We describe the incidence and practice of prone positioning and determined the association of use of prone positioning with outcomes in invasively ventilated patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in a national, multicenter observational study, performed at 22 intensive care units in the Netherlands. Patients were categorized into 4 groups, based on indication for and actual use of prone positioning. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Secondary endpoints were 90-day mortality, and ICU and hospital length of stay. In 734 patients, prone positioning was indicated in 60%—the incidence of prone positioning was higher in patients with an indication than in patients without an indication for prone positioning (77 vs. 48%, p = 0.001). Patients were left in the prone position for median 15.0 (10.5–21.0) hours per full calendar day—the duration was longer in patients with an indication than in patients without an indication for prone positioning (16.0 (11.0–23.0) vs. 14.0 (10.0–19.0) hours, p < 0.001). Ventilator settings and ventilation parameters were not different between the four groups, except for FiO2 which was higher in patients having an indication for and actually receiving prone positioning. Our data showed no difference in mortality at day 28 between the 4 groups (HR no indication, no prone vs. no indication, prone vs. indication, no prone vs. indication, prone: 1.05 (0.76–1.45) vs. 0.88 (0.62–1.26) vs. 1.15 (0.80–1.54) vs. 0.96 (0.73–1.26) (p = 0.08)). Factors associated with the use of prone positioning were ARDS severity and FiO2. The findings of this study are that prone positioning is often used in COVID-19 patients, even in patients that have no indication for this intervention. Sessions of prone positioning lasted long. Use of prone positioning may affect outcomes.
DOCUMENT
Art therapy is widely used and effective in the treatment of patients diagnosed with Personality Disorders (PDs). Current psychotherapeutic approaches may benefit from this additional therapy to improve their efficacy. But what is the patient perspective upon this therapy? This study explored perceived benefits of art therapy for patients with PDs to let the valuable perspective of patients be taken into account. Using a quantitative survey study over 3 months (N = 528), GLM repeated measures and overall hierarchical regression analyses showed that the majority of the patients reported quite a lot of benefit from art therapy (mean 3.70 on a 5-point Likert scale), primarily in emotional and social functioning. The improvements are concentrated in specific target goals of which the five highest scoring goals affected were: expression of emotions, improved (more stable/positive) self-image, making own choices/autonomy, recognition of, insight in, and changing of personal patterns of feelings, behaviors and thoughts and dealing with own limitations and/or vulnerability. Patients made it clear that they perceived these target areas as having been affected by art therapy and said so at both moments in time, with a higher score after 3 months. The extent of the perceived benefits is highly dependent for patients on factors such as a non-judgmental attitude on the part of the therapist, feeling that they are taken seriously, being given sufficient freedom of expression but at the same time being offered sufficient structure and an adequate basis. Age, gender, and diagnosis cluster did not predict the magnitude of perceived benefits. Art therapy provides equal advantages to a broad target group, and so this form of therapy can be broadly indicated. The experienced benefits and the increase over time was primarily associated with the degree to which patients perceive that they can give meaningful expression to feelings in their artwork. This provides an indication for the extent of the benefits a person can experience and can also serve as a clear guiding principle for interventions by the art therapist.
DOCUMENT
BACKGROUND: Urinary and (peripheral and central) intravenous catheters are widely used in hospitalized patients. However, up to 56% of the catheters do not have an appropriate indication and some serious complications with the use of these catheters can occur. The main objective of our quality improvement project is to reduce the use of catheters without an appropriate indication by 25-50%, and to evaluate the affecting factors of our de-implementation strategy.METHODS: In a multicenter, prospective interrupted time series analysis, several interventions to avoid inappropriate use of catheters will be conducted in seven hospitals in the Netherlands. Firstly, we will define a list of appropriate indications for urinary and (peripheral and central) intravenous catheters, which will restrict the use of catheters and urge catheter removal when the indication is no longer appropriate. Secondly, after the baseline measurements, the intervention will take place, which consists of a kick-off meeting, including a competitive feedback report of the baseline measurements, and education of healthcare workers and patients. Additional strategies based on the baseline data and local conditions are optional. The primary endpoint is the percentage of catheters with an inappropriate indication on the day of data collection before and after the de-implementation strategy. Secondary endpoints are catheter-related infections or other complications, catheter re-insertion rate, length of hospital (and ICU) stay and mortality. In addition, the cost-effectiveness of the de-implementation strategy will be calculated.DISCUSSION: This study aims to reduce the use of urinary and intravenous catheters with an inappropriate indication, and as a result reduce the catheter-related complications. If (cost-) effective it provides a tool for a nationwide approach to reduce catheter-related infections and other complications.TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch trial registry: NTR6015 . Registered 9 August 2016.
DOCUMENT
Due to their diverse funding sources, theatres are under increasing pressure to demonstrate impact on society. The Raad voor Cultuur (2023) for example advised the secretary of state to include societal impact as an additional evaluation measure next to artistic value. Many theaters, such as the Chassé Theater and Parkstad Limburg Theaters, have reformulated their missions to focus on impact of performances on visitors. This is a profound transformation from merely selling tickets and filling seats, and requires new measurement instruments to monitor, manage, and improve impact. Currently available instruments are insufficient, and effective monitoring is crucial to larger future projects that theaters are currently planning to systematically broaden impacts of performances on their communities. The specific goal of this project is to empower theaters to monitor and improve impact by developing a brief experience impact questionnaire, taking existing data from student projects conducted at the Chassé Theater about performing arts experiences on one hand, and experience impact theory innovations on the other, as starting points. We will develop potential items to measure and benchmark against established measures of valued societal outcomes, such as subjective well-being and quality of life. These will be measured in questionnaires developed with project partners Chassé Theater and Parkstad Limburg Theaters and administered before and after performances across a wide range of genres. The resulting data will enable comparison of new questionnaire items with benchmarked measures of valued societal outcomes. The final product of the project will be a brief impact questionnaire, which within several brief self-report instruments and just a few minutes can effectively be used to quantify the impact of a performing arts experience. A workshop and practice-oriented article will make this questionnaire implementable, thereby mobilizing the key enabling methodology of monitoring and impact measurement in the performing arts sector.
