Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40053780›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2025

Experiences With an In-Bed Real-Time Motion Monitoring System on a Geriatric Ward: Mixed Methods Study.

Stefan Walzer, Isabel Schön, Johanna Pfeil, Nicola Merz, Helga Marx, Sven Ziegler, Christophe Kunze

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Stefan WalzerCare and Technology Lab, Furtwangen University, Furtwangen im Schwarzwald, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8748-5244
Isabel SchönAGP Social Research, FIVE e.V., Freiburg, Germany.ORCID 0009-0007-7089-650X
Johanna PfeilAGP Social Research, FIVE e.V., Freiburg, Germany.ORCID 0009-0009-2721-8425
Nicola MerzAGP Social Research, FIVE e.V., Freiburg, Germany.ORCID 0009-0007-4875-5997
Helga MarxCenter of Implementing Nursing Care Innovations Freiburg, Nursing Direction, Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID 0009-0006-6038-2831
Sven ZieglerCenter of Implementing Nursing Care Innovations Freiburg, Nursing Direction, Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1932-0787
Christophe KunzeCare and Technology Lab, Furtwangen University, Furtwangen im Schwarzwald, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2238-5533

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOlder adults now make up about two-thirds of hospital admissions, with up to 50% experiencing cognitive impairments such as dementia. These patients often struggle with adherence to care plans and maintaining regular day or night cycles, presenting challenges for nurses. Hospitals are typically unprepared to manage this patient population, resulting in increased nurse workload and challenges like managing motor agitation, which can lead to falls or accidental removal of medical devices.

objectiveThis study aimed to (1) assess how an in-bed real-time motion monitoring system (IRMS) impacts nurses' perceptions of physical and mental stress, (2) evaluate the IRMS's effect on the care process, (3) explore ethical implications like patient autonomy and privacy, and (4) understand how nurses acquire knowledge about the technology and how this affects their assessment of the IRMS.

methodsThe IRMS, which provides real-time motion monitoring and bed edge or exit information, was implemented in the geriatric ward of a university medical center. The study followed a monocentric, explorative evaluation design using a mixed methods approach. It lasted 24 weeks and had two phases. In Phase 0 (6 weeks), patients received standard care. In Phase 1 (18 weeks), the IRMS was introduced. Initial data were gathered through focus groups and participant observations during manufacturer training sessions. At the end of the intervention, a survey, a second focus group, and an interview were conducted to capture nurses' experiences. The study follows the Good Reporting of a Mixed Method Study (GRAMMS) checklist for reporting.

resultsInitial training sessions with 12 participants (10 nurses and 2 physiotherapists) showed varying levels of engagement, with the second session demonstrating more optimism and interprofessional collaboration. A total of 10 questionnaires were completed (10/21, 48%). Survey results showed that 80% (8/10) of nurses found the IRMS valuable for assessing the quality of work, and 90% (9/10) were willing to continue using it. The system was regarded as reliable for monitoring bed edge and exit events. Usability was positively rated, with minimal concerns about documentation burden. Focus group discussions (n=3 per session) indicated that nurses viewed the system as reliable and appreciated its role in reducing anxiety related to fall prevention. However, concerns about patient privacy and monitoring were raised. Nurses expressed a willingness to continue using the IRMS but reaffirmed their ability to care for patients without it.

conclusionsNurses had a generally positive attitude toward the IRMS, recognizing its benefits, particularly for nighttime monitoring. Although its effectiveness in preventing falls remains inconclusive, the system helps reduce nurses' fear of falls and enhances their responsiveness. The study highlights the broader impact of the IRMS beyond fall prevention and stresses the importance of thoughtful integration into health care practice.

Indexed as

Nursing Staff, HospitalAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAttitude of Health PersonnelFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMonitoring, PhysiologicQualitative ResearchTime and Motion Studiesanxietyassessmentautonomycognitive impairmenteffectivenessfall preventiongeriatric patientsgeriatric wardhealth care practicehospitalimpairmentlearning processmixed methodsmonitoring systemnursespatientpatient privacyreal-time motionsurveytechnologyuniversitywillingness

Identifiers

PMID40053780
PMCPMC11920652

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.