Choosing the right patient transfer assistive device: Application of confidence ellipse quadrant analysis for decision-making

IF 2.5 2区 工程技术 Q2 ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL
Mitchelle J.J. Law , Jeevinthiran Karunagaran , Nur Shuhaidatul Sarmiza Abdul Halim , Mohamad Ikhwan Zaini Ridzwan , Kim Sooi Law , Intan Juliana Abd Hamid , Ping Yi Chan , Zaidi Mohd Ripin
{"title":"Choosing the right patient transfer assistive device: Application of confidence ellipse quadrant analysis for decision-making","authors":"Mitchelle J.J. Law ,&nbsp;Jeevinthiran Karunagaran ,&nbsp;Nur Shuhaidatul Sarmiza Abdul Halim ,&nbsp;Mohamad Ikhwan Zaini Ridzwan ,&nbsp;Kim Sooi Law ,&nbsp;Intan Juliana Abd Hamid ,&nbsp;Ping Yi Chan ,&nbsp;Zaidi Mohd Ripin","doi":"10.1016/j.ergon.2024.103628","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Adopting patient transfer assistive devices in healthcare is challenging, and poor decision-making can lead to low adoption. This study aims to demonstrate a technique of the decision-making process of selection of patient transfer assistive devices based on work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) risk, nurses’ instantaneous emotions, and perceptions.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A case study based on four different patient transfer assistive devices is used to demonstrate this technique. Seven nurses were recruited. Three confidence ellipse graphs were plotted: the intention of the use scores vs (1) National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index (NASA-TLX) overall scores, (2) Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA) scores, and (3) valence scores of the nurses.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>When a large ellipse is represented by an intervention, it suggests poor agreement among users regarding the intervention, whereas a small ellipse indicates a strong consensus. The upper left quadrant, where the intention of use is high and REBA, NASA-TLX, and valence scores are low, is the most optimal location for selecting a device. In the case study, the motorised transfer was identified as the best device as the datasets were located there.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Using this tool allows for the objective selection of patient transfer assistive devices, which can then be communicated to all stakeholders involved. Additionally, the tool helps to identify areas for improvement within each intervention.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50317,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics","volume":"103 ","pages":"Article 103628"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169814124000842","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Adopting patient transfer assistive devices in healthcare is challenging, and poor decision-making can lead to low adoption. This study aims to demonstrate a technique of the decision-making process of selection of patient transfer assistive devices based on work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) risk, nurses’ instantaneous emotions, and perceptions.

Methods

A case study based on four different patient transfer assistive devices is used to demonstrate this technique. Seven nurses were recruited. Three confidence ellipse graphs were plotted: the intention of the use scores vs (1) National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index (NASA-TLX) overall scores, (2) Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA) scores, and (3) valence scores of the nurses.

Results

When a large ellipse is represented by an intervention, it suggests poor agreement among users regarding the intervention, whereas a small ellipse indicates a strong consensus. The upper left quadrant, where the intention of use is high and REBA, NASA-TLX, and valence scores are low, is the most optimal location for selecting a device. In the case study, the motorised transfer was identified as the best device as the datasets were located there.

Conclusions

Using this tool allows for the objective selection of patient transfer assistive devices, which can then be communicated to all stakeholders involved. Additionally, the tool helps to identify areas for improvement within each intervention.

选择合适的病人转移辅助设备:应用置信椭圆象限分析进行决策
背景在医疗保健领域采用病人转运辅助设备具有挑战性,决策失误会导致设备采用率低。本研究旨在展示一种基于与工作相关的肌肉骨骼疾病(WMSDs)风险、护士的即时情绪和感知来选择病人转移辅助设备的决策过程的技术。招募了七名护士。绘制了三个置信椭圆图:使用意向得分与(1)美国国家航空航天局任务负荷指数(NASA-TLX)总分;(2)快速全身评估(REBA)得分;(3)护士的情绪得分。在左上象限,使用意向高,REBA、NASA-TLX 和valence 分数低,是选择设备的最佳位置。在案例研究中,电动转运装置被确定为最佳装置,因为数据集位于该处。结论使用该工具可以客观地选择病人转运辅助装置,然后将其传达给所有相关人员。此外,该工具还有助于确定每项干预措施中需要改进的地方。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 工程技术-工程:工业
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
12.90%
发文量
110
审稿时长
56 days
期刊介绍: The journal publishes original contributions that add to our understanding of the role of humans in today systems and the interactions thereof with various system components. The journal typically covers the following areas: industrial and occupational ergonomics, design of systems, tools and equipment, human performance measurement and modeling, human productivity, humans in technologically complex systems, and safety. The focus of the articles includes basic theoretical advances, applications, case studies, new methodologies and procedures; and empirical studies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信