Charlotte Raepsaet1,2,3,4, Brecht Serraes1,2,3,4, Sofie Verhaeghe1,2,3,4, Dimitri Beeckman1,2,3,4. 1. Charlotte Raepsaet, Skin Integrity Research Group, University Centre for Nursing and Midwifery, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium. 2. Brecht Serraes, Skin Integrity Research Group, University Centre for Nursing and Midwifery, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium. 3. Sofie Verhaeghe, Professor, University Centre for Nursing and Midwifery, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium; Department of Nursing, VIVES University College, West Flanders, Belgium; Faculty of Medicine and Life Sciences, Hasselt University, Hasselt, Belgium. 4. Dimitri Beeckman, Professor Skin Integrity Research Group, University Centre for Nursing and Midwifery, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium; Swedish Centre for Skin and Wound Research, School of Health Sciences, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden; Research Unit of Plastic Surgery, Department of Clinical Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, Odense, Denmark.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to define the user profile, (technical) criteria, conditions, and potential benefits of the integration of sensor technology in disposable body-worn incontinence materials. DESIGN: Qualitative study using a framework method. SUBJECT AND SETTING: The sample included residents with incontinence, nurses, and decision-makers in a selection of Flemish nursing homes (Belgium). METHODS: Semistructured interviews were performed between June and August 2020. The interviews with nurses included open-ended questions focusing on the user profile, (technical) criteria, conditions, and potential benefits of the integration of sensor technology in disposable body-worn incontinence materials. The interviews with decision-makers were supplemented with questions about purchase cost and other economic criteria (such as reimbursement). Interviews with residents included questions about wearing comfort. Interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analyzed using a framework method. RESULTS: The user profile was defined as (1) residents with cognitive impairment and (2) residents who are bedridden or are severely limited in mobility. The following (technical) criteria emerged from the analyses: a small, thin, and oval/circular sensor, an adaptable or in front attachment of the sensor on the absorbent product, a real-time indication of the absorbent product's saturation, leakage detection, liquid stool detection, the automatic recording of incontinence-related data, a durable sensor easy to disinfect, and receiving notifications on a wearable device. Conditions included a stable connection between the wearable device and the sensor, accurate measurements, user-friendly system, comprehensible training, affordability, and data protection. Potential benefits included workload reduction, increased comfort for residents and staff, more person-centered care, increased quality of care, less skin damage and economic (eg, less costs due to less excessive absorbent product changes), and/or environmental (e.g. less waste) gains. CONCLUSION: Study findings identified the user profile, (technical) criteria, conditions, and potential benefits of the integration of sensor technology in disposable body-worn incontinence materials. Respondents reported problems with changing routines and skepticism about the sensor's accuracy. Based on findings from this study, we recommend involving representatives of all relevant stakeholders in the design of sensor technology to ensure users' needs and increase the use of sensor technology. Comprehensive education is recommended to inform nurses, residents, and their family members on the importance and benefits of the technology and to aid overcoming barriers to use (skepticism, resistance to new technologies, and changing care routines). Study findings also indicate that the sensor technology cannot replace the existing voiding programs; rather it should be an addition to routine continence care.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to define the user profile, (technical) criteria, conditions, and potential benefits of the integration of sensor technology in disposable body-worn incontinence materials. DESIGN: Qualitative study using a framework method. SUBJECT AND SETTING: The sample included residents with incontinence, nurses, and decision-makers in a selection of Flemish nursing homes (Belgium). METHODS: Semistructured interviews were performed between June and August 2020. The interviews with nurses included open-ended questions focusing on the user profile, (technical) criteria, conditions, and potential benefits of the integration of sensor technology in disposable body-worn incontinence materials. The interviews with decision-makers were supplemented with questions about purchase cost and other economic criteria (such as reimbursement). Interviews with residents included questions about wearing comfort. Interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analyzed using a framework method. RESULTS: The user profile was defined as (1) residents with cognitive impairment and (2) residents who are bedridden or are severely limited in mobility. The following (technical) criteria emerged from the analyses: a small, thin, and oval/circular sensor, an adaptable or in front attachment of the sensor on the absorbent product, a real-time indication of the absorbent product's saturation, leakage detection, liquid stool detection, the automatic recording of incontinence-related data, a durable sensor easy to disinfect, and receiving notifications on a wearable device. Conditions included a stable connection between the wearable device and the sensor, accurate measurements, user-friendly system, comprehensible training, affordability, and data protection. Potential benefits included workload reduction, increased comfort for residents and staff, more person-centered care, increased quality of care, less skin damage and economic (eg, less costs due to less excessive absorbent product changes), and/or environmental (e.g. less waste) gains. CONCLUSION: Study findings identified the user profile, (technical) criteria, conditions, and potential benefits of the integration of sensor technology in disposable body-worn incontinence materials. Respondents reported problems with changing routines and skepticism about the sensor's accuracy. Based on findings from this study, we recommend involving representatives of all relevant stakeholders in the design of sensor technology to ensure users' needs and increase the use of sensor technology. Comprehensive education is recommended to inform nurses, residents, and their family members on the importance and benefits of the technology and to aid overcoming barriers to use (skepticism, resistance to new technologies, and changing care routines). Study findings also indicate that the sensor technology cannot replace the existing voiding programs; rather it should be an addition to routine continence care.