Category Issue 73

Point #73: President’s Corner – Brian Skellie

Brian Skellie headshot at 2014 APP conference by April BerardiBrian Skellie
APP President

The APP is always going to be a work in progress, since standards are ever changing with new evidence. Lauded among the guiding principles we maintain as safety standards for our membership is the practice of asepsis. We refer to many procedural acts as practice, as they are rarely ever perfect and require a profound theoretical understanding coupled with regular exercise and critical self observation for improvement. Asepsis requires the right combination of cleaning and sterilization with touching and not touching manual, instrumental and environmental surfaces for infection prevention and control (IPC).

We apply two types of asepsis to reduce or eliminate infection transmission: medical asepsis which emphasizes protection for the client and their environment is more concerned with cleanliness and prevention of the spread of the clients own organisms to other clients, while surgical asepsis which focuses on sterilization and maintaining sterility for items that will be introduced to a wound or piercing cavity or penetrate the skin, thus preventing the introduction of organisms to the client. Medical asepsis can be referred to as clean technique, and surgical asepsis as sterile technique. A thorough and effective means of surgical asepsis should be implemented for all body art procedures. [CE resource]

Sterile technique is not one set-in-stone method, this is a guideline for establishing your own individual technique.” Nor is it advocating precautions beyond what our sort of minimally invasive ear piercing procedures require for antisepsis and sterility. For those who are curious to learn more about Maximum Sterile Barrier precautions, the CDC HICPAC describes further steps that can be taken for more seriously invasive punctures such as a central venous or arterial catheter. For body artists, an achievable version of surgical asepsis (sterile technique) maintains barriers such as sterile gloves, masks and eye protection, and removes obstacles likely to compromise these barriers such as hanging earrings and necklaces, long hair, rings and watches.

“I think that when you say ‘aseptic technique,’ a lot of people automatically think ‘operating room’ or ‘surgical procedure,’” explains Kathleen Meehan Arias, MS, CIC, president of the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC) and director of Arias Infection Control Consulting LLC. “That’s rightly so because that is where the bulk of it is. But whenever you are doing anything that bypasses the skin barrier, you should automatically think aseptic technique.” — Applying Aseptic Technique in all Clinical Settings

This outline of technique suggestions comes from the AORN, APIC and CDC standards and recommended practices as well as a number of textbook resources such as Asepsis, the Right Touch. Much of it needs very little interpretation for our purposes. Safety precautions should result in greater control of the procedure, clinical benefits, reduced harm, and limited liability for negligence.

Rationale: There exist standards for prevention of surgical site infection that apply to even minor invasive elective procedures, and piercing falls within this category by definition.

“When implemented, these guidelines should reduce the risk of disease transmission in the piercing environment, from piercee to piercer, and from piercee to piercee. Based on principles of infection control, the document delineates specific guidelines related to protective attire and barrier techniques; handwashing and care of hands; the use and care of sharp instruments and needles; sterilization or disinfection of instruments; cleaning and disinfection of environmental surfaces; disinfection and the decontamination room; single-use disposable items; the handling of previously worn piercing jewelry; disposal of waste materials; and implementation of recommendations.”— Piercing Experience adapted IPC standards from the CDC

My personal observation is that these policies have helped limit risk at my studio. They have been reviewed by legal counsel, qualified bioscientists, medical professionals, and university professors. That said, I’m sure that they could always use more input and adaptation. Body art safety is an ever-evolving field of interest.

One might say there is no single right way to pierce. Many variations are possible with an understanding and application of asepsis. We are an industry in which studios market based on their specialties, and for some that is participation in continuing education, gaining knowledge, and raising standards. Maintaining a positive tone one can show those as strengths without diminishing others. This is crucial to developing the bonds between us as fellow professionals. If you believe something you do has advantages, feel free to share that with your customers in a way that does not end up overly critical of our other colleagues.

2013 APP Procedure ManualIt should be clear that these position statements in support of surgical asepsis are neither contradictory nor accusatory of others currently using APP minimum standards for medical asepsis according to our 2013 revised Procedure Manual. They build upon them as we are all encouraged to do as Members, employing additional precautions and elective limitations based on evidence and strong theoretical rationale. My preference is to demonstrate best practices as an educator instead of the minimums. If we all did no more than what was required, the industry would not be as interesting.

I believe that it is the responsibility of each of us to uphold the values we feel are important, and to continually advance our standards in order to achieve our goals. I do have romantic hopes that over time the industry will move in the direction of pure, validated, ethical materials and practices that are as harmless as possible. A predictable, consistent, safe, simple, and gentle piercing experience is attainable today and can be refined based on these principles and open communication among colleagues. The recommendations that I make in addition to APP minimums result from a continually researched process of elimination and adaptation, and they are freely shared for peer review. Please consider this a formal request for comments.

Point #73: From the Editor – Marina Pecorino

Point-70-From-the-Editor-Marina-0.jpgMarina Pecorino
Managing Editor of Content & Statistics

I realized that in planning my pieces for this issue, I composed my outlines in terms of an almost methodical past—present—future format. As a result, it has become apparent to me that even when planning to discuss the current events of our industry, I can’t help but relate it back to where we came from and what has brought us to this point.

In the past, current events within the body modification community were defined within small regional groups, making the reach and influence fairly limited. Then as piercing enthusiasts became less closeted and more prevalent, conferences like the APP Conference and BMXnet, publications like PFIQ (Piercing Fans International Quarterly), and internet communities like BME became available. With this, the barriers of geography were broken and current events were defined more by the shared interests of individual communities. This allowed for a broader reach of knowledge and experience, and for enthusiasts to have more choice available in their involvement with specific interests. But information still had a trickling spread; trends were slower to be replaced with a newer, better, shinier thing.

With the overwhelming prevalence of social media and technology, the wealth of knowledge available is incredible and the reach of information is limitless. Trends change almost as quickly as they are born; in a matter of days, sweeping interest in a particular piercing placement or jewelry style can become global. Unfortunately, the same can be true in regards to misinformation and misconceptions surrounding placements, techniques, jewelry, and aftercare. It is our shared responsibility to ensure the quality and validity of piercing specific information available to our peers and the general public. Please be mindful of what you are sharing with the world.

However, even with this global reserve of knowledge, there are still specific concerns that only affect certain areas. In this issue, we are sharing some of those concerns seen during the revision process of body art laws and rules and regulations within the state of Ohio. You will also get a glimpse into the newly formed UKAPP and the issues specific to body modification artists in the European Union and the United Kingdom.

We hope that these articles help you gain an understanding and greater world view of what is happening within the professional realm of your peers.

Point 73: From the Editor – Kendra Jane Berndt

Point-70-From-the-Editor-Kendra-0.jpgKendra Jane Berndt
Managing Editor of Content & Archives

Change: it is the only thing that is certain in life (other than death and taxes). So why is it that change is so hard for so many? I am one of those many. I consider myself in the know when it comes to what is hip and cool these days, but in all actuality I struggle everyday with the fast paced, significant changes that are happening in the world around us.

In order for any change to happen, small or big, someone has to start the wheels in motion. I am a firm believer in the idea that everyone can make a difference, and together a lot of small differences can lead to great change. We can all have a voice and make sure that it is heard. This is not to say that everyone will listen to your voice, nor will they like what you have to say, but neither of these reasons should ever stop you from using your voice. That is one of the things I like about the body piercing industry as a whole; there are so many accepted ways to get to the same final product. We may not all agree on how to get there, but for the most part we are all open minded enough to realize that this is the case.

Very recently we were able to get a lot of these different opinions together in the same room at the first ever APP Members Retreat in Georgia. You could see change happening— changes in perspectives, methodologies, self esteem—and know that further change in practices were to come as a result of attendance. I was so fortunate to be a part of that group and those changes.

As an organization the APP stands poised for its next change with the anticipated election of three new Board Members this winter. This year there are a number of outstanding candidates that will be in the running for these positions. We, as a membership, are so fortunate to have the ability to directly drive the changes that shape our organization. So when your ballot arrives, remember you have a voice and it should be heard.

I hope you enjoy Issue 73 of The Point as we take a look at some of the current issues and changes on the horizon for body piercing.

Point #73: From the Editor – Jim Ward

Jim Ward headshotJim Ward
Managing Editor of Design & Layout

November 17th this year marked the 40th anniversary of Gauntlet, the world’s first body piercing studio. For most of you reading this, it will be difficult to conceive what things were like for body mod enthusiasts back in those days. For many of us, our piercings were a sexual fetish that were well concealed under our clothing and revealed only to our most intimate of friends and acquaintances. We remained firmly in the closet.

With the exception of tattoos, other body mods were rare or nonexistent in the United States. Unless you lived in a colorful ethnic neighborhood, you were likely to see only piercings of the ears. Even then people with visible piercings could lose their jobs. Despite Gauntlet’s efforts, it was almost 15 years before things began to change. When that change came, it was explosive.

Modern Primitives appeared in 1989 and soon thereafter Shannon Larratt began advocating for more extreme body mods. Piercing shops began springing up like fungi after a spring rain. We saw fashion models strutting down runways sporting navel and nostril rings. Alicia Silverstone appeared in the Aerosmith music video Cryin’ getting her navel “pierced” by Paul King (admittedly, the piercing was staged). Suddenly, visible body mods were everywhere. They have become so common that virtually no one raises an eyebrow anymore.

As most of our readers know, I do the design and layout of The Point. When I was sent the image for this issue’s cover I was a bit taken aback by the lack of visible body modifications. Don’t get me wrong; it’s a great image of Rob Hill, a well-known and respected member of the APP community. But what, I asked my fellow editors and the APP Board, did it have to do with piercing. The response stunned me: “We are seeing more and more people that work in our industry who are choosing not to have visible modifications. We also realize that not everyone that reads our publication is a piercer or modification artist and we want to increase our readership, even having an article specifically aimed at reaching our clients in this issue.” [emphasis mine]

I have to laugh. It has been 40 years, and we have come full circle. While people may be choosing to keep their piercings private again, I can’t help wondering if piercings will ever be as erotic as they were all those years ago.