Evaluating the implementation and outcomes of the Saskatchewan Pressure Ulcer Guidelines in long-term care facilities.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Health Quality Council and the Saskatchewan Association of Health Organizations convened a committee to develop evidence-based best practice guidelines for pressure ulcer prevention and management in the province of Saskatchewan, Canada. The Health Quality Council designed a pilot project to 1) implement these guidelines in long-term care facilities using an evidence-based strategy and 2) evaluate the impact of the guidelines on the incidence and prevalence of residents with pressure ulcers. Seven long-term care facilities in Saskatchewan participated in the project, which ran from November 2004 to September 2005. Data from 753 patients were collected and analyzed. Following guideline implementation, the incidence of residents with pressure ulcers decreased from 6.0% to 0.2% and the prevalence rate decreased from 8.8% to 3.7%. The greater decline in incidence compared to prevalence suggests that process improvements occurred primarily in the prevention of new pressure ulcers. These results suggest that organizational commitment to improving skin and wound care followed by the facilitated implementation of evidence-based guidelines can result in improved clinical outcomes for long-term care residents.
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 | 0.026 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".