From Decubitus and Pressure Ulcers to Pressure Injuries
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Thirty-two years ago, the first issue of Decubitus (February 1988) was published. The founding editor, Dr Roberta Abruzzese, believed that the journal would be “a compendium of prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers.”1 Although the range of topics we cover has expanded significantly, the new co–editors-in-chief thought it would be important to mark the start of our 32nd year with a themed issue focused on pressure injuries. It was difficult to choose from the many wonderful articles, but we hope you will enjoy the ones we have included. Marcel Proust said, “The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes.”2 With that in mind, it was interesting to reread that first issue and ponder why the journal was named Decubitus. Why was this “outdated” term used instead of “pressure ulcer?” At the time, there were passionate clinicians on both sides of the terminology debate; arguments for both terms were made at professional conferences and in the early issues of the journal. Once again, there is dialogue about terminology, this time between “pressure ulcer” and “pressure injury.” The article by Dr Delmore and colleagues provides some data from the global community about this change. Another topic that Dr Abruzzese broached in her inaugural editorial was the lack of an accepted standard for pressure injury staging.1 She wrote that the journal should be a forum to discuss staging issues. To this end, we have included a commentary by Dr Jeffrey Levine covering both historical and recent insights into pressure injury staging. Our founding editor also emphasized the importance of preventing pressure injuries and urged healthcare professionals to “become more sophisticated in prevention.”1 Because medical devices are a risk factor for pressure injuries, we wanted to share with you information about the Braden QD scale. The Braden Q tool, developed by Quigley and Curley in 1996 for use in pediatrics, is now revised and includes medical devices as an assessable variable.3,4 Visit the website for more information about the new “Braden QD,” to obtain permission to use it in your practice5 and to download the form.6 The Braden QD scale is available in English and Finnish, with other language translations to come. Another concept that Dr Abruzzese explored was pressure injury incidence. Therefore, an article on pressure injury prevalence in the vulnerable spinal cord injury population was chosen to be part of this special issue. You may be surprised by their conclusions! Perhaps most critically, Dr Abruzzese stipulated that current topics should be included in the journal to stimulate comments, questions, and dialogue in our community. This month’s CME article is one example of this; we hope it will serve as a call to action for clinicians and professional organizations to further clarify concepts and terminology around skin changes at end of life. We can only hope that revisiting these concepts and reflecting on our practice experience will foster new insights from the latest literature and research. We invite your opinions on this issue’s content through a reader survey: www.surveymonkey.com/r/ASWC2019. The survey will be open until June 30, 2019. We plan to publish the results in a future issue of the journal for all to read.FigureElizabeth A. Ayello, PhD, RN, CWON, ETN, MAPWCA, FAANFigureR. Gary Sibbald, MD, DSc (Hons), MEd, BSc, FRCPC (Med Derm), FAAD, MAPWCA, JM
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 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 ».