Conectar
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).
This study aims to propose a self-management clusters classification method to determine the self-management ability of elderly patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) associated with diabetes mellitus (DM).
MCI associated with DM is a common chronic disease in old adults. Self-management affects the disease progression of patients to a large extent. However, the comorbidity and patients' self-management ability are heterogeneous.
A cross-sectional study based on cluster analysis is designed in this paper.
The study included 235 participants. The diabetes self-management scale is used to evaluate the self-management ability of patients. SPSS 21.0 was used to analyse the data, including descriptive statistics, agglomerative hierarchical clustering with Ward's method before k-means clustering, k-means clustering analysis, analysis of variance and chi-square test.
Three clusters of self-management styles were classified as follows: Disease neglect type, life oriented type and medical dependence type. Among all participants, the percentages of the three clusters above are 9.78%, 32.77% and 57.45%, respectively. The difference between the six dimensions of each cluster is statistically significant.
This study classified three groups of self-management styles, and each group has its own self-management characteristics. The characteristics of the three clusters may help to provide personalized self-management strategies and delay the disease progression of MCI associated with DM patients.
Typological methods can be used to discover the characteristics of patient clusters and provide personalized care to improve the efficiency of patient self-management to delay the progress of the disease.
In our study, we invited patients and members of the public to participate in the research survey and conducted data collection.
To explore the effectiveness of continuous home wound care on patients with diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs).
A non-randomized parallel controlled non-inferiority trial.
Patients with Wagner grade I–III DFUs hospitalized in two distant campuses of the same hospital were included. All patients received infection treatment and wound bed preparation during hospitalization; after discharge, patients in one of the campuses received routine outpatient wound care, and those treated in the other received continuous home wound care. The per-protocol analysis was performed to compare ulcer healing indicators, knowledge, health belief, self-management behaviour and medical expenses of the two groups.
Between October 2021 and December 2022, 116 patients were enrolled in the study; 107 completed. The home care was not inferior in terms of ulcer healing rate and demonstrated significant enhancements in the understanding of warning signs, health belief and self-management behaviour. Additionally, the home care saved 220.38 yuan (24.32 UK pounds) in direct medical expenses for each additional one square centimetre of ulcer healing.
The continuous home wound care enhanced self-management behaviour of the patients and saved their medical expenses while not compromising ulcer healing.
This is to date the first study to conduct continuous home wound care practice for patients with DFUs and confirmed its safety and non-inferiority in ulcer healing, and supported its superiority in improving self-management behaviour and saving medical expenses.
We have adhered to the transparent reporting of evaluations with nonrandomized designs statements and the corresponding checklist was followed.
The patients and their primary caregivers were involved in intervention design, we received input from them about the factors that facilitate and hinder patient self-management behaviours to develop intervention strategies.
To evaluate the impact of usual care plus a fundamental nursing care guideline compared to usual care only for patients in hospital with COVID-19 on patient experience, care quality, functional ability, treatment outcomes, nurses' moral distress, patient health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness.
Parallel two-arm, cluster-level randomized controlled trial.
Between 18th January and 20th December 2021, we recruited (i) adults aged 18 years and over with COVID-19, excluding those invasively ventilated, admitted for at least three days or nights in UK Hospital Trusts; (ii) nurses caring for them. We randomly assigned hospitals to use a fundamental nursing care guideline and usual care or usual care only. Our patient-reported co-primary outcomes were the Relational Aspects of Care Questionnaire and four scales from the Quality from the Patient Perspective Questionnaire. We undertook intention-to-treat analyses.
We randomized 15 clusters and recruited 581 patient and 418 nurse participants. Primary outcome data were available for 570–572 (98.1%–98.5%) patient participants in 14 clusters. We found no evidence of between-group differences on any patient, nurse or economic outcomes. We found between-group differences over time, in favour of the intervention, for three of our five co-primary outcomes, and a significant interaction on one primary patient outcome for ethnicity (white British vs. other) and allocated group in favour of the intervention for the ‘other’ ethnicity subgroup.
We did not detect an overall difference in patient experience for a fundamental nursing care guideline compared to usual care. We have indications the guideline may have aided sustaining good practice over time and had a more positive impact on non-white British patients' experience of care.
We cannot recommend the wholescale implementation of our guideline into routine nursing practice. Further intervention development, feasibility, pilot and evaluation studies are required.
Fundamental nursing care drives patient experience but is severely impacted in pandemics. Our guideline was not superior to usual care, albeit it may sustain good practice and have a positive impact on non-white British patients' experience of care.
CONSORT and CONSERVE.
Patients with experience of hospitalization with COVID-19 were involved in guideline development and writing, trial management and interpretation of findings.
The aim of this cross-sectional study was to determine the point prevalence and associated risk factors of medical device-related pressure injuries (MDRPI) in intensive care patients in Turkey.
MDRPI remain a clinical problem that has garnered the attention of healthcare professionals.
This study used a cross-sectional design and was conducted over a single day in all intensive care units.
Data were collected through face-to-face interviews, observation, skin examination and detailed diagnosis of MDRPI development and influencing factors. Presence of pressure injuries on the skin in the areas where the patient's medical device was placed was defined. The study was reported according to the STROBE declaration.
MDRPI developed in 65 out of 200 patients included in the study (32.5%). The most frequent locations were on the face (71%). The MDRPIs were commonly associated with nasogastric tube (29.2%), endotracheal tube (18.5%) and CPAP mask (15.4%). A significant proportion of these injuries were mucosal (53.8%, n = 35). The majority of the skin pressure injuries were classified as Stage II (18.5%, n = 12). The risk increased 14 times in patients who were hospitalised for 9–16 days and 13 times in those who received mechanical ventilator support.
The study findings suggest that MDRPI developed in approximately one of three patients hospitalised in the intensive care unit, and the length of hospital stay and mechanical ventilator support were important determining risk factors. The high prevalence of MDRPI may indicate inadequate nursing care quality. Therefore, it is recommended that nurses be aware of risk factors and evaluate the suitability and safety of medical devices.
No patient or public contribution was involved in this study.
FreshRSS 