Objective To investigate which magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner designs claustrophobic patients prefer. Material/methods We analyzed questionnaires completed by 160 patients at high risk for claustrophobia directly after a scan in either a short-bore or open panoramic scanner as part of a prospective randomized trial Enders et al (BMC Med Imaging 11:4, 2011). Scanner preferences were judged based on schematic drawings of four scanners. Information on the diagnostic performance of the depicted scanners was provided, too. Results A majority of patients suggested upright open (59/160, 36.9%) and open panoramic (53/160, 33.1%) before short-bore designs (26/160, 16.3%, for all p < 0.001) for future development. When asked about patients' preferred scanner choice for an upcoming examination, information about a better diagnostic performance of a short-bore scanner significantly improved its preference rates (from 6/160 to 49/160 or 3.8 to 30.5%, p < 0.001). Patients with a claustrophobic event preferred open designs significantly more often than patients without a claustrophobic event (p = 0.047). Patients scanned in a short-bore scanner in our trial preferred this design significantly more often (p = 0.003). Noise reduction (51/160, 31.9%), more space over the head (44/ 160, 27.5%), and overall more space (33/160, 20.6%) were the commonest suggested areas of improvement. Conclusion Patients at high risk for claustrophobia visually prefer open-over short-bore MRI designs for further development. Education about a better diagnostic performance of a visually less-attractive scanner can increase its acceptance. Noise and space were of most concern for claustrophobic patients. This information can guide individual referral of claustrophobic patients to scanners and future scanner development. Key Points • Patients at high risk for claustrophobia visually favor the further development of open scanners as opposed to short-and closed-bore scanner designs. • Educating claustrophobic patients about a higher diagnostic performance of a short-bore scanner can significantly increase their acceptance of this otherwise visually less-attractive design. • A medical history of earlier claustrophobic events in a given MRI scanner type and focusing on the features "more space" and "noise reduction" can help to guide referral of patients who are at high risk for claustrophobia.

Background: Measuring pain intensity in patients unable to communicate is a challenge on general wards. Observation-based pain scoring tools have been used for patients with dementia or in critically ill intensive care unit (ICU) patients.However, there is no established or validated assessment tool for non-ICU patients without dementia related cognitive deficiencies who cannot communicate.The "Behavioural Pain Scale Non-Intubated" (BPS-NI) and the "Pain Assessment In Advanced Dementia-German" (PAINAD-G) are potential tools to fill this gap. Methods:This study was performed with verbal non-ICU patients on general wards at Charité Berlin. Two assessors independently rated pain intensity using the BPS-NI and the PAINAD-G along with patients' self-ratings on the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). The interrater-reliability of BPS-NI and PAINAD-G was calculated and ROC-analyses were performed to identify cut-off values for medium and intense pain for each score. Effectiveness was calculated using percentage agreement. In total, 126 patients were included into analysis. Results:The BPS-NI showed substantial congruence in interrater-reliability (Cohens-Kappa 0.71), whereas the PAINAD-G showed moderate congruence (Kappa 0.48). Based on ROC-analyses, for medium pain levels a cut-off 4 (BPS-NI) or 2 (PAINAD-G) and for severe pain levels cut-off 5 (BPS-NI) and 3 (PAINAD-G) would result in good accordance with self-reported NRS for pain. Conclusion:The BPS-NI shows a good validity in measuring pain intensity in patients on general wards and may possibly be used for patients unable to communicate. Using defined cut-off values for BPS-NI and PAINAD-G, clinically relevant pain intensities in patients can reliably be detected.Significance: Measuring the pain intensity in patients unable to communicate is a common challenge on general wards. This study assessed reliability and applicability BPS-NI and the PAINAD-G in a general ward setting. Furthermore, it provides cut-off values in order to estimate pain intensity and support analgesic response.

IntroductionPostoperative delirium (POD) is seen in approximately 15% of elderly patients and is related to poorer outcomes. In 2017, the Federal Joint Committee (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss) introduced a ‘quality contract’ (QC) as a new instrument to improve healthcare in Germany. One of the four areas for improvement of in-patient care is the ‘Prevention of POD in the care of elderly patients’ (QC-POD), as a means to reduce the risk of developing POD and its complications.The Institute for Quality Assurance and Transparency in Health Care identified gaps in the in-patient care of elderly patients related to the prevention, screening and treatment of POD, as required by consensus-based and evidence-based delirium guidelines. This paper introduces the QC-POD protocol, which aims to implement these guidelines into the clinical routine. There is an urgent need for well-structured, standardised and interdisciplinary pathways that enable the reliable screening and treatment of POD. Along with effective preventive measures, these concepts have a considerable potential to improve the care of elderly patients.Methods and analysisThe QC-POD study is a non-randomised, pre–post, monocentric, prospective trial with an interventional concept following a baseline control period. The QC-POD trial was initiated on 1 April 2020 between Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin and the German health insurance company BARMER and will end on 30 June 2023. Inclusion criteria: patients 70 years of age or older that are scheduled for a surgical procedure requiring anaesthesia and insurance with the QC partner (BARMER). Exclusion criteria included patients with a language barrier, moribund patients and those unwilling or unable to provide informed consent. The QC-POD protocol provides perioperative intervention at least two times per day, with delirium screening and non-pharmacological preventive measures.Ethics and disseminationThis protocol was approved by the ethics committee of the Charité-Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany (EA1/054/20). The results will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and presented at national and international conferences.Trial registration numberNCT04355195.