| Literature DB >> 35588363 |
Jo McDonall1, Bernice Redley1,2, Patricia Livingston1, Ana Hutchinson1,3, Richard de Steiger4,5, Mari Botti1,3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Advances in digital technology and the use of multimedia platforms to deliver information provide clinicians with a unique opportunity to develop innovative ways to consistently provide high-quality, accessible, and evidence-based information to support patient participation. Introducing new technologies into everyday acute care clinical practice can be difficult.Entities:
Keywords: acute care; digital technology; knee arthroplasty; multimedia; nurse; nurse-facilitated; orthopedic surgery; participatory medicine; patient participation
Year: 2022 PMID: 35588363 PMCID: PMC9164095 DOI: 10.2196/36959
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JMIR Hum Factors ISSN: 2292-9495
Figure 1MyStay Total Knee Replacement landing page examples.
Figure 3MyStay day 3 after surgery My Activity page.
Methods and data collection across 3 stages of the MyStay Total Knee Replacement (MyStay TKR) trial implementation.
| Trial phase | Implementation strategies used | Evaluation methods | |
| Phase 1: preimplementation (nurses) |
Purposive group interview Ward meetings and in-service education Flyers and handouts Email correspondence | Analysis of interview and meeting data | |
| Phase 2: implementation (nurses and patients) |
Daily ward visits (intervention and control wards) Daily field observations One-to-one and ward meetings Handouts and flyers Correspondence through patients’ bedside whiteboards | Analysis of meeting notes and observation field notes using qualitative content analysis | |
|
| |||
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
Observations of clinical practice and incidental staff feedback | Analysis of field notes |
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
Uptake and use of the MyStay TKR intervention by patients Patient self-reported questionnaires | Analysis of interview data and descriptive statistics using SPSS software (version 23; IBM Corp) |
Application of the intervention procedure.
| Key process | Procedure |
| Identification of patients enrolled in the trial |
At the beginning of each day shift, nurse unit managers, and associate nurse unit managers were informed of the following: The researcher presence on the ward A list of patients enrolled in the trial on their ward identifying the “day” after surgery The exact number of iPads required per ward per day and ensure that they were charged and ready for use |
| Application of intervention procedure |
Identify the nurse responsible for the care of patient participants Confirm with the nurse that the patient is enrolled in the study and will need to view the iPad animation Identify day 1 patients and provide and secure the iPad and explain how to use the device and navigate the program Patients instructed to watch the animation on the iPad and call their nurse once they have finished to discuss the content The nurse will confirm and clarify any questions the patients may have regarding the information The iPads remain with the patient for the duration of their stay Laminated flyer attached to the patients’ medical record and note on the individual patients’ communication board were used to remind clinical staff that the patient was in the study Patients’ nurses are responsible for ensuring that the iPad is charged overnight Telephone call to the wards nightly at 10 to remind them to charge the iPads |
| Strategies used throughout the trial to maintain engagement by nursing staff |
One-to-one discussions among ward nurses, physiotherapists, surgeons, and the nurse researcher Telephone calls to associate nurse unit managers on afternoon shifts at 8 PM each day to ask that they remind staff to charge the iPads overnight Regular attendance at ward meetings by the nurse researcher where questions could be answered and strategies discussed to assist with the implementation Laminated cards were placed in patient notes, and a sign was placed on the whiteboard above the patient bed area Patients themselves reminded staff to attend to the iPad; for example, to plug in the iPad for charging overnight |
Perceived barriers to implementation and strategies used to address these barriers.
| Barrier or concerns identified by nurses | Illustrative quote | Strategies used to address concerns or barriers |
| Potential burden of introducing the intervention for nursing staff |
“Can you guarantee this [iPad intervention] will not increase our already busy workload? I mean, if we have to spend time going through this iPad [intervention] then it’s going to make it harder for us isn’t it...I mean, we just don’t have the time.” [Nurse ID 2] “I don’t know, I think there’s a lot going on in the morning...we [the nurses] are busy and flat out. First thing it is probably easier if someone else does it [goes through the program with the patient] and not leave it up to the nurses?” [Nurse ID 1] |
Implementation of the intervention on day 1 of patients’ recovery was carried out by the researcher to ensure that patients could use the iPad and navigate the program Patients who were classified as postoperative day 1 received an explanation of the iPad and navigation after handover and before breakfast, at approximately 8 AM each day |
| The age of patients and ease of use of technology |
“With the older patients we may have to teach them how to use the iPad [intervention] or they may not be able to use it at all. Do you think this is very realistic, I mean for them to use it?” [Nurse ID 3] “Yes, some of them have other comorbidities, you know, such as arthritis, it may be harder for them...we will have to push it for them? If that’s the case, I don’t think we will have the time.” [Nurse ID 4] “I don’t think it should be an issue, my grandparents have one and they use it ok.” [Nurse ID 1] |
A flyer to assist patients to navigate the program themselves was provided to all patients Once patients were familiar with the iPad the nurses felt that they were able to focus on the content of the program |
| Security and safety of the equipment and infection control |
“So where are you going to put it [iPad intervention]? You don’t want it to get in the way. There’s not much room anyway with all their [patients] stuff. Perhaps it could be put on the bedside tables so we can get it out of the way if we need to?...What about keeping it clean, what do you think?...Have you thought about the cross contamination?” [Nurse ID 1] “Yes, you have to make sure it doesn’t walk either...if it’s not secure, things walk here, how will you make sure it stays with the patient? And what about if it gets dropped they are very sensitive these iPads...what will happen there...do you have lots of replacements?” [Nurse ID 3] |
To address security concerns, the iPad was secured to each patient’s movable bedside table with a locked cable Each iPad was secured inside a locked tough case that was drop-, smash-, and splash-proof The infection control nurse approved the cleaning protocol for each iPad before transfer to another patient. Wiping the iPad and all associated material (cords, case, etc) with an alcohol-impregnated cloth was approved as sufficient cleaning between patients Cleaning occurred on collection of the iPad when a participating patient was discharged from hospital |
Patient participant baseline characteristics (N=104).
| Characteristics | Values | |
| Age (years), mean (SD) | 65.25 (9.77) | |
|
| ||
|
| Male | 40 (38.5) |
|
| Female | 64 (61.5) |
|
| ||
|
| Living communally | 88 (84.6) |
|
| Living alone | 16 (15.4) |
|
| ||
|
| Partnered | 84 (80.8) |
|
| Not partnered | 10 (9.6) |
|
| Widowed | 10 (9.6) |
|
| ||
|
| Australia | 76 (73.1) |
|
| United Kingdom | 11 (10.6) |
|
| Other | 8 (7.7) |
|
| Europe | 6 (5.8) |
|
| Asia | 2 (1.9) |
|
| New Zealand | 1 (0.9) |
|
| ||
|
| English | 102 (98) |
|
| Italian | 1 (0.9) |
|
| Other | 1 (0.9) |
|
| ||
|
| Retired | 52 (50) |
|
| Full time | 24 (23.1) |
|
| Part time or casual | 16 (15.4) |
|
| Unemployed | 7 (6.7) |
|
| Other | 5 (4.8) |
Patients’ reasons for not viewing the program on the iPad as often as they wanted (some patients indicated multiple reasons; N=39, 38%).
| Reason stated for not viewing the program as often as wanted | Values, n (%) |
| Too tired (including visitors) | 12 (36) |
| Too unwell (predominately nausea) | 12 (36) |
| iPad did not work properly when I had the opportunity to watch (battery flat) | 11 (33) |
| No time, (patient) too busy | 7 (21) |
| Pain too severe | 6 (18) |
| iPad not available when I had the opportunity (not in reach) | 4 (12) |
| Forgot about watching it | 4 (12) |
| Did not understand the content | 2 (6) |