RNQualitativeJournal of gerontological nursing2017

Nurse, Patient, and Care Partner Perceptions of a Personalized Safety Plan Screensaver.

Megan Duckworth, Emily Leung, Theresa Fuller and 11 others

PMID 28358972

WHAT IT FOUND

Nursing staff, patients, and caregivers liked a personalized bedside safety plan screensaver, but most older patients and caregivers did not know it was for them.

Nurses needed to see where icon data came from to trust it.

Key findings

01End users valued the bedside personalized safety plan screensaver for clinical decision support, workflow efficiency, safety content, and personalization.

02End users also raised questions about who should see the screensaver, suggested staff education, and recommended content and aesthetic improvements.

03Phase 2 themes largely paralleled Phase 1 themes.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

Single hospital, oncology and neurology units, limited participants, so generalisability is uncertain. The study reports perceptions and design feedback, not patient outcomes, so it does not show that the screensaver reduced falls, infections, ulcers, or other adverse events. Patients were approached only if English-speaking, alert, oriented, and judged well enough by their nurse, and informal caregivers joined only at patient discretion, so views of sicker, non-English-speaking patients, or patients without an informal caregiver may be missing. Interviews lasted about 15 minutes and relied on self-report.

Declared interests

The authors disclosed no potential conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise.

The easy way to misread this

Do not read this as proof that the screensaver improves patient safety or reduces adverse events. It reports interviews about perceptions, barriers, and design suggestions from one hospital, not tested clinical outcomes.

Read it on PubMed →