Implementation of best practice in the prevention of heel pressure ulcers in the acute orthopedic population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To implement and evaluate a heel pressure ulcer prevention program (HPUPP) for orthopaedic patients. Program development of HPUPP involved input from administrators, staff and adult patients on an orthopaedic service in an academic tertiary care facility, located in a small urban centre in Canada. Prospective evaluation was conducted. Consensus exercises with clinical staff and administrators (Delphi and Nominal group) were used to, evaluate current practices, select a heel protective device, and develop key aspects of the HPUPP. HPUPP involved an individualised, bedside, staff education program, a team approach to improve patient mobility and use of a heel protective device. A 2-inch foam wedge covered in washable vinyl was placed at the foot of all beds on the orthopedic service. After the program was implemented, the incidence of heel pressure ulcers was 0%, which was a significant reduction compared with pre-implementation levels [13.8% (95% confidence interval 8-18%)]. Key components of the program success were initial and ongoing support from administration and surgeons, incorporation of feedback from clinical staff and patients, and keeping the program simple. Heel PU can be prevented in most orthopaedic patients using a universal heel PU prevention program.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".