Some children show signs of perfectionism from early on. Young children might become frustrated and rip up their drawing if it’s not quite right. Older children might avoid or refuse to do homework because they’re afraid to make a mistake.

Perfectionism can lead to children feeling overwhelmed, angry and frustrated, or sad and withdrawn.

And yet perfectionism isn’t considered all bad in our society. Being called a “perfectionist” can be a compliment – code for being a great worker or student, someone who strives to do their best and makes sure all jobs are done well.

These seemingly polarised views reflect the complex nature of perfectionism.

What is perfectionism?

Researchers often separate perfectionism into two parts:

1. perfectionistic strivings: being determined to meet goals and achieve highly
2. perfectionistic concerns: worry about being able to meet high standards, and self-criticism about performance.

While perfectionistic strivings can be positive and lead to high achievement, perfectionistic concerns can lead to a higher chance of children developing eating disorders or anxiety and depression, and having lower academic achievement.

Children and adolescents may experience perfectionism in relation to school work, sport, performance in art or music, or in relation to their own body.

Signs of perfectionistic concerns in children and adolescents may include:

• children being highly critical of themselves
• their reactions to mistakes seeming to be an overreaction
• intense preoccupation and worry over their standards and goals and/or procrastination
• significant change in performance, for example, lower academic results
• irritability and negative emotions, stress and feelings of worthlessness
• social problems with peers and friends, such as bullying and alienating themselves from peers.

A range of genetic, biological and environmental factors influence perfectionism in children. And as a parent, our role is important. While research evidence suggests we can’t successfully increase positive perfectionistic strivings in our children, harsh or controlling parenting can increase negative perfectionistic concerns in children.

Parents who are perfectionistic themselves can also model this to their children.

So, how can we walk the line between supporting our child’s interests and helping them to achieve their potential, without pressuring them and increasing the risk of negative outcomes?

Give them space to grow

A great metaphor is the gardener versus the carpenter described by psychology professor Alison Gopnik.

Instead of trying to build and shape our children by controlling them and their environment (like a carpenter), parents can embrace the spirit of the gardener – providing lots of space for children to grow in their own direction, and nourishing them with love, respect and trust.

We can’t control who they become, so it’s better to sit back, enjoy the ride, and look forward to watching the person they grow into.

However, there is still plenty we can do as parents if our child is showing signs of perfectionism. We can role model to our children how to set realistic goals and be flexible when things change or go wrong, help our children manage stress and negative emotions, and create healthy balance in our family daily routine.

Set realistic goals

People with perfectionistic tendencies will often set unattainable goals. We can support the development of flexibility and realistic goal setting by asking curious questions, for example, “what would you need to do to get one small step closer to this goal?” Identifying upper and lower limits for goals is also helpful.

If your child is fixed on a high score at school, for example, set that as the “upper limit” and then support them to identify a “lower limit” they would find acceptable, even if they are less happy with the outcome.

This strategy may take time and practice to widen the gap between the two, but is useful to create flexibility over time.

If a goal is performance-based and the outcome cannot be guaranteed (for example, a sporting competition), encourage your child to set a personal goal they have more control over.

We can also have conversations about perfectionism from early on, and explain that everyone makes mistakes. In fact, it’s great to model this to our children – talking about our own mistakes and feelings, to show them that we ourselves are not perfect.

Talk aloud practices can help children to see that we “walk the walk”. For example, if you burn dinner you could reflect:

I’m disappointed because I put time and effort into that and it didn’t turn out as I expected. But we all make mistakes. I don’t get things right every time.

Manage stress and negative emotions

Some children and adolescents have a natural tendency towards perfectionism. Rather than trying to control their behaviour, we can provide gentle, loving support.

When our child or adolescent becomes frustrated, angry, sad or overwhelmed, we support them best by helping them to name, express and validate all of their emotions.

Parents may fear that acknowledging their child’s negative emotions will make the emotions worse, but the opposite is true.

Creating healthy balance

The building blocks of healthy child development are strong loving family relationships, good nutrition, creative play and plenty of physical activity, sleep and rest.

Perfectionism is associated with rigidity, and thinking that there is only one correct way to succeed. We can instead encourage flexibility and creativity in children.

Children’s brains grow through play. There is strong research evidence showing that creative, child-led play is associated with higher emotion regulation skills, and a range of cognitive skills, including problem-solving, memory, planning, flexibility and decision-making.

Play isn’t just for young children either – there’s evidence that explorative, creative play of any kind also benefits adolescents and adults.

There is also evidence that getting active outdoors in nature can promote children’s coping skills, emotion regulation and cognitive development.

Elizabeth Westrupp, Associate Professor in Psychology, Deakin University; Gabriella King, Associate Research Fellow, Deakin University, and Jade Sheen, Associate Professor, School of Psychology, Deakin University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Even a short stay in hospital produces a large amount of waste. Just picture all the disposable items designed to be used once and thrown away: face masks, gloves, packaging, intravenous tubing, and even equipment such as stainless steel scissors.

This kind of single-use medical equipment was first introduced in high-income countries in the 1960s, thanks to advances in plastic manufacturing and a growing emphasis on infection prevention and control.

About 85% of the waste single-use products create is nonhazardous and can be recycled or disposed of without special processing. But a lot of the time it’s not sorted correctly. This means it is often mixed with hazardous waste that has to be incinerated before it is sent to landfill, which increases greenhouse gas emissions.

Our new study tested replacing just one kind of item – single-use absorbent pads, known as “blueys” – with a reusable version in the intensive care unit (ICU).

Blueys are pads made of layered tissue paper, with a plastic waterproof backing. They’re placed under patients to protect bedding and absorb bodily fluids such as blood and urine during patient care and other procedures.

We wanted to know how much waste could be diverted from landfill by replacing these single-use products with reusable linen – and importantly, whether it was safe and hygienic for patients. Here’s what we found.

What our study looked at

Over two years, we examined data from 2,114 ICU patients at a Melbourne hospital – 46% of them (970 patients) before we introduced reusable linen, and 54% (1,114 patients) after.

For the first year (the “before” phase), single-use blueys were used. In the second year (the “after” phase), these were replaced with reusable pads, made from soft cotton with a breathable backing. These had a similar capacity to absorb liquids as the disposable version but – instead of being thrown away – they were washed and reused.

The study compared how many kilograms of waste were generated by single-use blueys in the first year, compared to the reusable linen.

We also explored whether reusable linen increased patients’ risk of pressure injuries, sometimes known as bed sores. These are wounds that develop when patients are immobile and spend a lot of time sitting or lying in one position, causing the skin to break down.

Patients in the ICU have a high risk of developing pressure injuries. These can delay recovery and prolong their stay in hospital.

To evaluate the change, we surveyed nurses who’d used the reusable pads. We also reviewed medical records to compare the prevalence of pressure injuries in the two groups, along with patient demographics such as age, sex and length of hospital stay.

What we found

There was no difference in pressure injuries between the two groups. This means reusable linen did not increase the risk of an ICU patient developing a pressure injury.

But it did save a lot of waste. In the year before introducing reusable pads, 21,554 disposable pads were used in this one hospital ward, generating almost half a tonne of waste from this single-use item alone.

Shifting to reusable linen effectively eliminated this waste, saving about half a tonne (496 kilograms) from going to landfill in one year alone.

Initially, some nurses expressed concerns about whether the reusable linen pads would affect patients’ skin. However, once the reusable pads were introduced and used for a few weeks, staff were highly satisfied. Many noted they were more sustainable and helped reduce waste, and recommended continuing to use them.

While our study didn’t look at infection risk specifically, 50 years of data from the United States and the United Kingdom has previously shown reusable linen does not increase the risk of infections when it is washed and sterilised properly.

For example, Australian laundry standards for infection control require reusable items to be washed at a certain temperature (above 65°C for at least ten minutes, or 71°C for at least three minutes) or treated with a chemical disinfectant when material is heat sensitive.

Why this research matters

Australia’s health-care system produces up to 7% of the country’s total greenhouse gas emissions. Hospitals are the single biggest contributor.

Given this is largely from direct patient care, making day-to-day routines more sustainable can have a big impact.

There are other benefits, too. During the early parts of the COVID pandemic, when there were often equipment shortages in supply chains, our research confirmed that using reusable personal protective equipment (PPE) was safe and could help ensure products remained available. It was also more sustainable and less costly.

One potential drawback of reusable health-care equipment is how much water is consumed cleaning and sterilising it. Our study didn’t assess this directly.

But in further research, we plan to do a life cycle assessment that compares single-use blueys and reusable linen.

This is a widely recognised way to assess the environmental impact of products from “cradle to grave”. The assessment considers the energy consumption, water use, greenhouse gas emissions and cost involved not only in the products’ manufacture, but also in their use and disposal. This includes the impact of washing and sterilising products versus sending items to landfill.

Health-care workers often face barriers to sustainable practice when caring for patients. But as frontline workers are managing the health consequences of climate change and environmental disasters, it’s vital they understand their role in promoting environmentally responsible care. Access to equipment that is safe, for both their patients and the planet, is essential.

Rochelle Wynne, Chair in Nursing, Western Health Deakin University Partnership, Deakin University; Forbes McGain, Associate Professor, The University of Melbourne, and Stacey Matthews, Research Fellow, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Deakin University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.