FHM presents new requirements for oral protection in healthcare

In the past, the Public Health Authority did not want to determine whether there should be a requirement to use oral protection and visors in the elderly - instead, individual risk assessments should be made at the local level.

Now the authority has changed.

- It has proved quite difficult to make such a risk assessment in small businesses. It has caused quite a lot of discussions and problems, and then we have looked at it again, says Anders Tegnell, and continues:

- If you work with care and care with suspected or confirmed covid-19, a combination of visor and mouthguard is reasonable to have.

Anders Tegnell also explains that the purpose of the new requirements has not been introduced to protect staff, but to prevent staff from infecting residents.

In early May came the first directives. At that time, the FHM announced that it would be up to each individual workplace to decide whether oral protection and visors were needed:

- Despite the meager scientific evidence, we see that you can consider adding mouth protection or visor as an extra measure. It is a trade-off that must be done locally and according to the conditions one has, said Malin Grape, unit manager for health care, during the press conference on May 7.

In a single interview with SVT, Anders Tegnell receives questions about why the requirements for oral protection and visors were not met before.

- The difference in risk is extremely small, but this is easier and above all, it will be less work for the elderly who have much else to do.

Should you have been clearer?

- We were very clear, but this was the case with the risk assessments. It was difficult, you don't really have that expertise everywhere and you did it a little differently.

SVT has previously reviewed the tours around oral protection in the elderly care sector after the Swedish Work Environment Authority decided that all residents in Stockholm under the company Serafen would use them in combination with visors. Following pressure from SKR, the authority made two statements to downplay the decision.