Foot Health In Older People - Development of a preventive, evaluative instrument for nurses

Foot health is a part of overall health in every age group and its importance increases during ageing. Health care professionals are in a vital position for preventing foot health problems, and identifying and caring them in older people. Despite the rather high number of studies conducted in the field of foot health in older people, reliable and valid nurse-administered foot health assessment instruments seem to be lacking. By identifying foot health in older people, it is possible to develop nursing interventions to enhance safe, independent living at home. The purpose of this three-phase study was to develop an instrument to assess the level of foot health in older people and evaluate foot care practices from the perspective of older people themselves and nurses in home care. The ultimate goal is to prevent foot health problems by increasing the attention paid to older people’s feet and recognizing those foot health problems which need further care; thus not focus on different foot health problems. The study was conducted in different phases and contexts. In phase 1, a descriptive design with a literature review from the Medline (R) and CINAHL databases to explore foot health in older people and nurses’ role in foot health care and pre-post design intervention study in nursing home with nursing staff (n=16) and older residents (n=43) were conducted. In phase 2, a descriptive and explorative study design was employed to develop an instrument for assessing foot health in older people (N=651, n=309, response rate 47%) and explore the psychometrics of the instrument. The data were collected from sheltered housing and home care settings. Finally, in phase 3, descriptive and explorative as well as cross-sectional correlational survey designs were used to assess foot health and evaluate the foot self-care activities of older people (N=651, n=309, response rate 47%) and to describe foot care knowledge and caring activities of nurses (N=651, n=322, response rate 50%) in home care in Finland. To achieve this, the Foot Health Assessment Instrument (FHAI) developed in phase 2 was used; at the same time, this large sample also was used for the psychometric evaluation of the FHAI. The data analysis methods used in this study were content analysis, descriptive and inferential statistics including factor and multivariate analysis. Many long-term diseases can manifest in feet. Therefore, the FHAI, developed in this study consisted of items relating to skin and nail health, foot structure and foot pain. The FHAI demonstrated acceptable preliminary psychometric properties. A great deal of different foot health problems in older people were found of which edema, dry skin, thickened and discoloured toenails and hallux valgus were the most prevalent foot health problems. Moreover, many older people had difficulties in performing foot self-care. Nurses’ knowledge of foot care was insufficient and revealed a need for more information and continuing education in matters relating to foot care in older people. Instead, nurses’ foot care activities were mainly adequate, though the findings indicate the need for updating foot care activities to correspond with the evidence found in the field of foot care. Practical implications are presented for nursing practice, education and administration. In future, research should focus on developing interventions for older people and nurses to promote foot health in older people and to prevent foot health problems, as well as for further development of the FHAI.

A Business Incubator, Accelerator, or Coworking Space? Case Health Innovation Village at GE

Health Innovation Village at GE is one of the new communities targeted for startup and growth-oriented companies. It has been established at the premises of a multinational conglomerate that will promote networking and growth of startup companies. The concept combines features from traditional business incubators, accelerators, and coworking spaces. This research compares Health Innovation Village to these concepts regarding its goals, target clients, source of income, organization, facilities, management, and success factors. In addition, a new incubator classification model is introduced. On the other hand, Health Innovation Village is examined from its tenants’ perspective and improvements are suggested. The work was implemented as a qualitative case study by interviewing GE staff with connections to Health Innovation Village as well as startup entrepreneurs and employees’ working there. The most evident features of Health Innovation Village correspond to those of business incubators although it is atypical as a non-profit corporate business incubator. Strong network orientation and connections to venture capitalists are common characteristics of these new types of accelerators. The design of the premises conforms to the principles of coworking spaces, but the services provided to the startup companies are considerably more versatile than the services offered by coworking spaces. The advantages of Health Innovation Village are that there are first-class premises and exceptionally good networking possibilities that other types of incubators or accelerators are not able to offer. A conglomerate can also provide multifaceted special knowledge for young firms. In addition, both GE and the startups gained considerable publicity through their cooperation, indeed a characteristic that benefits both parties. Most of the expectations of the entrepreneurs were exceeded. However, communication and the scope of cooperation remain challenges. Micro companies spend their time developing and marketing their products and acquiring financing. Therefore, communication should be as clear as possible and accessible everywhere. The startups would prefer to cooperate significantly more, but few have the time available to assume the responsibility of leadership. The entrepreneurs also expected to have more possibilities for cooperation with GE. Wider collaboration might be accomplished by curation in the same way as it is used in the well-functioning coworking spaces where curators take care of practicalities and promote cooperation. Communication issues could be alleviated if the community had its own Intranet pages where all information could be concentrated. In particular, a common calendar and a room reservation system could be useful. In addition, it could be beneficial to have a section of the Intranet open for both the GE staff and the startups so that those willing to share their knowledge and those having project offers could use it for advertising.