Poster presentatie op conferentie Background: Assessments of functional communication skills of children with cerebral palsy (CP), classified with the Communication Function Classification System (CFCS), often differ between the child's school teacher and the speech language therapist (SLT). Assessment by the SLT is usually based on observations in a clinical setting, which may not be representative of the functional communication skills in daily life. This study evaluated the inter-rater agreement of the CFCS assessed by the school teacher and SLT before and after observation of a communicative situation in the classroom. Methods: Functional communication of 35 children with CP (4 to 18 years; 26 with Alternative and Augmentative Communication, AAC) was classified by the own SLT and teacher using the CFCS. SLT's performed two assessments: the first without additional instructions and the second after observation of the child during a communicative situation in the classroom. For both assessments of the SLT inter-rater agreement on CFCS-level between SLT and teacher was determined using Cohen's weighted kappa statistics. Results: For the whole group, inter-rater reliability was 0.6 before observation in de classroom and 0.7 after observation. In the group without AAC weighted K was 0.67 for both assessments. In the group with AAC weighted K increased from 0.2 to 0.61. Interpretation The increased inter-rater agreement of CFCS classification between teacher and SLT after observation in the classroom, especially for children with AAC, emphasizes the need for professionals to base their CFCS assessment on observation of functional communication in everyday situations.
MULTIFILE
I was somewhat surprized with the fog in Groningen upon my arrival. This is notthe fog that covers the beautiful landscapes of the northern Netherlands in theevening and in the early morning. No… It is the fog that obscures the real aspectsof the earthquake problem in the region and is crystallised in the phrase “Groningen earthquakes are different”, which I have encountered numerous times whenever I raised a question of the type “But why..?”. A sentence taken out of the quiver as the absolute technical argument which mysteriously overshadows the whole earthquake discussion.Q: Why do we not use Eurocode 8 for seismic design, instead of NPR?A: Because the Groningen earthquakes are different!Q: Why do we not monitor our structures like the rest of the world does?A: Because the Groningen earthquakes are different!Q: Why does NPR, the Dutch seismic guidelines, dictate some unusual rules?A: Because the Groningen earthquakes are different!Q: Why are the hazard levels incredibly high, even higher than most Europeanseismic countries?A: Because the Groningen earthquakes are different!and so it keeps going…This statement is very common, but on the contrary, I have not seen a single piece of research that proves it or even discusses it. In essence, it would be a difficult task to prove that the Groningen earthquakes are different. In any case it barricades a healthy technical discussion because most of the times the arguments converge to one single statement, independent of the content of the discussion. This is the reason why our first research activities were dedicated to study if the Groningen earthquakes are really different. Up until today, we have not found any major differences between the Groningen induced seismicity events and natural seismic events with similar conditions (magnitude, distance, depth, soil etc…) that would affect the structures significantly in a different way.Since my arrival in Groningen, I have been amazed to learn how differently theearthquake issue has been treated in this part of the world. There will always bedifferences among different cultures, that is understandable. I have been exposed to several earthquake engineers from different countries, and I can expect a natural variation in opinions, approaches and definitions. But the feeling in Groningen is different. I soon realized that, due to several factors, a parallel path, which I call “an augmented reality” below, was created. What I mean by an augmented reality is a view of the real-world, whose elements are augmented and modified. In our example, I refer to the engineering concepts used for solving the earthquake problem, but in an augmented and modified way. This augmented reality is covered in the fog I described above. The whole thing is made so complicated that one is often tempted to rewind the tape to the hot August days of 2012, right after the Huizinge Earthquake, and replay it to today but this time by making the correct steps. We would wake up to a different Groningen today. I was instructed to keep the text as well as the inauguration speech as simple aspossible, and preferably, as non-technical as it goes. I thus listed the most common myths and fallacies I have faced since I arrived in Groningen. In this book and in the presentation, I may seem to take a critical view. This is because I try to tell a different part of the story, without repeating things that have already been said several times before. I think this is the very reason why my research group would like to make an effort in helping to solve the problem by providing different views. This book is one of such efforts.The quote given at the beginning of this book reads “How quick are we to learn: that is, to imitate what others have done or thought before. And how slow are we to understand: that is, to see the deeper connections.” is from Frits Zernike, the Nobel winning professor from the University of Groningen, who gave his name to the campus I work at. Applying this quotation to our problem would mean that we should learn from the seismic countries by imitating them, by using the existing state-of-the-art earthquake engineering knowledge, and by forgetting the dogma of “the Groningen earthquakes are different” at least for a while. We should then pass to the next level of looking deeperinto the Groningen earthquake problem for a better understanding, and alsodiscover the potential differences.
Veel ouderen ervaren tijdens en na ziekenhuisopname functieverlies. ‘Function Focused Care in Hospital’, ook wel bekend als bewegingsgerichte zorg, is een interventie gericht op het voorkomen en verminderen van functieverlies bij ouderen tijdens een ziekenhuisopname. Verpleegkundigen moedigen patiënten aan tot actieve betrokkenheid in de dagelijkse zorgmomenten.Doel Doel van dit project is de effectiviteit bepalen van Function Focused Care in Hospital op het fysiek functioneren van patiënten die opgenomen zijn in de Nederlandse ziekenhuizen. Resultaten Nederlandstalig scholingsprogramma en handboek van de Function Focused Care in Hospital-benadering voor de ziekenhuissetting; Een evaluatie van het proces en de uitkomsten van de Function Focused Care-benadering. Looptijd 01 november 2020 - 31 oktober 2025 Aanpak Er is een haalbaarheidsstudie uitgevoerd, die uitwees dat de interventie geschikt is voor de Nederlandse praktijk. Op de neurologische en geriatrische afdelingen van drie ziekenhuizen is Function Focused Care in Hospital in de dagelijkse zorg geïmplementeerd en geëvalueerd op effectiviteit. Over de interventie Function Focused Care (FFC) is een zorgbenadering waarin verpleegkundigen patiënten actief betrekken bij alle zorgmomenten om hun fysiek functioneren te optimaliseren. Eerder onderzoek heeft laten zien dat FFC een positief effect heeft op fysieke activiteit, mobiliteit en ADL bij ouderen in de wijk en de langdurige zorg. Ook laten studies in de acute zorg belovende resultaten zien van FFC op fysieke activiteit en mobiliteit bij ouderen opgenomen in het ziekenhuis. Voorbeelden van zorg volgens de FFC-benadering zijn met de patiënt naar de badkamer lopen in plaats van wassen op bed, of de maaltijd aan tafel nuttigen in plaats van zittend in bed eten. De essentie van FFC is het behouden of, indien mogelijk, verbeteren van het fysieke functioneren. Tijdens de hele ziekenhuisopname wordt de patiënt aangemoedigd meer tijd te laten besteden aan fysieke activiteit op een op de patiënt aangepast niveau. Co-financiering Het project wordt mede gefinancierd door ZonMW, projectnummer 520002003.
Op basis van kunstwetenschappelijke methode ontwikkelen van scenario’s voor hoe, in verpleeghuizen voor mensenmet dementie, om te gaan met een versoepeling van de lock down en met de situatie na de lock down.
De vraag: ‘Zal kunstmatige intelligentie (AI) mijn werk vervangen?’ is steeds vaker te horen, specifiek ook onder artsen in ziekenhuizen. AI wordt tegenwoordig ingezet voor allerlei doeleinden in de zorg, variërend van diagnoses stellen tot opereren. De belofte is dat AI de zorg efficiënter en nauwkeuriger maakt, maar er heerst ook onzekerheid onder artsen over de impact op hun werk. Om de vaak gestelde vraag te kunnen beantwoorden of en hoe AI het werk van de arts vervangt, is inzicht nodig in wat dat werk precies inhoudt. Daarvoor introduceren we het woord ‘vakmanschap’. Vakmanschap staat voor bekwaamheid in een vak. We onderzoeken hoe AI het vakmanschap van de arts beïnvloedt en houden rekening met diverse medische specialismen en typen AI. Vervolgens maken we de vertaalslag naar hoe impact van AI op vakmanschap mee te nemen in een verantwoord ontwerp- en implementatieproces van AI. Ons consortium vertegenwoordigt de stem van de arts in ziekenhuizen, het perspectief rondom ‘vakmanschap’ en een veranderende arbeidsmarkt, het perspectief van de AI-ontwikkelaar, de methodische kennis rondom de KEM Ethiek & Verantwoordelijkheid en het mensgericht ontwerpen perspectief. Uiteindelijk beogen we zorg duurzaam te kunnen verlenen met een optimale interactie tussen arts en AI.
