The use of spit guards (also known as spit hoods) by police services in England, Wales and Northern Ireland: to prevent transmission of infection or another form of restraint?

Kennedy, Kieran M.; Payne‐James, Jason; Payne-James, Grace J.; Green, Peter

doi:10.1016/j.jflm.2019.07.003

Cited by 7 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Spit hoods are considered by some to be an inhumane, unnecessary form of restraint. [23] , [24] Spitting may represent an act of resistance for restrained individuals who often feel that force is being used inappropriately and disproportionately with different populations; as such behaviors suddenly represent a much more potentially serious assault than in years past, a new consideration for how to balance the risks involved is necessary.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prevalence and correlates of spitting on police officers: New risks in the COVID era

Strote

Warner

Scales

et al. 2021

Forensic Science International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prevalence and correlates of spitting on police officers: New risks in the COVID era

Strote

Warner

Scales

et al. 2021

Forensic Science International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Pre-pandemic, police forces primarily advocated for spit hoods on the basis of risk of transmission of infectious diseases. It was previously claimed that this risk had been ‘exaggerated’ by forces and that there was ‘little or no justification for the use of spit guards for protection against infection’ (Kennedy et al ., 2019: 149). P16 (Thames Valley) recalled an incident:…”

Section: Policing and The Risk Of Communicable Diseasesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The weaponising of COVID-19: Contamination prevention and the use of spit hoods in UK policing

Camargo

2021

The Police Journal: Theory, Practice and Principles

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The COVID-19 pandemic has produced a radically changed world for everyone, but its effects on police officers has been particularly acute. Officers have been subject to increased cough and spit attacks as offenders have sought to weaponise the coronavirus, and forces have responded by encouraging officers to use enhanced methods of contamination prevention. The controversial argument of whether using ‘spit hoods’ is a necessary tool in policing has been resurrected, although evidence of their ineffectiveness in the fight against COVID-19 has been brought to light more recently. Drawing on interview data obtained from 18 police officers in 11 UK forces over the summer of 2020, this article draws on interview narratives discussing contamination prevention, policing the pandemic, and the use of spit hoods.

show abstract

“…9,10 It has long been recognised that at times additional risks to the staff can include increased possibility of infection from close proximity spitting, biting and scratching. 11,12 Physical intervention and risk to staff of COVID-19 infection…”

Section: Physical Intervention and Riskmentioning

confidence: 99%

COVID-19: A systematic evaluation of personal protective equipment (PPE) performance during restraint

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Restraint is widely practised within inpatient mental health services and is considered a higher-risk procedure for patients and staff. There is a sparsity of evidence in respect of the efficacy of personal protective equipment (PPE) used during restraint for reducing risk of infection. Methods A series of choreographed restraint episodes were used to simulate contact contamination in research participants playing the roles of staff members and a patient. For comparison, one episode of simulated recording of physical observations was taken. Ultraviolet (UV) fluorescent material was used to track the simulated contact contamination, with analysis undertaken using established image registration techniques of UV photographs. This was repeated for three separate sets of PPE. Results All three PPE sets showed similar performance in protecting against contamination transfer. For teams not utilising coveralls, this was dependent upon effective cleansing as part of doffing. There were similar patterns of contamination for restraint team members assigned to specific roles, with hands and upper torso appearing to be higher-risk areas. The restraint-related contamination was 23 times higher than that observed for physical observations. Discussion A second layer of clothing that can be removed showed efficacy in reducing contact contamination. PPE fit to individual is important. Post-restraint cleansing procedures are currently inadequate, with new procedures for face and neck cleansing required. These findings leave scope for staff to potentially improve their appearance when donning PPE and engaging with distressed patients.

show abstract

The use of spit guards (also known as spit hoods) by police services in England, Wales and Northern Ireland: to prevent transmission of infection or another form of restraint?

Cited by 7 publications

References 4 publications

Prevalence and correlates of spitting on police officers: New risks in the COVID era

Prevalence and correlates of spitting on police officers: New risks in the COVID era

The weaponising of COVID-19: Contamination prevention and the use of spit hoods in UK policing

COVID-19: A systematic evaluation of personal protective equipment (PPE) performance during restraint

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About