Healthcare provider and patient/family perceptions of continuous pressure imaging technology for prevention of pressure injuries: A secondary analysis of patients enrolled in a randomized control trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Despite the availability of various pressure injury (PI) prevention strategies (e.g., risk identification, use of pressure re-distribution surfaces, frequent repositioning), they persist as a significant issue for healthcare systems worldwide. Continuous pressure imaging (CPI) is a novel technology that could be integrated within a comprehensive approach to the prevention of PIs. We studied the perceptions of healthcare providers and patients/families to identify facilitators and barriers to the use of this technology. METHODS: Hospitalized patients/family members from a randomized controlled trial assessing the efficacy of CPI in preventing PIs completed a survey after 72 hours (or upon discharge from hospital) of CPI monitoring. They were asked questions about prior and current experience with CPI technology. For healthcare providers, perceptions on the use of the device and its impact on care were explored through a survey distributed by email or hard copies. RESULTS: A total of 125 healthcare providers and 525 patients/family members completed the surveys. Of the healthcare providers, 95% either agreed/strongly agreed that the CPI technology was easy to use and 65% stated that the device improved how they provided pressure relief for patients. Identified issues with the device were cost, the fitting of the mattress cover, and the fixation of the patients/families on the device. Over a quarter of the patient/family respondents agreed/strongly agreed that the device influenced how pressure relief was provided. This response was statistically associated with whether the monitor was turned on (intervention arm; 52.7%) or off (control arm; 4.2%). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: CPI technology was positively perceived by healthcare providers. Most patients/families felt it influenced care when the CPI monitor was turned on. Concerns raised around cost and the ease of use of these devices by healthcare providers may affect the decisions of healthcare system administrators to adopt and implement this technology.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".