Evaluation of a pilot Pressure Ulcer Prevention Initiative (PUPI) for patients with traumatic spinal cord injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether implementation of a Pressure Ulcer Prevention Initiative (PUPI) changed the assessment and treatment of patients with a traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) in an acute care setting, and improved patient outcomes. METHOD: The success of implementation was evaluated by examining the percentage of patients with completed occupational therapist (OT) skin care assessments and prescriptions for therapeutic support surfaces (TSS; i.e., mattresses) before implementation (historical, cohort 1) and after implementation (experimental, cohort 2). Patient outcomes were evaluated by examining changes in PU incidence, severity, timing and recurrence, as well as PU prevalence and satisfaction with life in the community. RESULTS: Final analysis included 70 patients in cohort 1 and 73 in cohort 2. OT skin care assessment documentation (31% to 60%; p<0.001) and TSS prescriptions (31% to 60%; p=0.02) significantly increased following the implementation. The PU incidence based on patient charts (both nursing and OT assessments) did not increase significantly (26% to 36%; p=0.2). However, documented PU incidence according to OT assessments showed a substantial increase (14% to 33%; p=0.002). No effect of the PUPI was seen on immediate or long-term patient outcomes during the study period. CONCLUSION: PUPI was successful in changing clinical practice in PU prevention but no statistically significant improvements in PU-related patient outcomes were demonstrated. Results from this study identified facilitators and barriers to implementation and highlighted the complexity and difficulty of instituting effective preventative or therapeutic interventions for this population in an acute care setting. This information will assist with refinements of the PUPI and inform similar future initiatives.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".