Improving pressure ulcer risk assessment and management using the Waterlow scale at a London teaching hospital
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: Pressure ulcers (PUs) cost the National Health Service (NHS) up to 4% of its health care expenditure. Arising from this are also clinical negligence claims, where inadequate risk assessment has been cited as one of the principal drawbacks in the prevention of PUs. This two-cycle audit aims to examine the consistency and accuracy of risk assessment of patients, and demonstrates how simple focused interventions can improve the quality of care provided. METHOD: The Waterlow pressure ulcer risk assessment tool was employed to assess inpatients during a 6-month period at a London teaching hospital. Patients were risk assessed, and examined to detect PUs and to determine the type of mattress. We compared our findings with clinical (nursing and medical) documentation. Interventions were made through questionnaires given to staff, educational sessions, presentations and posters addressing where improvements could be made in risk stratifying patients. A repeat audit was carried out 24 months later and the results from both cycles were compared. Statistical analysis was carried out using Fisher's exact and the Student's T-test. RESULTS: In total 100 in-patients were assessed in each cycle with a mean age of 71.4 years in cycle 1 and 70.1 years in cycle 2. A nursing Waterlow score was recorded for 81% of patients in cycle 1 and 100% in cycle 2 (p<0.05). In cycle 1, the average nursing score was significantly lower than that from the study (mean 13.7 versus 17.1, median 14.0 versus 18.0; p<0.05), but after intervention this had reduced to a minimal difference (mean 8.5 versus 9.0, median 8.0 versus 9.0, p=0.08). CONCLUSION: Nursing scores recorded in the notes were lower than the study scores in cycle 1, primarily from a failure to appropriately assess certain categories of the Waterlow scale. These differences reduced after focused education of staff. Our results suggest that targeted interventions tailored towards nursing and medical staff can result in improvements in the risk assessment for prevention and subsequent management of PUs. However, it also highlights the need for increased input from the entire multidisciplinary team in order to reduce the morbidity caused by PUs. DECLARATION OF INTEREST: The authors have no conflict of interest. No funding was received for this study.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle