Perceptions and values of care professionals are critical in successfully implementing technology in health care. The aim of this study was threefold: (1) to explore the main values of health care professionals, (2) to investigate the perceived influence of the technologies regarding these values, and (3) the accumulated views of care professionals with respect to the use of technology in the future. In total, 51 professionals were interviewed. Interpretative phenomenological analysis was applied. All care professionals highly valued being able to satisfy the needs of their care recipients. Mutual inter-collegial respect and appreciation of supervisors was also highly cherished. The opportunity to work in a careful manner was another important value. Conditions for the successful implementation of technology involved reliability of the technology at hand, training with team members in the practical use of new technology, and the availability of a help desk. Views regarding the future of health care were mainly related to financial cut backs and with a lower availability of staff. Interestingly, no spontaneous thoughts about the role of new technology were part of these views. It can be concluded that professionals need support in relating technological solutions to care recipients' needs. The role of health care organisations, including technological expertise, can be crucial here.
Background: Cardiac output measurements may inform diagnosis and provide guidance of therapeutic interventions in patients with hemodynamic instability. The FloTrac™ algorithm uses uncalibrated arterial pressure waveform analysis to estimate cardiac output. Recently, a new version of the algorithm has been developed. The aim was to assess the agreement between FloTrac™ and routinely performed cardiac output measurements obtained by critical care ultrasonography in patients with circulatory shock.Methods: A prospective observational study was performed in a tertiary hospital from June 2016 to January 2017. Adult critically ill patients with circulatory shock were eligible for inclusion. Cardiac output was measured simultaneously using FloTrac™ with a fourth-generation algorithm (COAP) and critical care ultrasonography (COCCUS). The strength of linear correlation of both methods was determined by the Pearson coefficient. Bland-Altman plot and four-quadrant plot were used to track agreement and trending ability.Result: Eighty-nine paired cardiac output measurements were performed in 17 patients during their first 24 h of admittance. COAP and COCCUS had strong positive linear correlation (r2 = 0.60, p < 0.001). Bias of COAP and COCCUS was 0.2 L min-1 (95% CI - 0.2 to 0.6) with limits of agreement of - 3.6 L min-1 (95% CI - 4.3 to - 2.9) to 4.0 L min-1 (95% CI 3.3 to 4.7). The percentage error was 65.6% (95% CI 53.2 to 77.3). Concordance rate was 64.4%.Conclusions: In critically ill patients with circulatory shock, there was disagreement and clinically unacceptable trending ability between values of cardiac output obtained by uncalibrated arterial pressure waveform analysis and critical care ultrasonography.Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02912624, registered on September 23, 2016.
Background: Emergency department utilization has increased tremendously over the past years, which is accompanied by an increased necessity for emergency medicine research to support clinical practice. Important sources of evidence are systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs), but these can only be informative provided their quality is sufficiently high, which can only be assessed if reporting is adequate. The purpose of this study was to assess the quality of reporting of SRs and MAs in emergency medicine using the PRISMA statement. Methods: The top five emergency medicine related journals were selected using the 5-year impact factor of the ISI Web of Knowledge of 2015. All SRs and MAs published in these journals between 2015 and 2016 were extracted and assessed independently by two reviewers on compliance with each item of the PRISMA statement. Results: The included reviews (n = 112) reported a mean of 18 ± 4 items of the PRISMA statement adequately. Reviews mentioning PRISMA adherence did not show better reporting than review without mention of adherence (mean 18.6 (SE 0.4) vs. mean 17.8 (SE 0.5); p = 0.214). Reviews published in journals recommending or requiring adherence to a reporting guideline showed better quality of reporting than journals without such instructions (mean 19.2 (SE 0.4) vs. mean 17.2 (SE 0.5); p = 0.001). Conclusion: There is room for improvement of the quality of reporting of SRs and MAs within the emergency medicine literature. Therefore, authors should use a reporting guideline such as the PRISMA statement. Active journal implementation, by requiring PRISMA endorsement, enhances quality of reporting.
