Clinicians' evaluations of fetal oximetry sensor placement in a multicentre randomised trial (the FOREMOST trial)

Background: Fetal pulse oximetry (FPO) may improve the assessment of the fetal well-being in labour. Reports of health-care provider's evaluations of new technology are important in the overall evaluation of that technology. Aims: To determine doctors' and midwives' perceptions of their experience placing FPO sensors. Methods: We surveyed clinicians (midwives and doctors) following placement of a FPO sensor during the FOREMOST trial (multicentre randomised trial of fetal pulse oximetry). Clinicians rated ease of sensor placement (poor, fair, good and excellent). Potential influences on ease of sensor placement (staff category, prior experience in Birth Suite, prior experience in placing sensors, epidural analgesia, cervical dilatation and fetal station) were examined by ordinal regression. Results: There were 281 surveys returned for the 294 sensor placement attempts (response rate 96%). Sensors were placed by midwives (29%), research midwives (48%), registrars (22%) and obstetricians (1%). The majority of clinicians had 1 or more years' Birth Suite experience, had placed six or more sensors previously, and rated ease of sensor placement as good. Advancing fetal station (P < 0.001) and the presence of epidural analgesia prior to sensor placement (P = 0.029) predicted improved ease of sensor placement. Having a clinician placing a sensor for the first time predicted a lower rating for ease of sensor placement (P = 0.001), compared to having placed one or more sensors previously. Conclusions: Clinicians with varying levels of Birth Suite experience successfully placed fetal oxygen saturation sensors, with the majority rating ease of sensor placement as good.

A new instrument for targeting falls prevention interventions was accurate and clinically applicable in a hospital setting

Background and Objective: To describe the diagnostic accuracy and practical application of the Peter James Centre Falls Risk Assessment Tool (PJC-FRAT), a multidisciplinary falls risk screening and intervention deployment instrument. Methods: In phase 1, the accuracy of the PJC-FRAT was prospectively compared to a gold standard (the STRATIFY) on a cohort of subacute hospital patients (n = 122). In phase 2, the PJC-FRAT was temporally reassessed using a subsequent cohort (n = 316), with results compared to those of phase 1. Primary outcomes were falls (events), fallers (patients who fell), and hospital completion rates of the PJC-FRAT. Results: In phase 1, PJC-FRAT accuracy of identifying falters showed sensitivity of 73% (bootstrap 95% confidence interval CI = 55, 90) and specificity of 75% (95% CI = 66, 83), compared with the STRATIFY (cutoff >= 2/5) sensitivity of 77% (95% CI = 59, 92) and specificity of 51% (95% CI = 41, 61). This difference was not significant. In phase 2, accuracy of nursing staff using the PJC-FRAT was lower. PJC-FRAT completion rates varied among disciplines over both phases: nurses and physiotherapists, >= 90%; occupational therapists, >= 82%; and medical officers, >= 57%. Conclusion: The PJC-FRAT was practical and relatively accurate as a predictor of falls and a deployment instrument for falls prevention interventions, although continued staff education may be necessary to maintain its accuracy. (c) 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.