Pressure Ulcers and Occupational Therapy Practice: A Canadian Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Occupational therapists are involved in the prevention and management of pressure ulcers. While many therapists identify challenges with their clinical practice in this area, there is little information available regarding specific occupational therapy interventions or effectiveness. PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to gain a national perspective of practice in Canada and identify directions and trends in the management of pressure ulcers. METHOD: A survey was distributed to occupational therapists at 75 facilities across Canada, soliciting information on intervention, practice issues and satisfaction with their practice. RESULTS: Thirty-seven therapists from 36 facilities responded, answering questions about risk assessment tools, referral patterns, interventions and decision-making models, satisfaction with practice, intervention rationales, and recommendations for change. Risk assessment, early intervention and continuity of care were identified as concerns, with a lack of resources identified as a limitation to practice. Seating and positioning were common interventions. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: This information can be used by clinicians to direct best practice and professional development goals. Further research is indicated in risk assessment, team collaboration and mattress prescription.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.005 | 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".