A Quantitative Approach to Defining “High-Touch” Surfaces in Hospitals

2010 ◽  
Vol 31 (8) ◽  
pp. 850-853 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirk Huslage ◽  
William A. Rutala ◽  
Emily Sickbert-Bennett ◽  
David J. Weber
Keyword(s):  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Quantitative Approach ◽  
Frequency Of Contact ◽  
Definition Of

Fifty interactions between healthcare workers and patients were observed to obtain a quantifiable definition of “high-touch” (ie, frequently touched) surfaces based on frequency of contact. Five surfaces were defined as high-touch surfaces: the bed rails, the bed surface, the supply cart, the over-bed table, and the intravenous pump.

scholarly journals Market Power Extended: From Foucault to Meadows

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. 2843 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katharina Biely ◽  
Dries Maes ◽  
Steven Van Passel
Keyword(s):  
Market Power ◽  
Systems Thinking ◽  
Quantitative Approach ◽  
Dynamic Character ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Quantitative Indicators ◽  
Complex Matter ◽  
Instrumental View

Market power is a complex matter that is approximated with quantitative indicators within economics. However, these indicators may not fully capture market power, or they may fail to identify it, although it may be present. Moreover, a quantitative approach restricts market power as a concept, impeding the ability to discuss its relationship with other concepts, such as sustainability. This paper extends the definition of market power, following Foucault’s understanding of power and the associated theoretical discussions of power from different disciplines. We extended Foucault’s work by including systems thinking to capture the importance of the prevalent system’s paradigm, which is the ultimate initiator of action. Apart from distinguishing different elements of power, we also integrate an instrumental view on the elements of power. The developed frame allows us to understand the dynamic character of power as a force that strives to maintain or ameliorate the position of the paradigm that it serves. Based on this frame, we outline how this extended understanding of power can be used to analyze market power itself, and its relation with sustainability.

The face in marfan syndrome: A 3D quantitative approach for a better definition of dysmorphic features

2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 380-386 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudia Dolci ◽  
Valentina Pucciarelli ◽  
Daniele M. Gibelli ◽  
Marina Codari ◽  
Susan Marelli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Marfan Syndrome ◽  
Quantitative Approach ◽  
Dysmorphic Features ◽  
The Face ◽  
Definition Of

scholarly journals Defining clinical empathy: a grounded theory approach from the perspective of healthcare workers and patients in a multicultural setting

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. e045224
Author(s):  
Laurence Tan ◽  
Mai Khanh Le ◽  
Chou Chuen Yu ◽  
Sok Ying Liaw ◽  
Tanya Tierney ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Grounded Theory ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Allied Health ◽  
Cognitive Empathy ◽  
Theory Approach ◽  
Clinical Empathy ◽  
Emotional Detachment ◽  
Multicultural Setting ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Grounded Theory Approach

ObjectiveTo define clinical empathy from the perspective of healthcare workers and patients from a multicultural setting.DesignGrounded theory approach using focus group discussions.SettingA health cluster in Singapore consisting of an acute hospital, a community hospital, ambulatory care teams, a medical school and a nursing school.Participants69 participants including doctors, nurses, medical students, nursing students, patients and allied health workers.Main outcome measuresA robust definition of clinical empathy.ResultsThe construct of clinical empathy is consistent across doctors, nurses, students, allied health and students. Medical empathy consists of an inner sense of empathy (imaginative, affective and cognitive), empathy behaviour (genuine concern and empathic communication) and a sense of connection (trust and rapport). This construct of clinical empathy is similar to definitions by neuroscientists but challenges a common definition of clinical empathy as a cognitive process with emotional detachment.ConclusionsThis paper has defined clinical empathy as ‘a sense of connection between the healthcare worker and the patient as a result of perspective taking arising from imaginative, affective and cognitive processes, which are expressed through behaviours and good communication skills that convey genuine concern’. A clear and multidimensional definition of clinical empathy will improve future education and research efforts in the application and impact of clinical empathy.

scholarly journals healthcareCOVID: a national cross-sectional observational study identifying risk factors for developing suspected or confirmed COVID-19 in UK healthcare workers

PeerJ ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. e10891
Author(s):  
Justin Kua ◽  
Reshma Patel ◽  
Eveliina Nurmi ◽  
Sarah Tian ◽  
Harpreet Gill ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Observational Study ◽  
Public Transportation ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Composite Endpoint ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Primary Composite Endpoint ◽  
Frequency Of Contact ◽  
Regular Contact

Objective To establish the prevalence, risk factors and implications of suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection among healthcare workers in the United Kingdom (UK). Design Cross-sectional observational study. Setting UK-based primary and secondary care. Participants Healthcare workers aged ≥18 years working between 1 February and 25 May 2020. Main outcome measures A composite endpoint of laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, or self-isolation or hospitalisation due to suspected or confirmed COVID-19. Results Of 6,152 eligible responses, the composite endpoint was present in 1,806 (29.4%) healthcare workers, of whom 49 (0.8%) were hospitalised, 459 (7.5%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, and 1,776 (28.9%) reported self-isolation. Overall, between 11,870 and 21,158 days of self-isolation were required by the cohort, equalling approximately 71 to 127 working days lost per 1,000 working days. The strongest risk factor associated with the presence of the primary composite endpoint was increasing frequency of contact with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases without adequate personal protective equipment (PPE): ‘Never’ (reference), ‘Rarely’ (adjusted odds ratio 1.06, (95% confidence interval: [0.87–1.29])), ‘Sometimes’ (1.7 [1.37–2.10]), ‘Often’ (1.84 [1.28–2.63]), ‘Always’ (2.93, [1.75–5.06]). Additionally, several comorbidities (cancer, respiratory disease, and obesity); working in a ‘doctors’ role; using public transportation for work; regular contact with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients; and lack of PPE were also associated with the presence of the primary endpoint. A total of 1,382 (22.5%) healthcare workers reported lacking access to PPE items while having clinical contact with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases. Conclusions Suspected or confirmed COVID-19 was more common in healthcare workers than in the general population and is associated with significant workforce implications. Risk factors included inadequate PPE, which was reported by nearly a quarter of healthcare workers. Governments and policymakers must ensure adequate PPE is available as well as developing strategies to mitigate risk for high-risk healthcare workers during future COVID-19 waves.

scholarly journals Mental health and well-being of healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: contrasting guidelines with experiences in practice

BJPsych Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Norha Vera San Juan ◽  
David Aceituno ◽  
Nehla Djellouli ◽  
Kirsi Sumray ◽  
Nina Regenold ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
Front Line ◽  
Contextual Characteristics ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Uk

Background Substantial evidence has highlighted the importance of considering the mental health of healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic, and several organisations have issued guidelines with recommendations. However, the definition of well-being and the evidence base behind such guidelines remain unclear. Aims The aims of the study are to assess the applicability of well-being guidelines in practice, identify unaddressed healthcare workers’ needs and provide recommendations for supporting front-line staff during the current and future pandemics. Method This paper discusses the findings of a qualitative study based on interviews with front-line healthcare workers in the UK (n = 33), and examines them in relation to a rapid review of well-being guidelines developed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic (n = 14). Results The guidelines placed greater emphasis on individual mental health and psychological support, whereas healthcare workers placed greater emphasis on structural conditions at work, responsibilities outside the hospital and the invaluable support of the community. The well-being support interventions proposed in the guidelines did not always respond to the lived experiences of staff, as some reported not being able to participate in these interventions because of understaffing, exhaustion or clashing schedules. Conclusions Healthcare workers expressed well-being needs that aligned with socio-ecological conceptualisations of well-being related to quality of life. This approach to well-being has been highlighted in literature on support of healthcare workers in previous health emergencies, but it has not been monitored during this pandemic. Well-being guidelines should explore the needs of healthcare workers, and contextual characteristics affecting the implementation of recommendations.

scholarly journals healthcareCOVID: A national cross-sectional observational study identifying risk factors for developing suspected or confirmed COVID-19 in UK healthcare workers

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin Kua ◽  
Reshma Patel ◽  
Eveliina Nurmi ◽  
Sarah Tian ◽  
Harpreet Gill ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Observational Study ◽  
Public Transportation ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Composite Endpoint ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Frequency Of Contact ◽  
Regular Contact ◽  
Study Setting

Objective To establish the prevalence and risk factors for the development of suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection among healthcare workers (HCWs) in the United Kingdom (UK). Design Cross-sectional observational study. Setting UK-based primary and secondary care. Participants HCWs aged ≥18 years working between 1 February and 25 May 2020. Main outcome measures A composite endpoint of laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, or self-isolation or hospitalisation due to suspected or confirmed COVID-19. Results Of 6152 eligible responses, the composite endpoint was present in 1806 (29.4%) HCWs, of whom 49 (0.8%) were hospitalised, 459 (7.5%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, and 1776 (28.9%) reported self-isolation. The strongest risk factor associated with the presence of the primary composite endpoint was increasing frequency of contact with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases without adequate personal protective equipment (PPE): ″Never″ (reference), ″Rarely″ (adjusted odds ratio 1.06, (95% confidence interval: 0.87 to 1.29)), ″Sometimes″ (1.7 (1.37 to 2.10)), ″Often″ (1.84 (1.28 to 2.63)), ″Always″ (2.93, (1.75 to 5.06)). Additionally, several comorbidities (cancer, respiratory disease, and obesity); working in a ′doctors′ role; using public transportation for work; regular contact with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients; and lack of PPE were also associated with the presence of the primary endpoint. 1382 (22.5%) HCWs reported lacking access to PPE items while having clinical contact with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases. Overall, between 11,870 and 21,158 days of self-isolation were required by the cohort, equalling approximately 71 to 127 working days lost per 1000 working days. Conclusions Suspected or confirmed COVID-19 was more common in HCWs than in the general population. Risk factors included inadequate PPE, which was reported by nearly a quarter of HCWs. Governments and policymakers must ensure adequate PPE is available as well as developing strategies to mitigate risk for high-risk HCWs during future COVID-19 waves.

scholarly journals Healthcare Workers′ Mental Health and Wellbeing During the COVID-19 Pandemic in the UK: Contrasting Guidelines with Experiences in Practice

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Norha Vera San Juan ◽  
David Aceituno ◽  
Nehla Djellouli ◽  
Kirsi Sumray ◽  
Nina Regenold ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
Frontline Staff ◽  
Individual Level ◽  
Mental Health Support ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Uk

Background Substantial evidence has highlighted the importance of considering healthcare workers′ (HCW) mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic, and several organisations have issued guidelines with recommendations. However, the definition of wellbeing and the evidence-base behind such guidelines remains unclear. Objectives Assessing the applicability of wellbeing guidelines in practice; identify unaddressed HCWs′ needs; and provide recommendations for supporting frontline staff during the current and future pandemics. Methods and Design This paper discusses the findings of a qualitative study based on interviews with frontline healthcare staff in the UK and examines them in relation to a rapid review of wellbeing guidelines developed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Results 14 guidelines were included in the rapid review and 33 interviews with HCWs were conducted in the qualitative study. As a whole, the guidelines placed greater emphasis on wellbeing at an individual level, while HCWs placed greater emphasis on structural conditions at work, such as understaffing and the invaluable support of the community. This in turn had implications for the focus of wellbeing intervention strategies; staff reported an increased availability of formal mental health support, however, understaffing or clashing schedules prevented them from participating in these activities. Conclusion HCWs expressed wellbeing needs which align with social-ecological conceptualisations of wellbeing related to quality of life. This approach to wellbeing has been highlighted in literature about HCWs support in previous health emergencies, yet it has not been monitored during this pandemic. Wellbeing guidelines should explore staff′s needs and contextual characteristics affecting the implementation of recommendations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document