No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Background:Brain death is a concept in which its criteria have been expressed as documentations in Harvard Committee of Brain Death. The various perceptions of caregiver nurses for brain death patients may have effect on the chance of converting potential donors into actual organ donors.Objective:The present study has been conducted in order to perceive the experiences of nurses in care-giving to the brain death of organ donor patients.Methods:This qualitative study was carried out by means of Heidegger’s hermeneutic phenomenology. Eight nurses who have been working in ICU were interviewed. The semi-structured interviews were recorded by a tape-recorder and the given texts were transcribed and the analyses were done by Van-Mannen methodology and (thematic) analysis.Results:One of the foremost themes extracted from this study included ‘Halo of ambiguity and doubt’ that comprised of two sub-themes of ‘having unreasonable hope’ and ‘Conservative acceptance of brain death’. The unreasonable hope included lack of trust (uncertainty) in diagnosis and verification of brain death, passing through denial wall, and avoidance from explicit and direct disclosure of brain death in patients’ family. In this investigation, the nurses were involved in a type of ambiguity and doubt in care-giving to the potentially brain death of organ donor patients, which were also evident in their interaction with patients’ family and for this reason, they did not definitely announce the brain death and so far they hoped for treatment of the given patient. Such confusion and hesitance both caused annoyance of nurses and strengthening the denial of patients’ family to be exposed to death.Conclusion:The results of this study reveal the fundamental perceived care-giving of brain death in organ donor patients and led to developing some strategies to improve care-giving and achievement in donation of the given organ and necessity for presentation of educational and supportive services for nurses might become more evident than ever.

No abstract

No abstract

Background & Objective: Every operating room has been associated with a variety of occupational hazards, but not many studies have been conducted to assess and address these hazards. We used a qualitative approach to explore operating room personnel’s experiences of workplace hazards and how these hazards threaten their occupational safety and health (OSH). Methodology: This qualitative study was conducted in five teaching hospitals in the south-west of Iran from February 2019 to March 2021. The sample was 24 operating room personnel who were selected under convenient sampling technique. Data were collected using semi-structured, individual interviews, document review and non-participant observation. The collected data were analyzed according to the qualitative content analysis method using MAXQDA v. 2020. Results: After prolonged analysis of the data, the researchers extracted 644 codes, 13 subcategories, 4 categories, and 1 main theme. The main theme of the study was working in a context of occupational hazards. Conclusions: Operating rooms are full of potential dangers, which, when combined with the personnel’s negligence and management inefficiencies, increase the risk of occupational health and safety. Therefore, making working conditions safe by providing adequate personal protective equipment (PPE), in-service training, and identifying and managing the causes of personnel negligence are recommended. Moreover, strategies should be introduced to manage stress and conflicts among the healthcare personnel, thus controlling psychological hazards. Abbreviations: OSHA - Occupational Safety and Health Administration; OSH - Occupational Safety and Health; HEPA - High-efficiency particulate absorbing filters; ORP - Operating room personnel Key words: Occupational; Safety, Health; Operating room; Nursing Citation: AmiriDore M, Torabizadeh C, Keshtkaran Z. Threats to operating room personnel’s occupational safety and health: a qualitative study. Anaesth. pain intensive care 2022;26(3):368-381. DOI: 10.35975/apic.v26i3.1912 Received: December 05, 2021; Reviewed: March 04, 2022; Accepted: March 06, 2022