Literature DB >> 26250757

Trainee Occupational Therapists Scoring the Barthel ADL.

Elizabeth Martin1, Chris Nugent, Raymond Bond, Suzanne Martin.   

Abstract

Within medical applications there are two main types of information design; paper-based and digital information [1]. As technology is constantly changing, information within healthcare management and delivery is continually being transitioned from traditional paper documents to digital and online resources. Activity of Daily Living (ADL) charts are still predominantly paper based and are therefore prone to "human error" [2]. In light of this, an investigation has taken place into the design for reducing the amount of human error, between a paper based ADL, specifically the Barthel Index, and the same ADL created digitally. The digital ADL was developed as an online platform as this offers the best method of data capture for a large group of participants all together [3]. The aim of the study was to evaluate the usability of the Barthel Index ADL in paper format and then reproduce the same ADL digitally. This paper presents the findings of a study involving 26 participants who were familiar with ADL charts, and used three scenarios requiring them to complete both a paper ADL and a digital ADL. An evaluation was undertaken to ascertain if there were any 'human errors' in completing the paper ADL and also to find similarities/differences through using the digital ADL. The results from the study indicated that 22/26 participants agreed that the digital ADL was better, if not the same as a paper based ADL. Further results indicated that participants rate highly the added benefit of the digital ADL being easy to use and also that calculation of assessment scores were performed automatically. Statistically the digital BI offered a 100 % correction rate in the total calculation, in comparison to the paper based BI where it is more common for users to make mathematical calculation errors. Therefore in order to minimise handwriting and calculation errors, the digital BI proved superior than the traditional paper based method.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26250757     DOI: 10.1007/s10916-015-0293-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Syst        ISSN: 0148-5598            Impact factor:   4.460


  11 in total

1.  ECGSIM: an interactive tool for studying the genesis of QRST waveforms.

Authors:  A van Oosterom; T F Oostendorp
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 5.994

2.  FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION: THE BARTHEL INDEX.

Authors:  F I MAHONEY; D W BARTHEL
Journal:  Md State Med J       Date:  1965-02

3.  The Barthel Index: comparing inter-rater reliability between nurses and doctors in an older adult rehabilitation unit.

Authors:  Irene Hartigan; Denis O'Mahony
Journal:  Appl Nurs Res       Date:  2010-01-15       Impact factor: 2.257

4.  A simulation tool for visualizing and studying the effects of electrode misplacement on the 12-lead electrocardiogram.

Authors:  Raymond R Bond; Dewar D Finlay; Chris D Nugent; George Moore; Daniel Guldenring
Journal:  J Electrocardiol       Date:  2011 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.438

Review 5.  Barthel index for stroke trials: development, properties, and application.

Authors:  Terence J Quinn; Peter Langhorne; David J Stott
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2011-03-03       Impact factor: 7.914

6.  The pathophysiology of medication errors: how and where they arise.

Authors:  Sarah E McDowell; Harriet S Ferner; Robin E Ferner
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 4.335

Review 7.  The Barthel ADL Index: a standard measure of physical disability?

Authors:  D T Wade; C Collin
Journal:  Int Disabil Stud       Date:  1988

8.  The measuring, meaning and importance of activities of daily living (ADLs) as an outcome.

Authors:  Kenneth Rockwood
Journal:  Int Psychogeriatr       Date:  2007-03-15       Impact factor: 3.878

9.  Errors in a busy emergency department.

Authors:  James Fordyce; Fidela S j Blank; Penelope Pekow; Howard A Smithline; George Ritter; Stephen Gehlbach; Evan Benjamin; Philip L Henneman
Journal:  Ann Emerg Med       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 5.721

10.  Measuring change in disability after inpatient rehabilitation: comparison of the responsiveness of the Barthel index and the Functional Independence Measure.

Authors:  J J van der Putten; J C Hobart; J A Freeman; A J Thompson
Journal:  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 10.154

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.