Conectar
To evaluate registered nurses' perceptions of whether the mandated use of the early warning system vital signs tool impacts the development of nurses' higher-order thinking skills.
A concurrent mixed methods study design.
Using an online survey, registered nurses' perceptions were elucidated on whether early warning system algorithmic tools affected the development of their higher-order thinking. Likert-type matrix questions with additional qualitative fields were used to obtain information on nurse's perceptions of the tool's usefulness, clinical confidence in using the tool, compliance with escalation protocols, work environment and perceived compliance barriers.
Most of the 305 (91%) participants included in the analysis had more than 5 years of nursing experience. Most nurses supported the early warning tool and were happy to comply with escalation protocols if the early warning score concurred with their assessment of the patient (63.6%). When the score and the nurse's higher-order thinking did not align, some had the confidence to override the escalation protocol (40.0%), while others omitted (69.4%) or inaccurately documented vital signs (63.3%) to achieve the desired score. Very few nurses (3.6%) believe using early warning tools did not impede the development of higher-order thinking.
Although experienced nurses appreciate the support of early warning tools, most value patient safety above the tools and rely on their higher-order thinking. The sustained development and use of nurses' higher-order thinking should be encouraged, possibly by adding a critical thinking criterion to existing algorithmic tools.
The study has implications for all nurses who utilize algorithmic tools, such as early warning systems, in their practice. Relying heavily on algorithmic tools risks impeding the development of higher-order thinking. Most experienced nurses prioritize their higher-order thinking in decision-making but believe early warning tools can impede higher-order thinking.
Registered nurses participated as survey respondents.
To identify specific facial expressions associated with pain behaviors using the PainChek application in residents with dementia.
This is a secondary analysis from a study exploring the feasibility of PainChek to evaluate the effectiveness of a social robot (PARO) intervention on pain for residents with dementia from June to November 2021.
Participants experienced PARO individually five days per week for 15 min (once or twice) per day for three consecutive weeks. The PainChek app assessed each resident's pain levels before and after each session. The association between nine facial expressions and the adjusted PainChek scores was analyzed using a linear mixed model.
A total of 1820 assessments were completed with 46 residents. Six facial expressions were significantly associated with a higher adjusted PainChek score. Horizontal mouth stretch showed the strongest association with the score, followed by brow lowering parting lips, wrinkling of the nose, raising of the upper lip and closing eyes. However, the presence of cheek raising, tightening of eyelids and pulling at the corner lip were not significantly associated with the score. Limitations of using the PainChek app were identified.
Six specific facial expressions were associated with observational pain scores in residents with dementia. Results indicate that automated real-time facial analysis is a promising approach to assessing pain in people with dementia. However, it requires further validation by human observers before it can be used for decision-making in clinical practice.
Pain is common in people with dementia, while assessing pain is challenging in this group. This study generated new evidence of facial expressions of pain in residents with dementia. Results will inform the development of valid artificial intelligence-based algorithms that will support healthcare professionals in identifying pain in people with dementia in clinical situations.
The study adheres to the CONSORT reporting guidelines.
One resident with dementia and two family members of people with dementia were consulted and involved in the study design, where they provided advice on the protocol, information sheets and consent forms, and offered valuable insights to ensure research quality and relevance.
Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number (ACTRN12621000837820).
FreshRSS 