Professionals’ Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Related to Pressure Injuries in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pressure injuries (PIs) represent a significant burden on the healthcare system and have a negative impact on the quality of life of those affected by these wounds. Despite best practice guidelines and other protocols to help healthcare facilities prevent PIs, the prevalence of PIs in Canada across all healthcare settings is concerning. OBJECTIVE: To describe the pattern of PI prevention and identify national priorities and opportunities to address PIs. METHODS: A descriptive, cross-sectional, online survey was created between August and December 2017 to explore Canadian healthcare professionals' knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to PIs. RESULTS: In total, 590 surveys were completed. Eighty-five percent of respondents confirmed that PIs occur in their work environments, and 29% claimed PIs are a frequent occurrence. Most of the respondents (91%) confirmed that they were part of a team that treats PIs. Of the 590 participants, 90% confirmed that they are aware of PI prevention devices and technologies. Between 80% and 90% attest to using offloading devices including prophylactic dressings to prevent PIs, but only 20% instituted measures to address moisture-associated skin damage. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this survey have highlighted a disconnect between Canadian healthcare professionals' awareness of PIs and the implementation of best practices for PI prevention. It is evident that, although the majority of respondents were aware of PIs and related treatment protocols, barriers still exist that impede optimized care and treatment.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".