ABSTRACT
Operating Room (OR) scheduling is crucial to allow efficient use of ORs. Currently, the predicted durations of surgical procedures are unreliable and the OR schedulers have to follow the progress of the procedures in order to update the daily planning accordingly. The OR schedulers often acquire the needed information through verbal communication with the OR staff, which causes undesired interruptions of the surgical process. The aim of this study was to develop a system that predicts in real-time the remaining procedure duration and to test this prediction system for reliability and usability in an OR. The prediction system was based on the activation pattern of one single piece of equipment, the electrosurgical device. The prediction system was tested during 21 laparoscopic cholecystectomies, in which the activation of the electrosurgical device was recorded and processed in real-time using pattern recognition methods. The remaining surgical procedure duration was estimated and the optimal timing to prepare the next patient for surgery was communicated to the OR staff. The mean absolute error was smaller for the prediction system (14 min) than for the OR staff (19 min). The OR staff doubted whether the prediction system could take all relevant factors into account but were positive about its potential to shorten waiting times for patients. The prediction system is a promising tool to automatically and objectively predict the remaining procedure duration, and thereby achieve optimal OR scheduling and streamline the patient flow from the nursing department to the OR.
Subject(s)
Appointments and Schedules , Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic/statistics & numerical data , Efficiency, Organizational , Operating Rooms/organization & administration , Personnel Staffing and Scheduling/organization & administration , Humans , Reproducibility of Results , Time FactorsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Heartrate variability biofeedback (HRVB) is a non-invasive treatment in which patients are assumed to self-regulate a physiological dysregulated vagal nerve. Although the therapeutic approach of HRVB is promising in various stress-related disorders, it has only been offered on a regular basis in a few mental health treatment settings. AIM: To analyse the efficacy of HRV biofeedback as an additional psychophysiological treatment for depression and PTSD. METHOD: Systematic review with search terms HRV, biofeedback, PTSD, depression, panic disorder and anxiety disorder. RESULTS: Our search of the literature yielded 789 studies. After critical appraisal using the GRADE method, we selected 6 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 4 relevant studies. The RCTs with control groups 'treatment as usual' and muscle relaxation training revealed significant clinical efficacy and better results than control conditions after 4 to 8 weeks training. CONCLUSION: Although this systematic review shows the popularity of HRV in literature, it does not indicate that HRVB really has been reviewed systematically. Significant outcomes of this limited number of randomised studies indicate there may be a clinical improvement when HRVB training is integrated into treatment of PTSD and depression, particularly when this integration procedure is combined with psychotherapy. More research needs to be done with larger groups and further efforts are needed to integrate HRVB into treatment of stress-related disorders in psychiatry. Future research also needs to focus on the psychophysiological mechanisms involved.
Subject(s)
Biofeedback, Psychology , Depression/therapy , Heart Rate/physiology , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic/therapy , Humans , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
Although the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) is the most frequently used rating scale for quantifying depressive states, it has been criticized for its reliability and its usability in clinical practice. This criticism is less applying to the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Goal of the present study is to investigate the reliability and validity, and clinical relationship between the HRSD and the MADRS. For 60 out-patients with diagnosed depression (DSM IV296.2x, 296.3x, 300.40 and 311.00), the HRSD and MADRS were scored at baseline and 6 weeks later by an independent rater according to a structured interview. Also the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) was assessed by a psychiatrist. Satisfying agreement was found between the totalscores (r= .75, p>.000 en r=.92, p>.000 respectively, at baseline and 6 weeks later). Furthermore agreement was found between the items of both scales, and these agree with the clinical impression. The reliability of the MADRS is more stable than the reliability of the HRSD (α = .6367 and α =.8900 vs α = .2193 and α = .8362 at baseline and at endpoint respectively). Considering the ease of scoring both scales in one interview and the widely international use of the HRSD, scoring both the HRSD and the MADRS to measure the severity of a depression seems to be an acceptabel covenant.
