Hospital Bacterial Risks
Don't we love to trust our health professionals. After all, we place so much faith in their knowledge, their education and experience, their common sense above all. Having experienced much, applying the knowledge and mechanics they've been imprinted with through exposure to all manner of medical emergencies, augmented by practical and approved procedures, we entrust our well-being to their professionalism.
They are, after all, no different than you and me. Human beings, prone to error. Humanly self-deferential. And seeing themselves mirrored in the eyes of patients happy to surrender the state of their future health to the healing hands of those who know the protocols and interventions that promise to heal our fleshly wounds. When they present as healthy physical specimens themselves it serves to enhance our trust in their abilities.
Remember that old joke about the error inherent in selecting a hairdresser whose own tresses are carefully coiffed? Thanks to the professional ministrations of the hairdresser who stands beside her. Whose own head of hair stands as a testament to the lack of professional skills of her partner. It is the wise observer who selects accordingly.
On the other hand, it is not the health consumer who selects which nursing professional will attend upon them in an operating room. The operating surgeon yes, even the doctor who administers the anaesthetic. But the nurse? Hardly. So here's a bit of a quandary. The public trusts hospital administrators to hire competent, trustworthy, and skilled nurses to aid and assist the primary health providers and the patients.
A hospital in Hull, Quebec, reached a difficult decision; to remove one of its nurses from the operating theatre. The nurse weighed 300 pounds, and as an operating room nurse she presented a singular challenge to the successful outcome of surgical proceedings. The woman, because of her obesity, perspired excessively which increased the risk of bacterial infection among surgical patients.
Wise move, that, to assign the nurse to other duties less inimical to the health outcome of patients. "An operating room is supposed to be a sterile environment without bacteria. There was an excessive amount of bacteria in the operating room air because of her sweating, creating a risk of infection", argued the hospital lawyer, presenting evidence at a labour tribunal hearing.
The Federation interprofessionnelle de la sante du Quebec, the nurse's union, had filed a grievance against the hospital on the nurse's behalf. One can only give a profound sigh of relief that the Quebec Ministry of Labour arbitration tribunal upheld the Hull hospital's decision.
That the nurse, a health professional, felt offended that her personal qualities were held to be deleterious to the surgical outcomes relating to vulnerable patients. That she felt her rights to be uppermost, rather than the health and safety of those whose well-being her profession is trained to secure, is sad enough.
That the union representing her agreed, is beyond comprehension.
They are, after all, no different than you and me. Human beings, prone to error. Humanly self-deferential. And seeing themselves mirrored in the eyes of patients happy to surrender the state of their future health to the healing hands of those who know the protocols and interventions that promise to heal our fleshly wounds. When they present as healthy physical specimens themselves it serves to enhance our trust in their abilities.
Remember that old joke about the error inherent in selecting a hairdresser whose own tresses are carefully coiffed? Thanks to the professional ministrations of the hairdresser who stands beside her. Whose own head of hair stands as a testament to the lack of professional skills of her partner. It is the wise observer who selects accordingly.
On the other hand, it is not the health consumer who selects which nursing professional will attend upon them in an operating room. The operating surgeon yes, even the doctor who administers the anaesthetic. But the nurse? Hardly. So here's a bit of a quandary. The public trusts hospital administrators to hire competent, trustworthy, and skilled nurses to aid and assist the primary health providers and the patients.
A hospital in Hull, Quebec, reached a difficult decision; to remove one of its nurses from the operating theatre. The nurse weighed 300 pounds, and as an operating room nurse she presented a singular challenge to the successful outcome of surgical proceedings. The woman, because of her obesity, perspired excessively which increased the risk of bacterial infection among surgical patients.
Wise move, that, to assign the nurse to other duties less inimical to the health outcome of patients. "An operating room is supposed to be a sterile environment without bacteria. There was an excessive amount of bacteria in the operating room air because of her sweating, creating a risk of infection", argued the hospital lawyer, presenting evidence at a labour tribunal hearing.
The Federation interprofessionnelle de la sante du Quebec, the nurse's union, had filed a grievance against the hospital on the nurse's behalf. One can only give a profound sigh of relief that the Quebec Ministry of Labour arbitration tribunal upheld the Hull hospital's decision.
That the nurse, a health professional, felt offended that her personal qualities were held to be deleterious to the surgical outcomes relating to vulnerable patients. That she felt her rights to be uppermost, rather than the health and safety of those whose well-being her profession is trained to secure, is sad enough.
That the union representing her agreed, is beyond comprehension.
Labels: Realities, Social-Cultural Deviations, Values
posted by Pieface @ 5:47 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home