Prevalence and Risk of Pressure Ulcers in Acute Care Following Implementation of Practice Guidelines: Annual Pressure Ulcer Prevalence Census 1994–2008
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hospital-acquired pressure ulcers in the United States were estimated to cost US$2.2 to US$3.6 billion per year in 1999. In the early 1990s clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers were introduced. The purpose of this study was to examine the epidemiology of pressure ulcers in acute care in Canada. The current study is based on 12,787 individuals who were inpatients during a 1-day annual census conducted in an acute care facility in Ontario between 1994 and 2008. The prevalence and incidence of pressure ulcer decreased slightly over time while the risk of pressure ulcer increased. The coccyx sacrum (~27%), heel (13%), ankle (~12%), and ischial tubersosity (~10%) were the most common ulcer sites. The implementation of clinical practice guidelines appears to have improved the quality of patient care, as demonstrated by increasing pressure ulcer risk while the prevalence and incidence of pressure ulcers has remained somewhat constant. From a policy perspective the importance of monitoring and tracking the risk and occurrence of this adverse event provides a general indicator of care, considering the many organizational aspects that may ameliorate risk.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".