Pressure ulcer prevalence and perceptions on prevention: a hospital-wide survey of health professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Hospital-acquired pressure ulcers (HAPUs) remain a problem despite numerous prevention initiatives. To understand why, it is necessary to know health professionals' perceptions regarding the importance of prevention, and the usability of current initiatives. We hypothesised that positive perceptions of existing initiatives would not be correlated with low HAPU prevalence, and that health professionals would perceive the initiatives to have a low usability. METHOD: A two-part, online survey was developed and distributed electronically to nurses, in-training physicians and attending physicians, across all inpatient and perioperative departments of an academic hospital. Part one of the survey was the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Staff Attitude Scale on beliefs regarding PU prevention; part two was additional questions on the usability of existing preventative initiatives. The results of the survey were compared with quarterly HAPU prevalence data by hospital unit. RESULTS: In total, 839 health professionals completed the survey (579 nurses, 131 residents, 119 attending physicians). The mean score for the AHRQ survey was 42.5 (≥40 denoting positive perceptions). There was a moderate correlation between AHRQ scores and prevalence of HAPUs (r=-0.60, p=0.402). For usability, repositioning was felt to be the most effective intervention (mean: 4.54, standard deviation (SD): 0.64), while educational posters were felt to be the least effective (mean: 3.31, SD: 0.99). Respondents generally rated satisfaction much lower, with no single initiative significantly better than the others (range: 3.21-3.79). Perceived effectiveness and satisfaction were all positively correlated. CONCLUSION: High HAPU prevalence, despite position perceptions, suggests that prevention methods are not as effective as thought, or they are not being used as widely as they should. Further research should take advantage of positive attitudes by prospectively investigating the usability of novel interventions.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".