4.7 Article

An evaluation of a video magnification-based system for respiratory rate monitoring in an acute mental health setting

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2021.104378

关键词

EVM; Motion magnification; Observation; Assessment; Respiration

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study aimed to determine if motion magnification could improve non-contact respirations monitoring. Results showed a significant reduction in count error and nurses found it easier to make observations from the processed video. Further studies on a larger scale are urgently needed to inform practice.
Context: One of the most important goals of inpatient psychiatric care is to provide a safe and therapeutic environment for both patients and staff. A small number of aggressive or agitated patients are difficult to sedate, even after multiple doses of sedating antipsychotics. Adverse effects can result in harm to the patient and staff and that observations are conducted without touching the patient. Aim: This study aims to determine if motion magnification can improve the feasibility of non-contact respirations monitoring over a video feed. Methods: Registered nurses were invited to view seven pairs of pre-recorded footage of healthy volunteers and count the number of breaths that they observe over a period of one minute for each. One of the paired videos was unprocessed and the other magnified the motion of chest rise and fall. Results: Nursing observation of respirations showed an improvement in reduction of count error from 15.7 % to 1.5 % after video magnification of respiratory movement. Nurses also stated that viewing the processed video was much easier to make their observations from. Conclusion: It is possible to use magnified video to monitor respirations of patients during circumstances where it is potentially difficult to obtain. Further observational studies should be conducted on a larger scale with this type of technique and is urgently needed to inform practice.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据