Professional Practice-Implementing a Pressure Ulcer Prevention Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE AND DESCRIPTION OF PURPOSE: Nursing staff have continued to identify wound care as one of their top learning needs. Excellence in wound care warrants a number of elements: good local wound care, close and conscientious monitoring as well as timely detection of delayed wound healing. To facilitate this, knowledge and skill translation necessitates the need to further augment a network of unit-based experts. Late career nurses are often seen as leaders on their units. Thus, with funding support through the Ontario Nursing Strategy—Late Career Initiative, these nurses were invited to join the second year of an experiential educational program designed to improve wound assessment and management as well as enhance capacity at the frontline level. GOAL: To further develop frontline staff nurses' knowledge and skills to enhance their individual and unit—capacity in pressure ulcer prevention and management. METHOD OF IMPLEMENTATION: With direct knowledge translation the aim of all teaching/learning strategies, a theoretically guided 12-week comprehensive program imbedded weekly opportunities for direct and timely practical applications at the bedside. RESULTS: Pre–posttests over 2 LCI cycles demonstrated positive changes quantitatively and qualitatively: • In the Knowledge tests, and Attitude and (self-reported) Beliefs regarding pressure ulcer practices. • in Changes in frequency of wound care practices • in self-reported levels of confidence • translated into positive changes in patient outcomes as measured objectively through clinical data. IMPLICATIONS: As a result of both cycles of the program, increased numbers of nurses: gained increased competency in knowledge and skills in pressure ulcer prevention and management had positive changes in attitudes and self-reported beliefs, changes in frequency of wound care practices, and in self-reported levels of confidence related to practice behaviors Augmented their capacity at the frontline, unit level Currently serve as informal unit-based wound care nurse resources. Note: Funding was granted through the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".