Through a qualitative examination, the moral evaluations of Dutch care professionals regarding healthcare robots for eldercare in terms of biomedical ethical principles and non-utility are researched. Results showed that care professionals primarily focused on maleficence (potential harm done by the robot), deriving from diminishing human contact. Worries about potential maleficence were more pronounced from intermediate compared to higher educated professionals. However, both groups deemed companion robots more beneficiary than devices that monitor and assist, which were deemed potentially harmful physically and psychologically. The perceived utility was not related to the professionals' moral stances, countering prevailing views. Increasing patient's autonomy by applying robot care was not part of the discussion and justice as a moral evaluation was rarely mentioned. Awareness of the care professionals' point of view is important for policymakers, educational institutes, and for developers of healthcare robots to tailor designs to the wants of older adults along with the needs of the much-undervalued eldercare professionals.
Through a qualitative examination, the moral evaluations of Dutch care professionals regarding healthcare robots for eldercare in terms of biomedical ethical principles and non-utility are researched. Results showed that care professionals primarily focused on maleficence (potential harm done by the robot), deriving from diminishing human contact. Worries about potential maleficence were more pronounced from intermediate compared to higher educated professionals. However, both groups deemed companion robots more beneficiary than devices that monitor and assist, which were deemed potentially harmful physically and psychologically. The perceived utility was not related to the professionals' moral stances, countering prevailing views. Increasing patient's autonomy by applying robot care was not part of the discussion and justice as a moral evaluation was rarely mentioned. Awareness of the care professionals' point of view is important for policymakers, educational institutes, and for developers of healthcare robots to tailor designs to the wants of older adults along with the needs of the much-undervalued eldercare professionals.
Patients with extensive and complex wounds due to Necrotizing Soft-Tissue Infections (NSTI) may be referred to a burn center. This study describes the characteristics, outcomes, as well as diagnostic challenges of these patients. Patients admitted to three hospitals with a burn center for the treatment of NSTI in a 5-year period were included. Eighty patients (median age 54 years, 60% male) were identified, of whom 30 (38%) were referred by other centers, usually after survival of the initial septic phase. Those referred from other centers, compared to those primarily admitted to the study hospitals, were more likely to have group A streptococcal involvement (62% vs 35%, p = .02), larger wounds (median 7% vs 2% total body surface area, p < .001), and a longer length of stay (median 49 vs 22 days, p < .001). Despite a high incidence of septic shock (50%), the mortality rate was low (12%) for those primarily admitted. Approximately half (53%) of the patients were initially misdiagnosed upon presentation, which was associated with delay to first surgery (16 hours vs 4 hours, p < .001). Those initially misdiagnosed had more (severe) comorbidities, and less frequently reported pain or blue livid discoloration of the skin. This study underlines the burn centers' function as referral centers for extensively affected patients with NSTI. Besides the unique wound and reconstructive expertise, the low mortality rate indicates these centers provide adequate acute care as well. A major remaining challenge remains recognition of the disease upon presentation. Future studies in which factors associated with misdiagnosis are explored are needed.
Being diagnosed with incurable cancer often leads to experiences of contingency and to existential concerns when patients struggle to search for meaning. The aims of this project are to (1) investigate how Art-Based Learning(ABL) – an art education method for experiencing art – has the potential to affect meaning-making processes of cancer patients in palliative care; (2) to investigate how to integrate this in (patient) education programs; (3) to enable health and art professionals to extent their capabilities to care for PC patients. This project builds on previous research on contingent experiences and narrative meaning-making, and on a pilot-study regarding the feasibility of carrying out ABL in PC. Aims and questions have been developed in a long-lasting process of problem analysis with PC and art education professionals, patients, and researchers. We will a) conduct participatory research to make an inventory of considerations that play a role in designing an art exhibition for the purpose of ABL among patients with advanced cancer, resulting in a manual to be used in future practice and research; b) conduct an explorative study and evaluate which factors hinder and promote patients’ meaning- making processes in online/on-site interventions; c) conduct a formal analysis of patients’ experiences with regards to meaning-making; d) formally compile a full list of conclusion and advices and embed the result in a new educational program for PC and art education professionals. This project is led by the professorship Art education as Critical Tactics(ArtEZ University of the Arts) and is carried out by a consortium of experts and complementary partners: University of Amsterdam and University of Twente (research partners); Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam Museum, Museum Arnhem, Museum Jan Cunen, Leren van Kunst (public institutional partners); Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Radboud University, Story Lab-University Twente (knowledge experts); Living with Hope, SPKS, NFK(experience experts/patients advocacy).
