Shortly before Easter, the Swedish Work Environment Authority made a decision that meant that all staff at Serafen's elderly housing in Stockholm must wear both visor and oral protection every time they work near covid patients. The municipality appealed the decision, which now lies with the administrative court.

The Swedish Work Environment Authority has been under severe pressure to back down from its position. The municipalities point out that there is a lack of oral protection and that care can be threatened if the safety representative stops operations due to a lack of oral protection.

SVT's continued review - through both oral and written sources - shows that the Swedish Work Environment Authority has now adjusted its attitude to be more in line with the municipalities.

Must evaluate every step

In an opinion to the Administrative Court, while giving a large part of the arguments behind the Serafen decision, it is also written that it should be "a local risk assessment of each work step" that will determine if more than a protective visa is needed.

And that is precisely the municipalities' line - that the mouthguard should not be a general requirement but be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

The wording has faced strong internal criticism, but is defended by the management with the argument that the authority must be more consistent with other actors. In the recommendations of the Public Health Authority, there is currently no requirement for both visor and oral protection.

The disagreement has also resulted in the deletion of a so-called expert opinion from the opinion. This is an analysis from the Swedish Work Environment Authority's expert, who concluded that it is not possible to work without risk without a visor. It is now also shredded from the authority's public diary.

The authority's general counsel Anna Varg writes to SVT that they chose to include "parts of the statement into the authority's opinion", but SVT's review shows that it was also considered too sharp for the new line.

Several jumps

Several people who have been involved in the case have, after discussions, chosen not to agree with the opinion to the Administrative Court.

Anna Varg writes that "it is not unusual for there to be different opinions" within the authority, "not least now, when we are facing a new, unknown virus and the state of knowledge is changing".

She rejects that the authority should have been influenced by the Serafen case, and points out that "they have gone along the line of the safety delegate and demanded both oral protection and visor for patient-related work". At the same time, she also writes that it is "important to make a local risk assessment of various work tasks based on the latest state of knowledge".

The Swedish Work Environment Authority has declined an interview on the grounds that the case is now in court.