Introduction: A trauma resuscitation is dynamic and complex process in which failures could lead to serious adverse events. In several trauma centers, evaluation of trauma resuscitation is part of a hospital's quality assessment program. While video analysis is commonly used, some hospitals use live observations, mainly due to ethical and medicolegal concerns. The aim of this study was to compare the validity and reliability of video analysis and live observations to evaluate trauma resuscitations. Methods: In this prospective observational study, validity was assessed by comparing the observed adherence to 28 advanced trauma life support (ATLS) guideline related tasks by video analysis to life observations. Interobserver reliability was assessed by calculating the intra class coefficient of observed ATLS related tasks by live observations and video analysis. Results: Eleven simulated and thirteen real-life resuscitations were assessed. Overall, the percentage of observed ATLS related tasks performed during simulated resuscitations was 10.4% (P < 0.001) higher when the same resuscitations were analysed using video compared to live observations. During real-life resuscitations, 8.7% (p < 0.001) more ATLS related tasks were observed using video review compared to live observations. In absolute terms, a mean of 2.9 (during simulated resuscitations) respectively 2.5 (during actual resuscitations) ATLS-related tasks per resuscitation were not identified using live observers, that were observed through video analysis. The interobserver variability for observed ATLS related tasks was significantly higher using video analysis compared to live observations for both simulated (video analysis: ICC 0.97; 95% CI 0.97-0.98 vs. live observation: ICC 0.69; 95% CI 0.57-0.78) and real-life witnessed resuscitations (video analyse 0.99; 95% CI 0.99-1.00 vs live observers 0.86; 95% CI 0.83-0.89). Conclusion: Video analysis of trauma resuscitations may be more valid and reliable compared to evaluation by live observers. These outcomes may guide the debate to justify video review instead of live observations.
This paper is a report of a review conducted to provide an overview of the evidence in the literature on task-oriented training of stroke survivors and its relevance in daily nursing practice. Background: Stroke is the second leading cause of death and one of the leading causes of adult disability in the Western world. The use of neurodevelopmental treatment in the daily nursing care of stroke survivors does not improve clinical outcomes. Nurses are therefore exploring other forms of rehabilitation intervention, including task-oriented rehabilitation. Despite the growing number of studies showing evidence on task-oriented interventions, recommendations for daily nursing practice are lacking. A range of databases was searched to identify papers addressing taskoriented training in stroke rehabilitation, including Medline, CINAHL, Embase and the Cochrane Library of systematic reviews. Papers published in English between January 1996 and September 2007 were included. There were 42 papers in the final dataset, including nine systematic reviews. Review methods: The selected randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews were assessed for quality. Important characteristics and outcomes were extracted and summarized. Results: Studies of task-related training showed benefits for functional outcome compared with traditional therapies. Active use of task-oriented training with stroke survivors will lead to improvements in functional outcomes and overall healthrelated quality of life. Conclusion. Generally, task-oriented rehabilitation proved to be more effective. Many interventions are feasible for nurses and can be performed in a ward or at home. Nurses can and should play an important role in creating opportunities to practise meaningful functional tasks outside of regular therapy sessions.
Abstract: Due to rapidly aging human populations, frailty has become an essential concept, as it identifies older people who have higher risk of adverse outcomes, such as disability, institutionalization, lower quality of life, and premature death. The Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI) is a user-friendly questionnaire based on a multidimensional approach to frailty, assessing physical, psychologic, and social aspects of human functioning. This review aims to explore the efficiency of the TFI in assessing frailty as a means to carry out research into the antecedents and consequences of frailty, and its use both in daily practice and for future intervention studies. Using a multidimensional approach to frailty, in contexts where health care professionals or researchers may have no time to interview or examine the client, we recommend employing the TFI because there is robust evidence of its reliability and validity and it is easy and quick to administer. More studies are needed to establish whether the TFI is suitable for intervention studies not only in the community, but also for specific groups such as patients in the hospital or admitted to an emergency department. We conclude that it is important to not only determine the deficits that frail older people may have, but also to assess their balancing strengths and resources. In order to be able to meet the individual needs of frail older persons, traditional and often fragmented elderly care should be developed toward a more proactive elderly care, in which frail older persons and their informal network are in charge.
