Health Care Workers’ Expectations of the Mercury Advance SMARTcare Solution to Prevent Pressure Injuries: Individual and Focus Group Interview Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The transformation in global demography and the shortage of health care workers require innovation and efficiency in the field of health care. Digital technology can help improve the efficiency of health care. The Mercury Advance SMARTcare solution is an example of digital technology. The system is connected to a hybrid mattress and is able to detect patient movement, based on which the air pump either starts automatically or sends a notification to the app. Barriers to the adoption of the system are unknown, and it is unclear if the solution will be able to support health care workers in their work. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to gain insight into health care workers' expectations of factors that could either hamper or support the adoption of the Mercury Advance SMARTcare unit connected to a Mercury Advance mattress to help prevent patients from developing pressure injuries in hospitals and long-term care facilities. METHODS: We conducted a generic qualitative study from February to December 2022. Interviews were conducted, and a focus group was established using an interview guide of health care workers from both the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Thematic analysis was performed by 2 independent researchers. RESULTS: A total of 14 participants took part in the study: 6 (43%) participants joined the focus group, and 8 (57%) participants took part in the individual interviews. We identified 13 factors based on four themes: (1) factors specifically related to SMARTresponse, (2) vision on innovation, (3) match with health care activities, and (4) materials and resources involved. Signaling function, SMARTresponse as prevention, patient category, representatives, and implementation strategy were identified as facilitators. Perception of patient repositioning, accessibility to pressure injury aids, and connectivity were identified as barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Several conditions must be met to enhance the adoption of the Mercury Advance SMARTcare solution, including the engagement of representatives during training and a reliable wireless network. The identified factors can be used to facilitate the implementation process.
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 | 0.017 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".