MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407153381 · doi:10.2196/64444

Nurses’ Perspectives and Experiences of Using a Bed-Exit Information System in an Acute Hospital Setting: Mixed Methods Study

2025· article· en· W4407153381 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Stefan Walzer, Isabel Schön, Johanna Pfeil, Sam Klemm, Sven Ziegler, Claudia Schmoor, Christophe Kunze

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
KeywordsMedicineDescriptive statisticsChecklistWorkloadAcute careFocus groupOperationalizationIntervention (counseling)CognitionNursingFamily medicineEmergency medicineHealth careMedical emergencyPsychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Technology that detects early when a patient at risk of falling leaves the bed can support nurses in acute care hospitals. OBJECTIVE: To develop a better understanding of nurses' perspectives and experiences with a bed-exit information system (BES) in an acute care hospital setting. METHODS: BES was implemented on 3 wards of a university medical center. Nurses completed 2 online surveys at each time point (P0 and P1) and participated in focus groups before (P0) and after (P1) implementation. Additional patient data were collected. Descriptive statistics summarized the survey results, while content analysis was applied to focus group data. Patient rates and adverse events in both phases were compared using negative binomial models. Reporting of this study adhered to the GRAMMS checklist. RESULTS: A total of 30 questionnaires were completed at P0 (30/72, 42%) and 24 at P1 (24/71, 33%). Of the participants, 15 completed both questionnaires (complete cases). At P1, 64% (9/14) of participants agreed that their perceived workload and strain in caring for patients with cognitive impairment was reduced by the use of the BES. The adverse event rate per patient per day was reduced by a factor of 0.61 (95% CI 0.393-0.955; P=.03). In addition, 11 nurses participated in 4 focus groups before and after the intervention. Participants found it challenging to operationalize the use of the BES due to the heterogeneity of care settings, but certain behaviors of patients with cognitive impairment were recognized as indicating a need for intervention. Negative experiences included information overload and alarm fatigue, leading to occasional removal of the system. CONCLUSIONS: While BES provides some support in managing patients with cognitive impairment, its impact remains limited to specific scenarios and does not significantly reduce nurses' workload or strain. Our findings highlight the need to manage expectations of BES performance to ensure alignment between expected and actual benefits. To improve BES effectiveness and long-term implementation, future research should consider both objective measures of patient care and subjective factors such as nurse experience, structural conditions, and technical specifications. Improving information mechanisms within call systems could help reduce alarm fatigue and increase perceived usefulness. Overall, successful integration of BES in acute care settings will require close collaboration with nursing staff to drive meaningful healthcare innovation and ensure that the technology meets the needs of both patients and nurses. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Register for Clinical Studies DRKS00021720; https://drks.de/search/de/trial/DRKS00021720.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.448 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207