Step-count accuracy of three motion sensors for older and frail medical inpatients

Objectives: To measure the step-count accuracy of an ankle-worn accelerometer, a thigh-worn accelerometer and one pedometer in older and frail inpatients. Design: Cross-sectional design study. Setting: Research room within a hospital. Participants: Convenience sample of inpatients aged ≥65 years, able to walk 20 metres unassisted, with or without a walking-aid. Intervention: Patients completed a 40-minute programme of predetermined tasks while wearing the three motion sensors simultaneously. Video-recording of the procedure provided the criterion measurement of step-count. Main Outcome Measures: Mean percentage (%) errors were calculated for all tasks, slow versus fast walkers, independent versus walking-aid-users, and over shorter versus longer distances. The Intra-class Correlation was calculated and accuracy was visually displayed by Bland-Altman plots. Results: Thirty-two patients (78.1 ±7.8 years) completed the study. Fifteen were female and 17 used walking-aids. Their median speed was 0.46 m/sec (interquartile range, IQR 0.36-0.66). The ankle-worn accelerometer overestimated steps (median 1% error, IQR -3 to 13). The other motion sensors underestimated steps (40% error (IQR -51 to -35) and 38% (IQR -93 to -27), respectively). The ankle-worn accelerometer proved more accurate over longer distances (3% error, IQR 0 to 9), than shorter distances (10%, IQR -23 to 9). Conclusions: The ankle-worn accelerometer gave the most accurate step-count measurement and was most accurate over longer distances. Neither of the other motion sensors had acceptable margins of error.

Relevance of anatomy to medical education and clinical practice: perspectives of medical students, clinicians, and educators

Introduction: Against a backdrop of ever-changing diagnostic and treatment modalities, stakeholder perceptions (medical students, clinicians, anatomy educators) are crucial for the design of an anatomy curriculum which fulfils the criteria required for safe medical practice. This study compared perceptions of students, practising clinicians, and anatomy educators with respect to the relevance of anatomy education to medicine. Methods: A quantitative survey was administered to undergraduate entry (n = 352) and graduate entry students (n = 219) at two Irish medical schools, recently graduated Irish clinicians (n = 146), and anatomy educators based in Irish and British medical schools (n = 30). Areas addressed included the association of anatomy with medical education and clinical practice, mode of instruction, and curriculum duration. Results: Graduate-entry students were less likely to associate anatomy with the development of professionalism, teamwork skills, or improved awareness of ethics in medicine. Clinicians highlighted the challenge of tailoring anatomy education to increase student readiness to function effectively in a clinical role. Anatomy educators indicated dissatisfaction with the time available for anatomy within medical curricula, and were equivocal about whether curriculum content should be responsive to societal feedback. Conclusions: The group differences identified in the current study highlight areas and requirements which medical education curriculum developers should be sensitive to when designing anatomy courses.