Cargando…
Surgical Smoke—Hazard Perceptions and Protective Measures in German Operating Rooms
(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 empi...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7013471/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31947535 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17020515 |
_version_ | 1783496414576246784 |
---|---|
author | Michaelis, Martina Hofmann, Felix Martin Nienhaus, Albert Eickmann, Udo |
author_facet | Michaelis, Martina Hofmann, Felix Martin Nienhaus, Albert Eickmann, Udo |
author_sort | Michaelis, Martina |
collection | PubMed |
description | (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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7013471 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-70134712020-03-09 Surgical Smoke—Hazard Perceptions and Protective Measures in German Operating Rooms Michaelis, Martina Hofmann, Felix Martin Nienhaus, Albert Eickmann, Udo Int J Environ Res Public Health Article (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. MDPI 2020-01-14 2020-01 /pmc/articles/PMC7013471/ /pubmed/31947535 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17020515 Text en © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Michaelis, Martina Hofmann, Felix Martin Nienhaus, Albert Eickmann, Udo Surgical Smoke—Hazard Perceptions and Protective Measures in German Operating Rooms |
title | Surgical Smoke—Hazard Perceptions and Protective Measures in German Operating Rooms |
title_full | Surgical Smoke—Hazard Perceptions and Protective Measures in German Operating Rooms |
title_fullStr | Surgical Smoke—Hazard Perceptions and Protective Measures in German Operating Rooms |
title_full_unstemmed | Surgical Smoke—Hazard Perceptions and Protective Measures in German Operating Rooms |
title_short | Surgical Smoke—Hazard Perceptions and Protective Measures in German Operating Rooms |
title_sort | surgical smoke—hazard perceptions and protective measures in german operating rooms |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7013471/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31947535 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17020515 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT michaelismartina surgicalsmokehazardperceptionsandprotectivemeasuresingermanoperatingrooms AT hofmannfelixmartin surgicalsmokehazardperceptionsandprotectivemeasuresingermanoperatingrooms AT nienhausalbert surgicalsmokehazardperceptionsandprotectivemeasuresingermanoperatingrooms AT eickmannudo surgicalsmokehazardperceptionsandprotectivemeasuresingermanoperatingrooms |