P0935 A systematic review and quality assessment of clinical practice nursing guidelines for ostomy care
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Patients living with stomas face numerous challenges following abdominal stoma surgery. Stoma nurse specialists play a crucial role in supporting these patients by utilizing evidence-based practices and specialist expertise. We evaluate nursing guidelines focused on the management of patients with ostomies, identify knowledge gaps, and support the development of evidence-based patient care pathways. Methods A comprehensive literature search was conducted across MEDLINE, Embase, and major nursing organization websites up to March 25 2024, to identify evidence-based practical guidelines developed specifically for nurses managing patients with abdominal stomas post-ostomy. Pre-specified inclusion (n=5) and exclusion (n=16) criteria were applied (Table 1). Two researchers independently screened references, extracted data, summarized the evidence, and assessed guideline quality using the AGREE II instrument. Results The database search yielded 97 references, with an additional 23 guidelines identified through major nursing organization websites. A total of 14 nursing guidelines met the inclusion criteria, originated from Australia, Canada, Italy, UK, USA, and three international groups. The guidelines varied in scope; offered recommendations across all stages of care, including preoperative, peri-operative, postoperative, and post-discharge phases. Key topics are presented in Table 2. Notably, no guideline statements specifically addressed patients with Crohn’s disease and permanent ostomies. Three guidelines did not specify whether a literature search and review were conducted. Five guidelines applied an evidence scale or numerical grading system, while only three used the GRADE approach. Most recommendations were based on a low level of evidence, often relying on retrospective or observational studies and expert opinion; two guidelines claimed their statements were consensus-based due to a lack of supporting evidence. In the AGREE II assessment, most guidelines were rated as moderate quality, with recommended modifications primarily in the rigor of development and applicability. Conclusion This quality assessment of clinical practice nursing guidelines for ostomy care highlights both strengths and weaknesses within current guidelines. Nursing guidelines offer extensive coverage of ostomy care topics and provide valuable first-line care experience and consensus statements, particularly for postoperative stoma and peristomal care. These insights are essential for non-nursing healthcare providers and contribute to the development of patient care pathways for individuals with Crohn’s disease and permanent ileostomies. However, the limited availability of high-quality evidence underscores the need for further research in ostomy care.
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 | 0,002 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
| 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 ».