| Getting to the bottom of the matter Nursing lecturer imparts embarrassing knowledge in research documentNurses must acquire some skills that non-medical people find embarrassing, disgusting, maybe even childish. Such knowledge can be difficult to obtain from the standard medical books and journals. A monograph called How to Perform a Digital Removal of Faeces aims to remedy one such gap in the literature.Gaye Kyle, a senior lecturer at the faculty of health and human science at Thames Valley University in Slough, researched the subject in depth. She published her findings in the journal Continence Essentials.There exists an official document that purports to provide the digital-removal information a nurse needs to know. But Kyle finds that document wanting. She complains that: "The publication of Digital Rectal Examination and Manual Removal of Faeces – Guidance for Nurses by the Royal College of Nursing addressed many issues concerning the professional and legal aspects of the manual (digital) removal of faeces. However, the document did not give detailed guidance on how to actually carry out the procedure."Kyle is can-do when it comes to how to. What must be discussed she discusses, prissy diplomatic mincing be damned. "Digital removal of faeces is a procedure that many healthcare workers are not confident about performing," she writes. "However, in some patients it is a necessary part of their routine bowel care".Some aspects of the situation strike her as dangerous and ludicrous. "Some nurses are actively refusing to undertake digital removal of faeces on spinal cord injury patients either because they have not been trained or, even more alarmingly, because they think they are not allowed to perform the procedure at all."Kyle uses plain language to describe the entire procedure, listing 25 distinct, specific actions. These range from the philosophical to the hands-in. For each action, she states a rationale, removing the guesswork that would stymie many an unconfident healthcare professional.Why should one ensure privacy? "To help the patient relax and minimise embarrassment."Why should one "place water-based lubricating gel on gloved index finger... for patients receiving this procedure on a REGULAR basis"? The reason is practical and also commonsensical: "To facilitate easier insertion of index finger."Kyle explicates technical minutiae, but only when and where such is needed to provide a clear, unambiguous understanding. "Gently rotate the finger 6–8 times in a clockwise motion and withdraw", she directs, then goes on to tell how many times the rotation may be repeated.Kyle has given us a case study in the way vital knowledge can remain hidden and difficult to get at, especially when it pertains to matters or matter that can remain hidden and difficult to get at.• Marc Abrahams is editor of the bimonthly Annals of Improbable Research and organiser of the Ig Nobel prizeNursingResearchHigher educationMedical researchMarc Abrahamsguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
Survival tips: what to do if an animal attacks you If it's a monkey, talk football, if it's an elephant play dead … and other helpful ploysThanks to a plucky woman from Frenchtown, Montana, we now know how to deal with at least one animal menace. Attacked at home last week by a 90kg black bear, she sent it lumbering back into the night simply by throwing a courgette at it. Local police described this as "improvising". The vegetable-projectile approach will probably fend off all sorts of creatures. But if you don't fancy putting it to the test, here are some alternatives.Hungry monkeys: You could simply give the macaque your Magnum. Failing that, try the "open-mouth threat" – make an O with your mouth, lean forward and raise your eyebrows. Then back away slowly. If that doesn't work, open a can of beer and talk about football (they're a bit more afraid of men than of women).Killer bees: Africanised honeybees aim for your mouth and nose first. So pull your top up over your head, then run, run, run away. Don't give up too soon – they've been known to chase victims for more than 400 metres. If possible, shut yourself in a car or building. Diving into water won't help – they'll wait till you come up for air.Crocodiles and alligators: Whatever some idiots tell you, crocs and gators cannot run faster than racehorses. On land, even humans have a good chance of outpacing them. Forget anything you've heard about zigzagging – just leg it. If the reptile gets you into its mouth, don't waste time trying to pry its jaws open. Stick your thumb or finger into its eye. The pain and shock should make it release you.Sharks: If it's trying to take chunks out of your boat, hit it with a paddle or a pole. The vulnerable spots are the eyes, gills and snout. If you're in the water, you may be able to escape by rapid changes of direction. Sharks are not very manoeuvrable. If you're in its mouth, do not play dead. Eyes, gills, snout, remember.Elephants: Plan A: Climb a tree, first making sure it's big enough that it can't be pushed over. Plan B: Play dead in the hope that Jumbo will get tired of tossing your body around.Animal behaviourAnimalsUnited StatesPhil Daoustguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
Nobel laureates urge rethink over immigration cap Policy threatens UK's position as a centre of scientific excellence, eight Nobel prize-winning academics warnThe Government's cap on immigration threatens the UK's position as a centre of scientific excellence, eight Nobel prize-winning academics warn today.The researchers, including the two Russians migrants who won the prize for physics on Tuesday, said that the best talent would be potentially barred from the UK by new restrictions to visa applications.They warned the plans to curtail the number of migrants coming to Britain from outside the European Union "would damage our ability to recruit the brightest young talent as well as distinguished scientists into our universities and industries".The laureates said ministers should make changes to the cap in order to recognise the need to recruit leading lights in science and industry. Such changes have already been made for sport.In a letter to the Times, the academics wrote: "The Government has seen fit to introduce an exception to the rules for Premier League footballers. It is a sad reflection of our priorities as a nation if we cannot afford the same recognition for elite scientists and engineers."The cap of 24,100 work visas for non-EU citizens, introduced in June, was a plank of the Conservative election manifesto.It will be replaced by permanent measures next April, but Vince Cable has already said it could do "huge damage" to business and science. He was backed by the CBI, the Royal Society, and university vice-chancellors.The letter is signed by eight of the 11 living British or British-based scientists to win a science Nobel since 1996.They include Professor Andre Geim and Professor Konstantin Novoselov, from the University of Manchester, who invented graphene, the world's thinnest material which is 200 times stronger than steel.The scientists were awarded the Nobel prize for physics on Tuesday for their invention which is expected to revolutionise the production of everything from touch sensitive screens to aircraft and satellites.Novoselov, a professor of physics at Manchester University, said earlier this week that the country risks losing senior figures and rising stars in science if funding cuts materialise in the government's spending review."Without money we won't be able to attract good people here," Novoselov told the Guardian. "The impact is going to be that good scientists will go abroad, especially the young people."The other signatories are Sir Paul Nurse, Sir Tim Hunt, Sir Martin Evans, Sir Harry Kroto, Sir John Walker and Sir John Sulston.The letter adds: "International collaborations underlie 40% of the UK's scientific output, but would become far more difficult if we were to constrict our borders."The UK produces nearly 10% of the world's scientific output with only 1% of its population; we punch above our weight because we can engage with excellence wherever it occurs."The UK must not isolate itself from the increasingly globalised world of research - British science depends on it."Speaking to The Times, Prof Novoselov said that he may have decided to work elsewhere had there been a delay with his visa.He said: "The visa system was helpful to me when I came here, but it is now a disincentive to scientists who might consider the UK."Prof Giem added: "It would create a smaller pool of quality people, so yes, I think we will suffer from this."Immigration and asylumHigher educationNobel prizesPeople in scienceScience prizesguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
Study reveals why the leopard got its spots Rudyard Kipling was right: leopards and other big cats have had to change their spots in order to survive. abc.net.au |
Forty-year mystery of Mars solved ASTRONOMERS said they could explain a four-decade-old enigma surrounding rugged troughs and a chasm in the northern ice cap of Mars. news.com.au |