 219 technical assistants were interviewed. The questionnaire dealt with knowledge of, and attitudes toward, the hazard potential of surgical smoke, as well as the availability and actual use of protective measures. Furthermore, manufacturers and distributors of smoke extraction devices were asked to give their assessment of the development of prevention in recent years. (3) Results: The survey response rate was 5% (surgeons) and 65% (technical assistant staff). Half of all surgeons assumed that there were high health hazards of surgical smoke without taking protective measures. Operating room nurses were more often concerned (88%). Only a few felt properly informed about the topic. The TRGS recommendations had been read by a minority of the respondents. In total, 52% of hospital respondents and 65% of the respondents in outpatient facilities reported any type of special suction system to capture surgical smoke. One-fifth of respondents from hospitals reported that technical measures had improved since the introduction of the TRGS 525. Fifty-one percent of the surgeons in hospitals and 70% of the surgeons in outpatient facilities “mostly” or “always” paid attention to avoiding surgical smoke. The most important reason for non-compliance with recommendations was a lack of problem awareness or thoughtlessness. Twelve industrial interviewees who assessed the situation and the development of prevention in practice largely confirmed the prevention gaps observed; only slight developments were observed in recent years. (4) Conclusions: The low response rate among surgeons and the survey results both indicate a major lack of interest and knowledge. Among other measures, team interventions with advanced training are needed in the future.
Suggested Citation
Martina Michaelis & Felix Martin Hofmann & Albert Nienhaus & Udo Eickmann, 2020.
"Surgical Smoke—Hazard Perceptions and Protective Measures in German Operating Rooms,"
IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(2), pages 1-16, January.
Handle:
RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:2:p:515-:d:308433
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:2:p:515-:d:308433. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.