The effect of continuous pressure monitoring on strategic shifting of medical inpatients at risk for PUs
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of continuous pressure imaging technology on strategic turning of patients by health professionals. METHOD: This pilot study of a newly-developed continuous pressure imaging technology (XSENSOR ForeSite PatientTurn System) involved two phases of videotaped observation of medical inpatients, with each patient serving as his/her own control: a control phase in which continuous pressure imaging was not available to health-care providers and an intervention phase where it was. The primary outcome was to determine whether access to the technology influenced the rate of patient turns/shifts by nursing staff. Secondary outcomes included a comparison of the rates of other care provider shifts, patient self-shifts, and family assisted shifts. Qualitative data regarding nurse and patient/family perspectives were also obtained. RESULTS: Complete control/intervention data were available for nine patients.The mean rate of two-person assisted turns was 0.274 +/- 0.087 turns per hour in the control phase versus 0.413 +/- 0.091 turns per hour in the intervention phase (p = 0.08). For the combined endpoint of two-person assisted turns or patient transfers off the bed into a wheelchair/chair, there was a statistically significant difference in the mean number of turns per hour: mean of 0.491 +/- 0.271 turns per hour for the intervention group versus 0.327 +/- 0.235 turns per hour for the control group (p = 0.04). Provider interviews confirmed that nurses used information from the technology to inform their patient shifting strategies and behaviours. CONCLUSION: This pilot study provides some initial data supporting the hypothesis that continuous pressure imaging technology could positively impact the frequency of patient turns by care providers, as well as provide impetus to inspect specific skin locations,thereby providing a potential targeted risk mitigation strategy for the development of pressure ulcers. DECLARATION OF INTEREST: Funding for the study was obtained from PreCarn Inc., an independent, nonprofit company supporting the pre-commercial development of new technologies, and from the Alberta Enterprise and Advanced Education (formally Alberta Advanced Education and Technology). The industry partner, XSENSOR, was involved in setup and maintenance of the technology, but was not involved in the evaluative research protocol. Specifically, XSENSOR personnel were not involved in the collection, coding, or analysis of outcome data, nor in the compilation and writing of this paper. None of the listed authors have any conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, relating to the technology tested.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».