In this article, we aim to contribute to the emerging field of risk-work studies by examining the relationship between risk rationality and risk practices in nurses’ conversations with Obstructive Sleep Apnoea patients about traffic risks. Legislation in Sweden towards traffic risk involves clinicians making risk assessment of patients prone to falling asleep while driving. In contrast to an overall care rationale, this means that the health of the patient is not the only risk object in treatment consultations. However, guidelines on how to implement legislation are missing. To examine the practical reality of nurses’ traffic-risk work, we draw on an analysis of data from a Swedish study in 2015. This study included qualitative interviews with specialist nurses and video-recorded interactions between nurses and Obstructive Sleep Apnoea patients. We found that a lack of clarity in traffic-risk guidelines on how risk should be addressed was evident in both interview accounts and in observed practice. While nurses primarily accounted for risk work as treatment-relevant education, they practised risk work as interrogation. Patients also treated nurses’ inquiries as assessment – not education – by responding defensively. We conclude that while confusing risk work and treatment enables clinicians to treat patients as competent actors, it obscures the controlling aspects of traffic-risk questions for individual patients and downplays the implications of drowsy driving for general traffic safety.

在本文中，我们旨在通过检查护士与阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停患者有关交通风险的对话中的风险合理性与风险实践之间的关系，为新兴的风险工作研究做出贡献。瑞典关于交通风险的立法涉及临床医生对容易在驾驶中入睡的患者进行风险评估。与总体护理原理相反，这意味着患者的健康不是治疗咨询中唯一的风险对象。但是，缺少有关如何执行立法的指南。为了检查护士交通风险工作的实际情况，我们使用了一项瑞典2015​​年研究的数据分析。该研究包括对专科护士的定性访谈，以及护士与阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停患者之间的互动录像。我们发现，在访谈帐户和观察到的实践中，都存在明显的交通风险准则，其中未明确应如何解决风险的问题。护士主要将风险工作视为与治疗有关的教育，而护士则将风险工作视为讯问。患者还通过防御性回应将护士的询问视为评估而不是教育。我们得出的结论是，虽然混淆了风险工作和治疗方法使临床医生能够将患者视为合格的行为者，但它掩盖了单个患者的交通风险问题的控制方面，并淡化了昏昏欲睡的驾驶对一般交通安全的影响。护士主要将风险工作视为与治疗有关的教育，而护士则将风险工作视为讯问。患者还通过防御性回应将护士的询问视为评估而不是教育。我们得出的结论是，虽然混淆了风险工作和治疗方法使临床医生能够将患者视为合格的行为者，但它掩盖了单个患者的交通风险问题的控制方面，并淡化了昏昏欲睡的驾驶对一般交通安全的影响。护士主要将风险工作视为与治疗有关的教育，而护士则将风险工作视为讯问。患者还通过防御性回应将护士的询问视为评估而不是教育。我们得出的结论是，虽然混淆了风险工作和治疗方法使临床医生能够将患者视为合格的行为者，但它掩盖了单个患者的交通风险问题的控制方面，并淡化了昏昏欲睡的驾驶对一般交通安全的影响。