Safety and Feasibility of Intermittent Electrical Stimulation for the Prevention of Deep Tissue Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To investigate the safety, feasibility, and acceptability of a novel treatment, intermittent electrical stimulation (IES), for preventing deep tissue injury (DTI) in different healthcare settings. Approach: Testing was conducted in an acute rehabilitation unit of a general hospital, a tertiary rehabilitation hospital, a long-term care facility, and homecare (HC). IES was delivered through surface electrodes placed either directly on the gluteal muscles or through mesh panels inside a specialized garment. Study participants at risk for DTI used the system for an average of 4 weeks. Outcome measures included skin reaction to long-term stimulation, demands on the caregiver, stability of induced muscle contraction, and acceptability as part of the users' daily routine. Results: A total of 48 study participants used the IES system. The system proved to be safe and feasible in all four clinical settings. No pressure ulcers were observed in any of the participants. There was no difference between the clinical settings in patient positioning, ease of finding optimal stimulation site, and patient acceptance. Although donning and doffing time was longer in the long-term care and HC settings than the acute rehabilitation unit and tertiary rehabilitation facility, time required to apply the IES system was <18 min (including data collection). The patients and caregivers did not find the application disruptive and indicated that the stimulation was acceptable as part of their daily routine in over 97% of the time. Innovation and Conclusion: We demonstrated the safety, feasibility, and acceptability of a novel method of IES to prevent DTI in a continuum of healthcare settings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".