Search

Background: Electronic massagers have gained popularity for their non-invasive and cost-effective approach to healthcare. However, existing electronic massagers require manual manipulation, leading to inconsistency. Objective: To investigate the feasibility and acceptability of the Electronic Massager—Expert Manipulative Massage Automation (EMMA) among the American population. Methods: A single-arm pilot study was conducted at Mayo Clinic Rochester campus. Participants received massage therapy with the EMMA treatment model and completed a demographics and Satisfaction Survey Questionnaire. Data were collected using REDCap, and statistical analysis was performed. Results: Twenty healthy volunteers (13 women, 7 men; median age, 47 years) participated and completed the intervention within 2 weeks. No adverse events were reported. Overall, the acceptability and satisfaction of massage utilizing EMMA were high, with all participants finding the study worthwhile, willing to participate again, and willing to recommend the study to others. Regarding the overall experience, 65.0% reported a better-than-expected experience. Responses to open-ended post-treatment questions showed that most participants enjoyed the warmth (35%), pressure (25%), and relaxation (20%) provided by EMMA, with the majority suggesting no changes or improvements were needed. However, some participants expressed a desire for an expanded massage area (20%). Conclusions: This study suggests that the EMMA massager has high acceptability and satisfaction among healthy volunteers, thus demonstrating its feasibility. However, further research is needed to optimize EMMA and assess its clinical effectiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pain is a major public health problem, causing heavy social and economic burdens to patients and society while consuming tremendous medical resources at the same time. Thus, there is a critical need to find low-cost, efficacious, and therapeutic approaches to help manage pain. While acupuncture is increasingly recognized as a promising pain-relieving method, less is known about a specific form of auricular acupuncture known as Battlefield Acupuncture (BFA). The BFA technique involves the sequential placement of semi-permanent, single-use, French ASP Ⓡ golden needles to five specific acupoints in one or both ears, where they are left in place for 3–4 days or longer [Niemtzow, R.C., Battlefield acupuncture. Med. Acupunct. 19: 225–228, 2007]. The BFA needles (more accurately described as tiny conical darts) pierce the ear in designated locations in a particular order [Levy, C.E., N. Casler and D.B. FitzGerald. Battlefield acupuncture: an emerging method for easing pain. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 97: e18–e19, 2018.]. (Figs. 4 and 5) It was developed by Dr. Richard C. Niemtzow in 2001, as a subgroup form of an auricular acupuncture technique based on the somatotopic arrangement of an inverted fetus pattern on the external ear [Romoli, M. Ear acupuncture: historical abstract–differences of ear cartography between the east and the west. Dtsch. Z. Akupunkt. 53: 24–33, 2010.]. Currently, BFA is widely used in the US military, but to our knowledge, there is no review which comprehensively synthesizes the current publications surrounding pain management. This review aims to investigate the effects and safety of BFA in adults with pain. Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English evaluating efficacy and safety of BFA in adults with pain, from database inception to September 6, 2019. The primary outcome was pain intensity change, and the secondary outcome was safety. Nine RCTs were included in this review, and five trials involving 344 participants were analyzed quantitatively. Compared with no intervention, usual care, sham BFA, and delayed BFA interventions, BFA had no significant improvement in the pain intensity felt by adults suffering from pain. Few adverse effects (AEs) were reported with BFA therapy, but they were mild and transitory. BFA is a safe, rapid, and easily learned acupuncture technique, mainly used in acute pain management, but no significant efficacy was found in adult individuals with pain, compared with the control groups. Given the poor methodological quality of the included studies, high-quality RCTs with rigorous evaluation methods are needed in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Teamwork between physicians and nurses has a positive association with patient satisfaction and outcomes, but perceptions of physician-nurse teamwork are often suboptimal. Objective: To improve nurse-physician teamwork in a general medicine inpatient teaching unit by increasing face-to-face communication through interprofessional bedside rounds. Intervention: From July 2013 through October 2013, physicians (attendings and residents) and nurses from four general medicine teams in a single nursing unit participated in bedside rounding, which involved the inclusion of nurses in morning rounds with the medicine teams at the patients' bedside. Based on stakeholder analysis and feedback, a checklist for key patient care issues was created and utilized during bedside rounds. Assessment: To assess the effect of bedside rounding on nurse-physician teamwork, a survey of selected items from the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (SAQ) was administered to participants before and after the implementation of bedside rounds. The number of pages to the general medicine teams was also measured as a marker of physician-nurse communication. Results: Participation rate in bedside rounds across the four medicine teams was 58%. SAQ response rates for attendings, residents, and nurses were 36/36 (100%), 73/73 (100%), and 32/73 (44%) prior to implementation of bedside rounding and 36 attendings (100%), 72 residents (100%), and 14 (19%) nurses after the implementation of bedside rounding, respectively. Prior to bedside rounding, nurses provided lower teamwork ratings (percent agree) than residents and attendings on all SAQ items; but after the intervention, the difference remained significant only on SAQ item 2 ("In this clinical area, it is not difficult to speak up if I perceive a problem with patient care", 64% for nurses vs 79% for residents vs 94% for attendings, P=0.02). Also, resident responses improved on SAQ item 1 ("Nurse input is well received in this area", 62% vs 82%, P=0.01). Conclusion: Increasing face-to-face communication through interprofessional bedside rounding can improve the perceptions of nurse-physician teamwork, particularly among residents and nurses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]