Evaluation of a formal care worker educational intervention on pressure ulceration in the community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To develop and evaluate an educational intervention for formal care workers on pressure ulceration in the community. BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers are a major burden to health care and with an ageing population likely to increase. Formal care workers are ideally placed to identify high risk but lack standardised educational provision. DESIGN: An insider approach to action research in one provider organisation, November 2014-May 2015. METHODS: Number and categorisation of pressure ulcers, within three community nursing teams before and four months after intervention was delivered to a purposive sample (n = 250) of formal care workers, were assessed and the taught element evaluated using a questionnaire and verbal feedback. RESULTS: Total number of pressure ulcers reduced from 28-20, category II, 19-11, III unchanged at 6 and IV from 2-0 following the educational intervention. Key risk factors included impaired mobility (71%), urinary incontinence (61%) and previous pressure damage (25%), and 71% had formal care worker input. The intervention was highly rated 4·95/5 by 215 (86%) formal care workers in the evaluation questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: Formal care workers receive little, if any, education on pressure ulceration. An educational intervention can have a positive effect within community care, with the potential to reduce direct costs of care. However, a standardised approach to education is required; an urgent review of the education provision to formal care workers, in the UK and around the world, is therefore essential if the potential that formal care workers offer is to be realised. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Formal care workers are ideally placed to help identify and alert healthcare professionals about patients at high risk of developing pressure ulcers. If this potential is to be realised, a standardised approach to education is required.
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 | 0.025 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".