Objective: There are widespread shortages of personal protective equipment as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Reprocessing filtering facepiece particle (FFP)-type respirators may provide an alternative solution in keeping healthcare professionals safe. Design: Prospective, bench-to-bedside. Setting: A primary care-based study using FFP-2 respirators without exhalation valve (3M Aura 1862+ (20 samples), Maco Pharma ZZM002 (14 samples)), FFP-2 respirators with valve (3M Aura 9322+ (six samples) and San Huei 2920V (16 samples)) and valved FFP type 3 respirators (Safe Worker 1016 (10 samples)). Interventions: All masks were reprocessed using a medical autoclave (17 min at 121°C with 34 min total cycle time) and subsequently tested up to three times whether these respirators retained their integrity (seal check and pressure drop) and ability to filter small particles (0.3–5.0 µm) in the laboratory using a particle penetration test. Results: We tested 33 respirators and 66 samples for filter capacity. All FFP-2 respirators retained their shape, whereas half of the decontaminated FFP-3 respirators showed deformities and failed the seal check. The filtering capacity of the 3M Aura 1862 was best retained after one, two and three decontamination cycles (0.3 µm: 99.3%±0.3% (new) vs 97.0±1.3, 94.2±1.3% or 94.4±1.6; p<0.001). Of the other FFP-2 respirators, the San Huei 2920 V had 95.5%±0.7% at baseline vs 92.3%±1.7% vs 90.0±0.7 after one-time and two-time decontaminations, respectively (p<0.001). The tested FFP-3 respirator (Safe Worker 1016) had a filter capacity of 96.5%±0.7% at baseline and 60.3%±5.7% after one-time decontamination (p<0.001). Breathing and pressure resistance tests indicated no relevant pressure changes between respirators that were used once, twice or thrice. Conclusion: This small single-centre study shows that selected FFP-2 respirators may be reprocessed for use in primary care, as the tested masks retain their shape, ability to retain particles and breathing comfort after decontamination using a medical autoclave.
MULTIFILE
Background: During hospitalization patients frequently have a low level of physical activity, which is an important risk factor for functional decline. Function Focused Care (FFC) is an evidencebased intervention developed in the United States to prevent functional decline in older patients. Within FFC, nurses help older patients optimally participate in functional and physical activity during all care interactions. FFC was adapted to the Dutch Hospital setting, which led to Function Focused Care in Hospital (FFCiH). FFCiH consists of four components: (1) ‘Environmental and policy assessment’; (2) ‘Education’; (3) ‘Goal setting with the patient’ and (4) ‘Ongoing motivation and mentoring’. The feasibility of FFCiH in the Dutch hospital setting needs to be assessed. Objective: Introduce FFCiH into Dutch hospital wards, to assess the feasibility of FFCiH in terms of description of the intervention, implementation, mechanisms of impact, and context. Design: Mixed method design Setting(s): A Neurological and a Geriatric ward in a Dutch Hospital. Participants: 56 Nurses and nursing students working on these wards. Methods: The implementation process was described and the delivery was studied in terms of dose, fidelity, adaptions, and reach. The mechanisms of impact were studied by the perceived facilitators and barriers to the intervention. Qualitative data were collected via focus group interviews, observations, and field notes. Quantitative data were collected via evaluation forms and attendance/participation lists. Results: A detailed description of FFCiH in terms of what, how, when, and by whom was given. 54 Nurses (96.4%) on both wards attended at least 1 session of the education or participated in bedside teaching. The nurses assessed the content of the education sessions with a mean of 7.5 (SD 0.78) on a 0–10 scale. The patient files showed that different short and long-term goals were set. Several facilitators and barriers were identified, which led to additions to the intervention. An important facilitator was that nurses experienced FFCiH as an approach that fits with the principles underpinning their current working philosophy. The experienced barriers mainly concern the implementation elements of the FFCiH-components ‘Education’ and ‘Ongoing motivation and mentoring’. Optimizing the team involvement, improving nursing leadership during the implementation, and enhancing the involvement of patients and their family were activities added to FFCiH to improve future implementation. Conclusions: FFCiH is feasible for the Dutch hospital setting. Strong emphasis on team involvement, nursing leadership, and the involvement of patients and their families is recommended to optimize future implementation of FFCiH in Dutch hospitals.
DOCUMENT
Abstract Background: With the growing shortage of nurses, labor-saving technology has become more important. In health care practice, however, the fit with innovations is not easy. The aim of this study is to analyze the development of a mobile input device for electronic medical records (MEMR), a potentially labor-saving application supported by nurses, that failed to meet the needs of nurses after development. Method: In a case study, we used an axiomatic design framework as an evaluation tool to visualize the mismatches between customer needs and the design parameters of the MEMR, and trace these mismatches back to (preliminary) decisions in the development process. We applied a mixed-method research design that consisted of analyzing of 118 external and internal files and working documents, 29 interviews and shorter inquiries, a user test, and an observation of use. By factoring and grouping the findings, we analyzed the relevant categories of mismatches. Results: The involvement of nurses during the development was extensive, but not all feedback was, or could not be, used effectively to improve the MEMR. The mismatches with the most impact were found to be: (1) suboptimal supportive technology, (2) limited functionality of the app and input device, and (3) disruption of nurses’ workflow. Most mismatches were known by the IT department when the MEMR was offered to the units as a product. Development of the MEMR came to a halt because of limited use. Conclusion: Choices for design parameters, made during the development of labor-saving technology for nurses, may conflict with the customer needs of nurses. Even though the causes of mismatches were mentioned by the IT department, the nurse managers acquired the MEMR based on the idea behind the app. The effects of the chosen design parameters should not only be compared to the customer needs, but also be assessed with nurses and nurse managers for the expected effect on the workflow.
LINK
