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 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 | 0.003 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".