Objectives: In Europe, there is a distinction between two different healthcare organisation systems, the tax-based healthcare system (THS) and the social health insurance system (SHI). Our aim was to investigate whether the characteristics, treatment and mortality of older, critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) differed between THS and SHI. Setting: ICUs in 16 European countries. Participants: In total, 7817 critically ill older (≥80 years) patients were included in this study, 4941 in THS and 2876 in the SHI systems. Primary and secondary outcomes measures: We chose generalised estimation equations with robust standard errors to produce population average adjusted OR (aOR). We adjusted for patient-specific variables, health economic data, including gross domestic product (GDP) and human development index (HDI), and treatment strategies. Results: In SHI systems, there were higher rates of frail patients (Clinical Frailty Scale>4; 46% vs 41%; p<0.001), longer length of ICU stays (90±162 vs 72±134 hours; p<0.001) and increased levels of organ support. The ICU mortality (aOR 1.50, 95%CI 1.09 to 2.06; p=0.01) was consistently higher in the SHI; however, the 30-day mortality (aOR 0.89, 95%CI 0.66 to 1.21; p=0.47) was similar between THS and SHI. In a sensitivity analysis stratifying for the health economic data, the 30-day mortality was higher in SHI, in low GDP per capita (aOR 2.17, 95%CI 1.42 to 3.58) and low HDI (aOR 1.22, 95%CI 1.64 to 2.20) settings. Conclusions: The 30-day mortality was similar in both systems. Patients in SHI were older, sicker and frailer at baseline, which could be interpreted as a sign for a more liberal admission policy in SHI. We believe that the observed trend towards ICU excess mortality in SHI results mainly from a more liberal admission policy and an increase in treatment limitations.
BACKGROUND: Prognostic assessments of the mortality of critically ill patients are frequently performed in daily clinical practice and provide prognostic guidance in treatment decisions. In contrast to several sophisticated tools, prognostic estimations made by healthcare providers are always available and accessible, are performed daily, and might have an additive value to guide clinical decision-making. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of students', nurses', and physicians' estimations and the association of their combined estimations with in-hospital mortality and 6-month follow-up.METHODS: The Simple Observational Critical Care Studies is a prospective observational single-center study in a tertiary teaching hospital in the Netherlands. All patients acutely admitted to the intensive care unit were included. Within 3 h of admission to the intensive care unit, a medical or nursing student, a nurse, and a physician independently predicted in-hospital and 6-month mortality. Logistic regression was used to assess the associations between predictions and the actual outcome; the area under the receiver operating characteristics (AUROC) was calculated to estimate the discriminative accuracy of the students, nurses, and physicians.RESULTS: In 827 out of 1,010 patients, in-hospital mortality rates were predicted to be 11%, 15%, and 17% by medical students, nurses, and physicians, respectively. The estimations of students, nurses, and physicians were all associated with in-hospital mortality (OR 5.8, 95% CI [3.7, 9.2], OR 4.7, 95% CI [3.0, 7.3], and OR 7.7 95% CI [4.7, 12.8], respectively). Discriminative accuracy was moderate for all students, nurses, and physicians (between 0.58 and 0.68). When more estimations were of non-survival, the odds of non-survival increased (OR 2.4 95% CI [1.9, 3.1]) per additional estimate, AUROC 0.70 (0.65, 0.76). For 6-month mortality predictions, similar results were observed.CONCLUSIONS: Based on the initial examination, students, nurses, and physicians can only moderately predict in-hospital and 6-month mortality in critically ill patients. Combined estimations led to more accurate predictions and may serve as an example of the benefit of multidisciplinary clinical care and future research efforts.
Purpose: The aim of this study was to develop practical recommendations for physiotherapy for survivors of critical illness after hospital discharge. Methods: A modified Delphi consensus study was performed. A scoping literature review formed the basis for three Delphi rounds. The first round was used to gather input from the panel to finalize the survey for the next two rounds in which the panel was asked to rank each of the statements on an ordinal scale with the objective to reach consensus. Consensus was defined as a SIQR of ≤ 0.5. Ten Dutch panelists participated in this study: three primary care physiotherapists, four intensive care physiotherapists, one occupational therapist, one ICU-nurse and one former ICU-patient. All involved professionals have treated survivors of critical illness. Our study was performed in parallel with an international Delphi study with hospital-based health-care professionals and researchers. Results: After three Delphi rounds, consensus was reached on 95.5% of the statements. This resulted in practical recommendations for physiotherapy for critical illness survivors in the primary care setting. The panel agreed that the handover should include information on 14 items. Physiotherapy treatment goals should be directed toward improvement of aerobic capacity, physical functioning, activities in daily living, muscle strength, respiratory and pulmonary function, fatigue, pain, and health-related quality of life. Physiotherapy measurements and interventions to improve these outcomes are suggested. Conclusion: This study adds to the knowledge on post-ICU physiotherapy with practical recommendations supporting clinical decision-making in the treatment of survivors of critical illness after hospital discharge.
This project addresses the critical issue of staff shortages and training inefficiencies in the hospitality industry, particularly focusing on the hotel sector. It connects with the urgent need for innovative, and effective training solutions to equip (inexperienced) staff with hospitality skills, thereby improving service quality and sustainable career prospects in the hotel industry. The project develops and tests immersive technologies (augmented and virtual reality, AR/VR) tailored to meet specific training needs of hotels. Traditional training methods such as personal trainings, seminars, and written manuals are proving inadequate in terms of learning effectiveness and job readiness, leading to high working pressure and poor staff well-being. This project aims to break this cycle by co-creating immersive training methods that promise to be more engaging and effective. Hotelschool The Hague has initiated steps in this direction by exploring AR and VR technologies for hotel staff training. This project builds on these efforts, aiming to develop accessible, immersive training tools specifically designed for the hotel sector. Specifically, this project aims to explore the effectiveness of these immersive trainings, an aspect largely overlooked in the rapid development of immersive technology solutions. The central research question is: How do immersive AR and VR training methods impact job readiness and learning effectiveness in the hotel sector? The one-year KIEM project period involves co-creating, implementing, and evaluating immersive training in collaboration with Hotelschool The Hague and Hyatt Andaz Amsterdam Prinsengracht Hotel in real-life settings. The partnership with Warp Industries, a leader in immersive technology, is crucial for the project’s success. Our findings will be co-created and multiplied through relevant sector associations such as House of Hospitality. This project aligns with the MV’s Impact Level 1: Transitions by promoting innovative training strategies that can lead to a fundamental shift in the hospitality industry, thereby enhancing social earning capacities.
Cell-based production processes in bioreactors and fermenters need to be carefully monitored due to the complexity of the biological systems and the growth processes of the cells. Critical parameters are identified and monitored over time to guarantee product quality and consistency and to minimize over-processing and batch rejections. Sensors are already available for monitoring parameters such as temperature, glucose, pH, and CO2, but not yet for low-concentration substances like proteins and nucleic acids (DNA). An interesting critical parameter to monitor is host cell DNA (HCD), as it is considered an impurity in the final product (downstream process) and its concentration indicates the cell status (upstream process). The Molecular Biosensing group at the Eindhoven University of Technology and Helia Biomonitoring are developing a sensor for continuous biomarker monitoring, based on Biosensing by Particle Motion. With this consortium, we want to explore whether the sensor is suitable for the continuous measurement of HCD. Therefore, we need to set-up a joint laboratory infrastructure to develop HCD assays. Knowledge of how cells respond to environmental changes and how this is reflected in the DNA concentration profile in the cell medium needs to be explored. This KIEM study will enable us to set the first steps towards continuous HCD sensing from cell culture conditions controlling cell production processes. It eventually generates input for machine learning to be able to automate processes in bioreactors and fermenters e.g. for the production of biopharmaceuticals. The project entails collaboration with new partners and will set a strong basis for subsequent research projects leading to scientific and economic growth, and will also contribute to the human capital agenda.
The Dutch main water systems face pressing environmental, economic and societal challenges due to climatic changes and increased human pressure. There is a growing awareness that nature-based solutions (NBS) provide cost-effective solutions that simultaneously provide environmental, social and economic benefits and help building resilience. In spite of being carefully designed and tested, many projects tend to fail along the way or never get implemented in the first place, wasting resources and undermining trust and confidence of practitioners in NBS. Why do so many projects lose momentum even after a proof of concept is delivered? Usually, failure can be attributed to a combination of eroding political will, societal opposition and economic uncertainties. While ecological and geological processes are often well understood, there is almost no understanding around societal and economic processes related to NBS. Therefore, there is an urgent need to carefully evaluate the societal, economic, and ecological impacts and to identify design principles fostering societal support and economic viability of NBS. We address these critical knowledge gaps in this research proposal, using the largest river restoration project of the Netherlands, the Border Meuse (Grensmaas), as a Living Lab. With a transdisciplinary consortium, stakeholders have a key role a recipient and provider of information, where the broader public is involved through citizen science. Our research is scientifically innovative by using mixed methods, combining novel qualitative methods (e.g. continuous participatory narrative inquiry) and quantitative methods (e.g. economic choice experiments to elicit tradeoffs and risk preferences, agent-based modeling). The ultimate aim is to create an integral learning environment (workbench) as a decision support tool for NBS. The workbench gathers data, prepares and verifies data sets, to help stakeholders (companies, government agencies, NGOs) to quantify impacts and visualize tradeoffs of decisions regarding NBS.
