Background: Working in the perioperative context is complex and challenging due to the impact of ageing and innovations, making new ways of working and collaborating emerging. The continual evaluation in this environment underscores the need for adaptability to technological advancements, and requires substantial allocation of resources for training and education. Educational programs for nurse anesthetists and surgical nurses should prioritize candidates through their unique personality traits and their ability to adapt evolving technologies. Objective: To explore personality characteristics of perioperative healthcare professionals that are instrumental for sustainable employability in technologically advanced environment. Methods: Personality characteristics were identified with the Big Five Inventory, which consisted of 60 items answered on a five-point Likert scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree). 823 perioperative healthcare professionals (360 nurse anesthetists and 463 surgical nurses) and 827 participants of the normative Dutch population completed the online survey. Findings: Specific personality traits were found for nurse anesthetists and surgical nurses when compared to the normative Dutch population. Traits of nurse anesthetists differed significantly on all domains of the Big Five Inventory, with the largest differences found within the dimension negative emotionally (F=3532.39, df=2, p<0.001). The same applied to surgical nurses, in which the largest differences were also found within the dimension negative emotionally (F=4051.66, df=2, p<0.001). Conclusion: This study highlights the role of specific personality traits in maintaining employability among Dutch perioperative healthcare professionals within the rapidly evolving and technologically advanced landscape of healthcare. It contributes to an understanding of sustainable employability in technologically advanced environments and emphasizes the relationship between individual traits and professional excellence, being crucial educational strategies and overall improvement in healthcare.
LINK
Background: Currently, the Ponseti method is the gold standard for treatment of clubfeet. For long-term func- tional evaluation of this method, gait analysis can be performed. Previous studies have assessed gait differences between Ponseti treated clubfeet and healthy controls. Research question/purpose: The aims of this systematic review were to compare the gait kinetics of Ponseti treated clubfeet with healthy controls and to compare the gait kinetics between clubfoot patients treated with the Ponseti method or surgically. Methods: A systematic search was performed in Embase, Medline Ovid, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane, Cinahl ebsco, and Google scholar, for studies reporting on gait kinetics in children with clubfeet treated with the Ponseti method. Studies were excluded if they only used EMG or pedobarography. Data were extracted and a risk of bias was assessed. Meta-analyses and qualitative analyses were performed. Results: Nine studies were included, of which five were included in the meta-analyses. The meta-analyses showed that ankle plantarflexor moment (95% CI -0.25 to -0.19) and ankle power (95% CI -0.89 to -0.60, were significantly lower in the Ponseti treated clubfeet compared to the healthy controls. No significant difference was found in ankle dorsiflexor and plantarflexor moment, and ankle power between clubfeet treated with surgery compared to the Ponseti method. Significance: Differences in gait kinetics are present when comparing Ponseti treated clubfeet with healthy controls. However, there is no significant difference between surgically and Ponseti treated clubfeet. These results give more insight in the possibilities of improving the gait pattern of patients treated for clubfeet.
DOCUMENT
Abstract: This case study examines the use of an eHealth application for improving preoperative rehabilitation (prehabilitation). We have analysed healthcare professionals' motivators and drivers for adopting eHealth for a surgical procedure at academic medical facilities. The research focused on when and why healthcare professionals are inclined to adopt eHealth applications in their way of working? For this qualitative study, we selected 12 professionals involved in all levels of the organisation and stages of the medical process and conducted semi-structured interviews. Kotter’s transformational change model and the Technology Acceptance Model were used as analytical frameworks for the identification of the motivation of eHealth adoption. The findings suggest that contrary to Kotter’s change model, which argues that adoption of change is based on perceptions and feelings, the healthcare drivers are rational when it comes to deciding whether or not to adopt eHealth apps. This study further elaborates the observation made by the Dutch expertise centre on eHealth, Nictiz, that when the value of an eHealth pplication is clear for a stakeholder, the adoption process accelerates. Analysis of the motivations and drivers of the healthcare professionals show a strong relationship with an evidence-based grounding of usefulness and the responsibility these professionals have towards their patients. We found that healthcare professionals respond to the primary goal of improving healthcare. This is true if the eHealth application will innovate their work, but mainly when the application will improve the patient care they are responsible for. When eHealth applications are implemented, rational facts need to be collected in a study before deployment of eHealth applications on how these applications will improve the patient's health or wellbeing throughout their so-called medical journey for their treatment. Furthermore, the preference to learn about new eHealth applications from someone who speaks from authority through expertise on the subject matter, suggests adoption by healthcare professionals may be accelerated through peers. The result of this study may provide healthcare management with a different approach to their eHealth strategy. Future research is needed to validate the findings in different medical organisational settings such as regional healthcare facilities or for-profit centers which do not necessarily have an innovation focus but are driven by other strategic drivers.
DOCUMENT
