Hogeschool Fontys

Open Access: https://www.wageningenacademic.com/doi/abs/10.3920/978-90-8686-943-5_16

Reports of consumer misbehaviour in service encounters shared on social media can present challenges for companies, subjecting them to public scrutiny and placing reputation at risk as online communities appraise the harm caused by violations of the rights of others. Rights are essential to service encounters because they provide a framework for ensuring that both the provider and the service recipient are treated fairly and respectfully. Also, the failure to respond promptly and appropriately can damage a firm’s reputation or expose the company to legal action for failing to address the behaviour. This article aims to demonstrate how companies can research how consumers invoke rights to make sense of consumer misbehaviour in service encounters. We report the results of a study that uses text analytic methods to analyse rights-based themes in a sample of over eight thousand comments gathered from a Karen-meme-focused subreddit. The study finds that rights feature prominently in Karen discourse on Reddit. Moreover, the comments often implicitly or explicitly refer to human rights principles in the context of mask-wearing, property and health, the right to complain, and free speech. Interestingly, companies’ right to refuse service was the most prevalent theme. Many people seem to empathise with service providers and company owners who suffer the wrath of Karen’s dysfunctional actions. The discovery of folk knowledge of rights principles in online conversations opens new avenues for research on how consumers evaluate and respond to different aspects of service encounters. With such insights, companies can develop better strategies for addressing and preventing consumer misbehaviours by upholding employee and consumer rights and well-being.

Objective Early 2018, the new eye lens dose limit of 20 mSv per year for occupational exposure to ionising radiation was implemented in the European Union. Dutch guidelines state that monitoring is compulsory above an expected eye lens dose of 15 mSv/year. In this study we propose a method to investigate whether the eye lens dose of interventionalists would exceed 15 mSv/year and to determine if the eye lens dose can be derived from the regular personal dosimeter measurements. Methods The eye lens dose, Hp(3), of interventional radiologists (n = 2), cardiologists (n = 2) and vascular surgeons (n = 3) in the Máxima Medical Centre, The Netherlands, was measured during six months, using thermoluminescence dosimeters on the forehead. Simultaneously, the surface dose, Hp(0,07), and whole body dose, Hp(10), were measured using regular dosimeters outside the lead skirt at chest level. The dosimeters were simultaneously refreshed every four weeks. The eye lens dose was compared to both the body-worn dosimeter values. Measurements were performed in the angiography suite, Cath lab and hybrid OR. Results A clear relation was observed between the two dosimeters: Hp(3) ≈ 0,25 Hp(0,07). The extrapolated year dose for the eye lens did not exceed 15 mSv for any of the interventionalists (average 3 to 10 studies/month). Conclusions The eye lens dose can be monitored indirectly through the regular dosimeter at chest level. Additionally, based on the measurements we conclude that all monitored interventionalists remain below the dose limit and compulsory monitoring limit for the eye lens dose.