PurposeEarly mobilization of critically ill patients improves functional recovery, but is often hampered by tubes, drains, monitoring devices and muscular weakness. A mobile treadmill with bodyweight support facilitates early mobilization and may shorten recovery time to independent ambulation as compared to usual care physiotherapy alone.Materials and methodsSingle center RCT, comparing daily bodyweight supported treadmill training (BWSTT) with usual care physiotherapy, in patients who had been or were mechanically ventilated (≥48 h) with ≥MRC grade 2 quadriceps muscle strength. BWSTT consisted of daily treadmill training in addition to usual care physiotherapy (PT). Primary outcome was time to independent ambulation measured in days, using the Functional Ambulation Categories (FAC-score: 3). Secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay and serious adverse events.ResultsThe median (IQR) time to independent ambulation was 6 (3 to 9) days in the BWSTT group (n = 19) compared to 11 (7 to 23) days in the usual care group (n = 21, p = 0.063). Hospital length of stay was significantly different in favour of the BWSTT group (p = 0.037). No serious adverse events occurred.InterpretationBWSTT seems a promising intervention to enhance recovery of ambulation and shorten hospital length of stay of ICU patients, justifying a sufficiently powered multicenter RCT.Trial registration number: Dutch Trial Register ID: NTR6943.
Artikel gaat over de inzet van virtual reality bij patiënten met pijn.
MULTIFILE
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