Carroll, Katherine

Aims and ObjectivesThis paper explores patients' perspectives on infection prevention and control.BackgroundHealthcare‐associated infections are the most frequent adverse event experienced by patients. Reduction strategies have predominantly addressed front‐line clinicians' practices; patients' roles have been less explored.DesignVideo‐reflexive ethnography.MethodsFieldwork undertaken at a large metropolitan hospital in Australia involved 300 hours of ethnographic observations, including 11 hours of video footage. This paper focuses on eight occasions, where video footage was shown back to patients in one‐on‐one reflexive sessions.FindingsViewing and discussing video footage of clinical care enabled patients to become articulate about infection risks, and to identify their own roles in reducing transmission. Barriers to detailed understandings of preventative practices and their roles included lack of conversation between patients and clinicians about infection prevention and control, and being ignored or contradicted when challenging perceived suboptimal practice. It became evident that to compensate for clinicians' lack of engagement around infection control, participants had developed a range of strategies, of variable effectiveness, to protect themselves and others. Finally, the reflexive process engendered closer scrutiny and a more critical attitude to infection control that increased patients' sense of agency.ConclusionThis study found that patients actively contribute to their own safety. Their success, however, depends on the quality of patient–provider relationships and conversations. Rather than treating patients as passive recipients of infection control practices, clinicians can support and engage with patients' contributions towards achieving safer care.Relevance to clinical practiceThis study suggests that if clinicians seek to reduce infection rates, they must start to consider patients as active contributors to infection control. Clinicians can engage patients in conversations about practices and pay attention to patient feedback about infection risk. This will broaden clinicians' understandings of infection control risks and behaviours, and assist them to support appropriate patient self‐care behaviour.

This article outlines the main tenets of affect theory and links these to Sloterdijk’s spherology. Where affect foregrounds prepersonal energies and posthuman impulses, spherology provides a lens for considering how humans congregate in constantly reconfiguring socialities in their pursuit of legitimacy and immunity. The article then explores the relevance of “affective spheres” for contemporary social science research. The article’s main argument here is that research of contemporary organisational and professional practices must increasingly be spherogenic, or seeking to build “affective spheres.” The basis of this argument are the in situ complexity and fast-changing nature of practices, and the increasing challenges involved in objectifying or ‘freezing’, and analysing or dissecting such practices. The article draws for its case study on a video-reflexive project conducted in a U.S. health service. The article concludes that the notion of research as spherogenics counterbalances the conventional methodological emphasis on a predetermined stance —whether neutral or political—in our construction and enactment of social science research.