Best Practice Recommendations for the Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Diabetic Foot Ulcers
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In Brief PURPOSE To provide the specialist in skin and wound care with evidence-based guidelines for care of the person with a diabetic foot ulcer. TARGET AUDIENCE This continuing education activity is intended for physicians and nurses with an interest in wound care and related disorders. OBJECTIVES After reading this article and taking this test, the reader should be able to: Describe the pathophysiology, assessment, and diagnostic techniques related to diabetic foot ulcers. Identify current, evidence-based preventative and treatment options for the diabetic foot ulcer. Editor's note: This "Best Practice Recommendations" article is reprinted with permission from Wound Care Canada, The Official Publication of the Canadian Association of Wound Care (2006;4[1]:57-71). It is the final installment of 4 articles originally published in 2006, following the latest Nursing Best Practice Guidelines from the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario (RNAO), which are updated approximately every 3 years. In 2000, the Canadian Association of Wound Care produced and had published its first best practice recommendations for the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers. In this article, the best practices focus on the clinical aspects of care relating to the education of both clinician and patient. Care components include assessing for, and the removal of, factors that can affect healing, as well as the delivery of adequate vascular supply, infection control and pressure downloading, and the provision of an optimal local wound environment. The adequate delivery of care requires an interprofessional team approach to provide coordinated and integrated management. The article is meant to provide a practical, easy-to-follow guide or bedside enabler, based on the best available evidence, to support the wound-care clinician and team in planning and delivering the best clinical practice related to diabetic foot ulcers. However, this article is not meant to be comprehensive. The RNAO guidelines offer the clinical directions for practice based on the level of evidence, as well as a challenge to "go one step further" and review what is required to implement the clinical aspect of practice by addressing educational and organizational recommendations to support best clinical practice. This continuing education activity is the final of 4 articles Advances in Skin & Wound Care is reprinting with permission from Wound Care Canada. Approximately every 3 years, the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario publishes its Best Practices Recommendations. This article discusses the best available evidence to support the wound care clinician and team in planning and delivering the best clinical practice related to diabetic foot ulcers.
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.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
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 | 0,000 | 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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».