The Prevalence of Pressure Ulcers in a Tertiary Care Pediatric and Adult Hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the pressure ulcer prevalence, stage and body location, and demographic characteristics of patients with pressure ulcers at a tertiary care adult hospital and a tertiary care pediatric hospital. DESIGN: Prevalence survey. SETTING AND SUBJECTS: A total of 513 inpatients, including 416 adults admitted to a tertiary care hospital and 97 children admitted to a tertiary care pediatric hospital. Only inpatients with mental health-related diagnoses were excluded. INSTRUMENTS: The Kinetics Concepts International's Prevalence and Incidence Study Collection Form was used to assess variables, including demographic information; presence, location, and stage of pressure ulcers; and presence of special support surfaces. METHODS: All patients had head-to-toe skin assessments performed during an 8-hour period by teams of 3 multidisciplinary staff members. Kinetics Concepts International's Prevalence and Incidence Program software and Microsoft Excel were used for data entry and analysis. RESULTS: Combined pressure ulcer prevalence was 26.3%, with 29.2% in adult patients and 13.1% in pediatric patients. The most common body locations for pressure ulcers were the sacrum (22.1%), heels (14.8%), ears (12.9%), elbows (10.6%), and the buttocks (6.8%). Forty-eight percent of the ulcers were stage I, 36% Stage II, 6% Stage III-IV, and 10% unable to stage. CONCLUSIONS: Overall combined pressure ulcer prevalence and common body locations were consistent with findings from comparable hospitals. Patients at the extreme ends of the age spectrum had an increased risk of pressure ulcers. Stage I and II ulcers occurred most frequently. Potential prevention and early management strategies may be effective in decreasing the prevalence of these ulcers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".