Point prevalence of wounds in a sample of acute hospitals in Canada
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To provide new information on wound prevalence and the potential resource impact of non healing wounds in the acute sector by summarising results from wound audits carried out at 13 acute hospitals in Canada in 2006 and 2007. Audits were carried out in each hospital by the same independent team of advanced practice nurses using standard data-collection forms. The results reported here were derived from the summary reports for each hospital. A total of 3099 patients were surveyed (median 259 patients per hospital). In the sample hospitals, the mean prevalence of patients with wounds was 41.2%. Most wounds were pressure ulcers (56.2%) or surgical wounds (31.1%). The mean prevalence of pressure ulcers was 22.9%. A majority of pressure ulcers (79.3%) were hospital-acquired, and 26.5% were severe (Stage III or IV). The rate of surgical wound infection was 6.3%. Forty-five percent of patients had dressings changed at least daily and the mean dressing time was 10.5 minutes. Wounds are a common and potentially expensive occurrence in acute hospitals. Any wound has the potential to develop complications which compromise patient safety and increase hospital costs. Ensuring consistent, best-practice wound management programmes should be a key priority for hospital managers.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 it