Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to describe the education, policy, practice, and risk management strategies of nurses performing conservative sharp wound debridement (CSWD) in Canada, prior to the release of the Canadian Association for Enterostomal Therapy Evidence-Based Recommendations for Conservative Sharp Wound Debridement. DESIGN: Data collection was based on a nonrandomized, nonexperimental study design and reported using descriptive statistics. METHODS: Invitations for health care professionals to participate in a CSWD scan were sent to 4315 people via e-mail through the membership lists of 2 Canadian voluntary professional wound care associations. Skip logic screened out respondents who had no experience in CSWD (n = 57). The total number of professionals who participated was 487. A 26-question electronic scan addressed demographics, education, policy, practice, and risk/quality issues related to CSWD. A comment section was included for some questions. SUBJECTS AND SETTING: A selected subsample of 397 nurses was chosen from the original total of 487 respondents. Nonnurse respondents were excluded due to the low total number of participants in each of these other professional categories. RESULTS: Nurses perform CSWD in all types of care settings in Canada from outpost nursing stations to hospital wards, homes, and long-term care facilities. The wound education preparation reported varied. The most frequently reported formal wound care education was a 2-day course (59%; n = 220), followed by an enterostomal therapy course (42%; n = 155) and the International Interdisciplinary Wound Care Course (26%; n = 98), with overlapping preparation evident. Eleven percent of respondents (n = 47) reported having taken no formal wound course, and 7% (n = 27) taught themselves to perform CSWD. Twenty-eight percent of nurses (n = 112) were unclear about whether CSWD was within their scope of practice or replied that it was not, and 69% (n = 273) did not know if there was provincial legislation that restricted their practice of CSWD. Forty-eight percent of nurses (n = 181) reported that their institutions do not have policies on CSWD, and 9% (n = 35) did not know. Adverse events associated with CSWD were reported by 196 respondents, with minor bleeding reported most frequently (98% n = 192) by those who answered the question. CONCLUSIONS: The education, policy, practice, and risk management of nurses practicing CSWD could benefit from development and dissemination of a set of National Standards and Competencies for this high-risk wound intervention.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".