With more than 10 million patients with cancer in the United States, pain and symptom management is an important topic for oncology nurses. Complementary therapies, such as therapeutic touch, may offer nurses a nonpharmacologic method to ease patients' pain. Using 12 research studies, the authors examined the evidence concerning the effectiveness of this type of treatment in reducing pain and anxiety.

No abstract

Background 3D printing is a popular technology in many industries secondary to its ability to rapidly produce inexpensive, high fidelity models/products, mainly through layer-by-layer fusion of various substrate materials. In healthcare, 3D printing has garnered interest for its applications in surgery, simulation, education, and medical device development, and 3D printing facilities are now being integrated into hospital-based settings. Yet, little is known regarding the leadership, resources, outputs, and role of these new onsite entities. Methods The purpose of this research was to survey features of North American hospital-based 3D printing facilities to understand their design and utility in anticipation of future expansion. Hospital-based 3D printing labs were recruited through online special interest groups to participate via survey response. Anonymous, voluntary data were collected from 21 facilities over 9 weeks and reported/analyzed in aggregate. Results Of the respondents, > 50% were founded in the past 5 years and 80% in the past decade, indicating recent and rapid growth of such facilities. Labs were most commonly found within large, university-affiliated hospitals/health systems with administration frequently, but not exclusively, through radiology departments, which was shown to enhance collaboration. All groups reported collaborating with other medical specialties/departments and image segmentation as part of the workflow, showing widespread interest in high fidelity, personalized medicine applications. Lab leadership was most often multidisciplinary, with physicians present on nearly all leadership teams. Budgets, personnel, and outputs varied among groups, however, all groups reported engagement in multiple 3D printing applications. Conclusion This preliminary study provides a foundation for understanding the unique nature of hospital-based 3D printing labs. While there is much to learn about such in-house facilities, the data obtained reveal important baseline characteristics. Further research is indicated to validate these early findings and create a detailed picture of the developing infrastructure of 3D printing in healthcare settings.

Background 3D printed models are becoming increasingly popular in healthcare as visual and tactile tools to enhance understanding of anatomy and pathology in medical trainee education, provide procedural simulation training, and guide surgical procedures. Patient-specific 3D models are currently being used preoperatively for trainee medical education in planning surgical approaches and intraoperatively to guide decision-making in several specialties. Our study group utilized a modified Delphi process to create a standardized assessment for trainees using patient-specific 3D models as a tool in medical education during pre-surgical planning. Methods A literature review was conducted to identify survey questions administered to clinicians in published surgical planning studies regarding the use of patient-specific 3D models. A core study team reviewed these questions, removed duplicates, categorized them, mapped them to overarching themes, and, where applicable, modified individual questions into a form generalizable across surgical specialties. The core study panel included a physician, physician-scientist, social scientist, engineer/medical student, and 3D printing lab manager. A modified Delphi process was then used to solicit feedback on the clarity and relevance of the individual questions from an expert panel consisting of 12 physicians from specialties including anesthesiology, emergency medicine, radiology, urology, otolaryngology, and obstetrics/gynecology. When the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA)/American College of Radiology (ACR) 3D Printing Registry Data Dictionary was released, additional survey questions were reviewed. A final cross-disciplinary survey of the utility of 3D printed models in surgical planning medical education was developed. Results The literature review identified 100 questions previously published in surveys assessing patient-specific 3D models for surgical planning. Following the review, generalization, and mapping of survey questions from these studies, a list of 24 questions was generated for review by the expert study team. Five additional questions were identified in the RSNA/ACR 3D Printing Registry Data Dictionary and included for review. A final questionnaire consisting of 20 questions was developed. Conclusions As 3D printed models become more common in medical education, the need for standardized assessment is increasingly essential. The standardized questionnaire developed in this study reflects the interests of a variety of stakeholders in patient-specific 3D models across disciplines.