scholarly journals Application of AULA Risk Assessment Tool by Comparison with Other Ergonomic Risk Assessment Tools

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (18) ◽  
pp. 6479
Author(s):  
Kyeong-Hee Choi ◽  
Dae-Min Kim ◽  
Min-Uk Cho ◽  
Chae-Won Park ◽  
Seoung-Yeon Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Upper Limb ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Weighted Kappa ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
The Other ◽  
Entire Body ◽  
Evaluation Tool ◽  
Posture Analysis ◽  
Hit Rate

Agricultural upper limb assessment (AULA), which was developed for evaluating upper limb body postures, was compared with the existing assessment tools such as rapid upper limb assessment (RULA), rapid entire body assessment (REBA), and ovako working posture analysis system (OWAS) based on the results of experts’ assessments of 196 farm tasks in this study. The expert group consisted of ergonomists, industrial medicine experts, and agricultural experts. As a result of the hit rate analysis, the hit rate (average: 48.6%) of AULA was significantly higher than those of the other assessment tools (RULA: 33.3%, REBA: 30.1%, and OWAS: 34.4%). The quadratic weighted kappa analysis also showed that the kappa value (0.718) of AULA was significantly higher than those of the other assessment tools (0.599, 0.578, and 0.538 for RULA, REBA, and OWAS, respectively). Based on the results, AULA showed a better agreement with expert evaluation results than other evaluation tools. In general, other assessment tools tended to underestimate the risk of upper limb posture in this study. AULA would be an appropriate evaluation tool to assess the risk of various upper limb postures.

scholarly journals Novel Approach to Inpatient Fall Risk Prediction and Its Cross-Site Validation Using Time-Variant Data (Preprint)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Insook Cho ◽  
Eun-Hee Boo ◽  
Eunja Chung ◽  
David W. Bates ◽  
Patricia Dykes
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Error Rate ◽  
Fall Risk ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Fall Risk Assessment ◽  
C Statistic ◽  
Risk Assessment Tools ◽  
Hospital Days ◽  
Cross Site

BACKGROUND Electronic medical records (EMRs) contain a considerable amount of information about patients. The rapid adoption of EMRs and the integration of nursing data into clinical repositories have made large quantities of clinical data available for both clinical practice and research. OBJECTIVE In this study, we aimed to investigate whether readily available longitudinal EMR data including nursing records could be utilized to compute the risk of inpatient falls and to assess their accuracy compared with existing fall risk assessment tools. METHODS We used 2 study cohorts from 2 tertiary hospitals, located near Seoul, South Korea, with different EMR systems. The modeling cohort included 14,307 admissions (122,179 hospital days), and the validation cohort comprised 21,172 admissions (175,592 hospital days) from each of 6 nursing units. A probabilistic Bayesian network model was used, and patient data were divided into windows with a length of 24 hours. In addition, data on existing fall risk assessment tools, nursing processes, Korean Patient Classification System groups, and medications and administration data were used as model parameters. Model evaluation metrics were averaged using 10-fold cross-validation. RESULTS The initial model showed an error rate of 11.7% and a spherical payoff of 0.91 with a c-statistic of 0.96, which represent far superior performance compared with that for the existing fall risk assessment tool (c-statistic=0.69). The cross-site validation revealed an error rate of 4.87% and a spherical payoff of 0.96 with a c-statistic of 0.99 compared with a c-statistic of 0.65 for the existing fall risk assessment tool. The calibration curves for the model displayed more reliable results than those for the fall risk assessment tools alone. In addition, nursing intervention data showed potential contributions to reducing the variance in the fall rate as did the risk factors of individual patients. CONCLUSIONS A risk prediction model that considers longitudinal EMR data including nursing interventions can improve the ability to identify individual patients likely to fall.

scholarly journals Flexibility during the COVID-19 Pandemic Response: Healthcare Facility Assessment Tools for Resilient Evaluation

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (21) ◽  
pp. 11478
Author(s):  
Andrea Brambilla ◽  
Tian-zhi Sun ◽  
Waleed Elshazly ◽  
Ahmed Ghazy ◽  
Paul Barach ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Case Studies ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Healthcare Facility ◽  
Health Impact ◽  
Design Guidelines ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Validity And Reliability ◽  
Evaluation Tool ◽  
Healthcare Operations ◽  
Healthcare Facilities

Healthcare facilities are facing huge challenges due to the outbreak of COVID-19. Around the world, national healthcare contingency plans have struggled to cope with the population health impact of COVID-19, with healthcare facilities and critical care systems buckling under the extraordinary pressures. COVID-19 has starkly highlighted the lack of reliable operational tools for assessing the level sof flexibility of a hospital building to support strategic and agile decision making. The aim of this study was to modify, improve and test an existing assessment tool for evaluating hospital facilities flexibility and resilience. We followed a five-step process for collecting data by (i) doing a literature review about flexibility principles and strategies, (ii) reviewing healthcare design guidelines, (iii) examining international healthcare facilities case studies, (iv) conducting a critical review and optimization of the existing tool, and (v) assessing the usability of the evaluation tool. The new version of the OFAT framework (Optimized Flexibility Assessment Tool) is composed of nine evaluation parameters and subdivided into measurable variables with scores ranging from 0 to 10. The pilot testing of case studies enabled the assessment and verification the OFAT validity and reliability in support of decision makers in addressing flexibility of hospital design and/or operations. Healthcare buildings need to be designed and built based on principles of flexibility to accommodate current healthcare operations, adapting to time-sensitive physical transformations and responding to contemporary and future public health emergencies.

Safety and Ergonomics Risk Assessment (SERA): A Customized Ergonomics Assessment Tool for Automobile Manufacturing

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Snell ◽  
Arman Dehghani ◽  
Fabian Guenkzkofer ◽  
Stefan Kaltenbrunner
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Assessment Method ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Scientific Methods ◽  
Automobile Manufacturing ◽  
International Reporting ◽  
Database Implementation ◽  
And Training

Musculoskeletal disorders continue to be a leading source of lost workdays across all industries. Common ergonomics assessment tools may include criteria extraneous to the stresses at specific companies or industries. Therefore, the creation of assessment tools, based on scientifically validated methods, with industry- or company-specific stresses may be of benefit. The BMW Group has developed the Safety and Ergonomics Risk Assessment (SERA) tool. This ergonomics assessment method incorporates the most up-to-date scientific methods and international standards, and is used worldwide in all production facilities of the BMW Group. As noted above, a major advantage of SERA over conventional ergonomics tools is the focus on ergonomics stresses common to automobile manufacturing and the consequent exclusion of irrelevant parameters, thereby reducing the time, effort, and training required for workplace assessments. Other advantages include the international uniformity of assessments and a web- and database-implementation allowing for easily comparable international reporting. The implementation of this method at the BMW Group has enabled a greater transparency for ergonomics across all international plants, and more effective and targeted ergonomics interventions. This publication will outline the basic motivation for SERA, highlight the relevant scientific sources and international standards, and general steps of an evaluation.

OP138 Stakeholders’ Involvement When Developing A mHealth Assessment Tool

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (S1) ◽  
pp. 31-32
Author(s):  
Elisa Puigdomenech Puig ◽  
Elisa Poses Ferrer ◽  
Lina Masana ◽  
Mireia Espallargues
Keyword(s):  
Focus Groups ◽  
User Experience ◽  
Delphi Technique ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Evaluation Tool ◽  
Privacy And Security ◽  
Safety Issues ◽  
Health Apps

IntroductionDue to the specific characteristics and challenges of mobile health (mHealth) technologies there is a need to have assessment tools based on their particularities to be used by health technology assessment (HTA) agencies and evaluation experts. In the development of a comprehensive and practical evaluation tool for the evaluation of mHealth solutions we aimed to include the views and opinions of key stakeholders: health professionals, developers, hospital managers, HTA agencies, patients and general public.MethodsFocus groups and an online modification of the Delphi technique are being used to discuss and agree on domains and criteria to be included in the mHealth assessment tool. Domains and criteria used for health apps evaluation were drawn from a literature review on the topic. The initial list includes 95 criteria grouped into the following domains: purpose of the app, privacy and security, clinical effectiveness, content of the intervention, user experience and usability, interoperability, expenses, impact on the organization, and legal and ethical aspects. Data coming from focus groups is currently being analyzed from a thematic and content analysis perspective.ResultsFocus groups with professionals have showed that the most important domains to be considered when evaluating health apps are those related with security, user experience, and clinical effectiveness. Some criteria were considered to be mandatory (mainly regarding safety issues), on which a first step assessment should indicate whether the app ‘pass or fails’ for the subsequent throughout assessment. Focus groups with patients will provide insight on critical aspects related to the choice, use and adherence to a health app.ConclusionsInsights from main stakeholders on the design of the tool for mHealth assessment are relevant and complementary between them. Next steps include (i) the agreement of criteria by using an online modification of the Delphi Technique and (ii) piloting of the tool.

Upgraded RETOS™: An International Tool to Assess Oil Spill Response Planning and Readiness

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 (1) ◽  
pp. 1353-1363 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elliott Taylor ◽  
Miguel Moyano ◽  
Alexis Steen
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Best Management Practices ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Evaluation Tool ◽  
Readiness Assessment ◽  
Response Planning ◽  
Oil Spill Response

ABSTRACT In 2011 the Regional Association of Oil and Gas Companies - Latin America and the Caribbean (ARPEL) developed the “Oil Spill Response Planning and Readiness Assessment Manual” and its assessment tool, the “Readiness Evaluation Tool for Oil Spills (RETOS™)” with the support of regional and international experts from industry and government, including associations such as Clean Caribbean and Americas (CCA), RAC-REMPEITC-Carib, and IMO. The ARPEL Manual and RETOS™ provide a general guide for industry and governments to assess their level of oil spill response (OSR) planning and readiness management in relation to pre-established criteria. These criteria are commonly agreed upon by the institutions involved in the project and consider international best management practices. The foundation for the ARPEL Manual's concepts and criteria is the “Assessment of Oil Spill Response Capabilities: A Proposed International Guide for Oil Spill Response Planning and Readiness Assessment”, a guideline developed for the 2008 International Oil Spill Conference. RETOS™ adapts evaluation criteria according to the type of OSR program to be assessed.Seven different scopes from two perspectives (government and industry) are considered, including facilities, companies' business lines, and government national programs.For each scope there are three possible assessment levels for which OSR planning and readiness assessment criteria become increasingly more demanding.Each level contains criteria in 10 different categories (topic areas). Training workshops on RETOS™ were held during 2011 and 2012. Field tests were conducted by experts and surveys were conducted among users including companies, governments and consultants. Feedback from workshops and the practical application of RETOS™ provided recommendations for upgrades that were reviewed by ARPEL. Subsequently, a proposal to upgrade RETOS was made to the IOSC Executive Committee, which decided to support the endeavor. This paper describes the upgraded version of RETOS and its availability. The upgraded version of RETOS™ has garnered interest from several institutions that contributed to its completion as reviewers: a global Tier 3 organization (OSRL), Caspian and Black Sea's OSPRI, GI WACAF, and IPIECA. This multi-institutional review increased awareness of these readiness assessment tools, is expected to further expand worldwide awareness of the ARPEL Manual and RETOS™, and provides improved OSR planning and readiness management for industry and governments alike. A unique tool that is freely downloadable from the internet, the upgraded RETOS™ is being launched at the 2014 IOSC.

Further validation of an opioid risk assessment tool: The Brief Risk Interview

2014 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 353 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ted Jones, PhD ◽  
Samantha Lookatch, MA ◽  
Patricia Grant, MS, ANP-C ◽  
Janice McIntyre, MS, ANP-C ◽  
Todd Moore, PhD
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Predictive Accuracy ◽  
Training Session ◽  
Predictive Ability ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Risk Assessment Tool ◽  
Aberrant Behavior

Opioids remain a common method of treating chronic pain conditions despite some controversy. In an effort to address some of the risks of opioid medications, opioid risk assessment has become a standard of care when opioids are used to treat a chronic pain condition. Research to date has found that clinical interviews may be superior to currently available patient-completed written questionnaires in identifying patients likely to engage in medication aberrant behavior. The Brief Risk Interview (BRI) has been developed as a risk assessment tool that has the sensitivity of a clinical interview while eliminating the need for the lengthy process of an interview. The current study compared the predictive ability of the BRI with two commonly used patient-completed risk assessment tools: the Opioid Risk Tool (ORT) and the Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain-Revised (SOAPP-R). After clinical staff at a pain practice underwent a 1-hour training program, 124 consecutive new patients were evaluated using the BRI, ORT, and SOAPP-R. Follow-up data found that the BRI was a good predictor of medication aberrant behavior and offered better sensitivity and better overall predictive accuracy than the ORT or the SOAPP-R. Overall, it appears that the BRI is a valid risk assessment tool that, after a brief training session, can be used effectively by pain clinicians. Further study is needed in other practice settings and with larger sample sizes.

scholarly journals VIOLENCE RISK ASSESSMENT IN PSYCHIATRY - LITERATURE REVIEW AND PRACTICE COMPARISON BETWEEN LATVIA AND GERMANY

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 357-367
Author(s):  
Karina Konstantinova ◽  
Alina Kuznecova
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Community Violence ◽  
Clinical Assessment ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Violence Risk ◽  
Mentally Disordered Offenders ◽  
Violence Risk Assessment

Evidence-based future community violence risk assessment is a crucial issue in psychiatry. It is a cornerstone of safeguarding the rights of persons with mental health issues. Authors aimed to analyse the modern methods of risk assessment in psychiatry and the current practice and legal framework. Authors undertook a scoped review of the literature with search terms related to future community violence risk prediction for mentally disordered offenders in Latvian, English, German, and Russian languages. Main difficulties in future community violence risk assessment are demonstrated via Latvia’s court decisions analysis. Marked differences were identified: there are no standardized methods available/registered in Latvia, therefore risks assessment is performed via clinical assessment only. In Germany, the risk assessment is performed via structured evidence – based risk assessment tools and clinical assessment; nevertheless, the choice of the assessment tool remains challenging.  

scholarly journals Glucose-6-Phosphate Dehydrogenase Deficiency and the Benefits of Early Screening

2020 ◽  
Vol 39 (5) ◽  
pp. 270-282
Author(s):  
Julie Jensen DelFavero ◽  
Amy J. Jnah ◽  
Desi Newberry
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
G6pd Deficiency ◽  
Dehydrogenase Deficiency ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
The United States ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Early Screening ◽  
Intercultural Marriages ◽  
Glucose 6 Phosphate Dehydrogenase

Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency, the most common enzymopathy worldwide, is an insufficient amount of the G6PD enzyme, which is vital to the protection of the erythrocyte. Deficient enzyme levels lead to oxidative damage, hemolysis, and resultant severe hyperbilirubinemia. If not promptly recognized and treated, G6PD deficiency can potentially lead to bilirubin-induced neurologic dysfunction, acute bilirubin encephalopathy, and kernicterus. Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency is one of the three most common causes for pathologic hyperbilirubinemia. A change in migration patterns and intercultural marriages have created an increased incidence of G6PD deficiency in the United States. Currently, there is no universally mandated metabolic screening or clinical risk assessment tool for G6PD deficiency in the United States. Mandatory universal screening for G6PD deficiency, which includes surveillance and hospital-based risk assessment tools, can identify the at-risk infant and foster early identification, diagnosis, and treatment to eliminate neurotoxicity.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document