Surgical outcomes in surgical oncology patients who participated in a family involvement program.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of evidence regarding the relationship between family involvement and outcomes in gastrointestinal oncology patients after surgery. To evaluate the effect of a family involvement program for patients undergoing oncologic gastrointestinal surgery on unplanned readmissions within 30 days after surgery. METHODS: A multicenter patient-preference cohort study compared 2 groups: patients who participated in the family involvement program versus usual care. The program comprised involvement of family caregivers in care and training of health care professionals in family-centered care. Multivariable regression analyses were used to evaluate the effect of the FIP on the number of unplanned readmissions up to 30 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes included complications sensitive to fundamental care activities, emergency department visits, intensive care unit admissions, hospital length of stay, and the need for professional home care after discharge. RESULTS: Of the 301 patients included, 152 chose the family involvement program, and 149 chose usual care. Postoperative readmissions occurred in 25 (16.4%) patients in the family involvement program group, and 15 (10.1%) in the usual care group (P = .11). A significant reduction of 16.2% was observed in the need for professional home care after discharge in the family involvement program group (P < .01). No significant differences were found between the 2 groups in the other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: The family involvement program did not reduce the number of unplanned readmissions, but it led to a substantial reduction in-home care, which suggests an economic benefit from a societal perspective. Implementation of the family involvement program should, therefore, be considered in clinical practice.

Comparison of trunk mechanics and spatiotemporal outcomes in caregivers using a robotic assisted transfer device and a mobile floor lift.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare trunk mechanics, distance covered, and average instantaneous velocity and acceleration recorded with caregivers performing transfer tasks using a research mannequin with both a prototype robotic assisted transfer device (RATD) and a mobile floor lift. DESIGN: Cross-Sectional. SETTING: Biomechanics Lab and Human Engineering Research Laboratories. PARTICIPANTS: Caregivers (N = 21). INTERVENTION: Robotic Assisted Transfer Device. OUTCOME MEASURES: Range of flexion-extension, lateral bend, and axial rotation; distance covered; average instantaneous velocity and acceleration. RESULTS: Caregivers performing transfers using the RATD as compared to when using the moble floor lift reported significantly smaller range of trunk flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation, and reported lower pelvic based distance covered and slower average instantaneous velocity and acceleration (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The design and usability of a RATD indicates design driven mobility advantages over clinical standard mobile floor lifts due to its ability to expand the workspace while further reducing risk factors for low back pain. While the concept is promising, further testing is required to address limitations and confirm the concept for clinical applications.

Clinical and Ergonomic Comparison Between a Robotic Assisted Transfer Device and a Mobile Floor Lift During Caregiver-Assisted Wheelchair Transfers.

BACKGROUND: The robotic assisted transfer device was developed as an updated lift technology to reduce adjustments in posture while increasing capabilities offered by transfer devices. The purpose of this study was to compare the trunk biomechanics of a robotic assisted transfer device and a mechanical floor lift in the transfer of a care recipient by a caregiver during essential transfer tasks. METHODS: Investigators enrolled 28 caregiver/care recipient dyads to complete 36 transferring tasks. Surface electromyography for the back muscles and motion data for trunk range of motion were collected for selected surfaces, phase, and direction tasks using a robotic assisted transfer device and a mechanical floor lift. RESULTS: Robotic assisted transfer device transfers required significantly smaller range of trunk flexion (P < 0.001), lateral bend (P < 0.001), and axial rotation (P = 0.01), in addition to smaller distance covered (P < 0.001), average instantaneous velocity (P = 0.01), and acceleration (P < 0.001) compared with a mobile floor lift. The robotic assisted transfer device transfers required significantly smaller peak erector spinae (left: P = 0.001; right: P < 0.001) and latissimus dorsi (right: P < 0.001) and integrated erector spinae left (P = 0.001) and latissimus dorsi right (P = 0.01) electromyography signals compared with the floor lift. CONCLUSIONS: The robotic assisted transfer device provides additional benefits to mobile floor lifts which, coupled with statistically lower flexion, extension, and rotation, may make them an appealing alternative intervention.

Usability and task load comparison between a robotic assisted transfer device and a mechanical floor lift during caregiver assisted transfers on a care recipient.

INTRODUCTION: The RATD represents a novel methodology to reduce strain, manoeuvring, and cognitive load a caregiver experiences when conducting transfers on a mannequin. However, caregivers who used this new technology report suggested adjustments regarding the robot's human machine interface and shape as to improve transfer efficiency and comfort for care recipients. The purpose of this study was to test a redesigned RATD and compare its ergonomics during a transfer to those of a mechanical floor lift. METHODS: This was cross sectional protocol. As opposed to prior research which used a mannequin, caregivers in this study (N = 28) partnered with, and transferred, a mobility device user (N = 28) at three unique surfaces. Information about task demand and usability was collected from surveys after use of each device at each surface. RESULTS: Results indicated reduced physical demand (p = .004) and discomfort frequency (p = .01) in caregivers conducting the transfers with the RATD compared to the mechanical floor lift. Care recipients reported no significant differences between both transfer devices. Critiques with the interface, the harness and sling, and the robot's rigidity indicated more work is needed before introducing this technology to a larger market. Conclusions: The RATD represents a promising new intervention for transferring and handling care recipients who use wheelchairs. However, while caregivers report reduced physical demand and discomfort, more work is required to advance the ease of the human machine interface, the amount of space allowed for the robot to operate, and the ability of the care recipient to operate the technology independently.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONCaregivers report significant physical and mental stress while transferring clients in and out of a wheelchair.Clinical standard transfer equipment is limited in the space which it can be used.Robots, particularly those portable and powered, have the ability to not only make the transfer experience safer, but also expand the applications this equipment can provide.