Effectiveness of Designed Educational Programme for Nurse's Regarding Using the Braden Scale to Predict Pressure Ulcer Risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<i>Introduction: </i>Pressure ulcer prevention and management is an important approach of basic nursing care. Pressure sores affect people who are unable to change position regularly. Sustained pressure on those areas which support the body leads to reduced blood supply and eventually death of the skin and underlying muscles (a pressure sore). <i>Aim: </i>This study was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of designed educational programme for nurse's regarding using the Braden Scale to Predict Pressure Ulcer Risk. <i>Subjects and method: </i>A quasi- experimental research design was used. Convenience samplings were selected from available nurses worked in the selected setting as following and met selected criteria. It included 99 nurse in port said city at governmental hospitals from ICU and CCU, orthopedics, and medical units at pot said general hospital, Elzohour, Port-fouad hospitals. Data were collected through using one tool contains 3 main parts developed by the researchers based on literature review & modificated tool from <i>Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario (2006) and Ayello, 2004</i> as follows: <i>Part I: </i>includes Sociodemographic data of nurses; <i>Part II: </i>includes nurse's knowledge regarding Braden scale and <i>Part III: </i>contains Observational checklist in using Braden scale. <i>Results: </i>The study revealeda highly statistically significant difference were found between pre educational programme phase and post educational programme phase in relation to nurse's total scores of knowledge and practice of Braden scale as a predictive risk assessment of pressure ulcer. <i>Conclusion & recommendations: </i>The present study concluded that there are obvious needs for educational programme to increase nurse's awareness of Braden Scale as predictive risk assessment of pressure ulcer.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".