Final-year nursing students (N = 96) described their anxieties about biohazards, not only in relation to the occupational context of a hospital ward, but also in relation to their general life context. These contexts were reported to vary in the extent to which they permitted control over exposure to the two particular biohazards chosen for study: human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis B virus (HBV). The data showed that nurses' anxiety about contracting HIV infection varied significantly across the two contexts, while anxiety about contracting HBV infection did not. In the general life context, anxiety about HIV was greater than anxiety about HBV for all subjects. This difference was significantly greater for those with incorrect knowledge about objective HIV seroconversion rates than for those with correct knowledge.

Reviews of the literature indicate that nurses feel ill-informed about HIV/AIDS and that poor knowledge is associated with anxiety and negative attitudes towards infected patients and their care. Although some studies have sought to identify the sources of HIV/AIDS information available to nurses, few have attempted to understand how nurses evaluate such sources. In this study in 1992, 15 sources of HIV/AIDS information were identified during group discussions with nursing staff and nurse tutors. 277 nursing staff evaluated each of the sources in terms of perceived frequency (how often the source is used) and six items chosen to assess the usability and usefulness of each source (e.g. how informative the source is, how easy it is to understand). The results indicate that in-service training, basic training and professional colleagues are the sources evaluated most highly while posters and advertisements, television and radio and popular newspapers are the most frequently used sources of information. Trades unions' journals and pamphlets are the least frequently used sources of information and receive only modest evaluations. 20% of respondents report never having received any training regarding HIV and AIDS. Implications for the future provision of HIV/AIDS information and directions for further research are discussed.

We investigated policies and procedures for the maintenance of confidentiality in primary care by means of a postal survey of 109 general practices in a large non-metropolitan urban health authority in England. The response rate was 61%. Practices believed a variety of staff should be informed if a patient was HIV-positive, ranging from 'patient's own GP' (100%) to 'clerical staff' (8%). In 88% of practices receptionists occasionally or normally asked patients why they wished to see a doctor, although in 76% such conversations were audible to other patients. Ninety-nine per cent claimed to have a policy on confidentiality, although it existed in writing in 62% and was publicized in only 27%. In 88% of practices non-clinical staff had access to written patient records. Ninety-three per cent provided staff training in confidentiality, but in 34% it was confined to induction. Almost all practices had taken some steps to safeguard confidentiality, but few had explicit, formal confidentiality policies. Information sharing and non-clinical staff access to medical records were extensive, and few practices communicated their arrangements to patients. Practices need to review their policies and procedures for the maintenance of confidentiality.