Evaluation of an Evidence-Based Education Program for Pressure Ulcer Prevention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to implement and evaluate a standardized education workshop for 2 levels of nursing staff. DESIGN: The quasi-experimental design required that nurses' knowledge be measured before and after education. SETTING AND SUBJECTS: The convenience sample included registered nurses (N = 595) and licensed practical nurses (N = 59) employed in three acute care hospitals with a total bed capacity of 1,760. INSTRUMENTS: The Pressure Ulcer Knowledge Test, including true-false questions, was selected and compared with updated literature and the evidence-based standards developed for the acute care hospitals. Minor changes resulted in a revised 53-item questionnaire for which content validity and reliability were established. The questionnaire was pilot tested before use. METHODS: The intervention, the standardized education workshop, included risk assessment, prevention, and wound staging, as described in the literature. The dependent variable, knowledge of pressure ulcer prevention and treatment, was measured at 3 time points: immediately before (pre) and after (post 1) the workshop and 3 months later (post 2). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and repeated measures. RESULTS: Overall, knowledge scores for the total group were significantly higher from pre to post 1 and from pre to post 2 but significantly lower from post 1 to post 2. Registered nurses' scores were significantly higher than those of licensed practical nurses from pre to post 1. CONCLUSION: The evidence-based pressure ulcer education was effective in increasing registered nurses' and licensed practical nurses' knowledge and was presumed to increase consistency of the knowledge and awareness of practice standards.
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 | 0.013 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".