Health professionals' perspectives on delivering patient-focused wound management: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study examined the perspectives of health professionals on the barriers and solutions to delivery of patient-focused wound management and outcomes. METHODS: A qualitative, descriptive study design was used. Participants were health-care managers, clinical leaders, nurses and allied health members who are part of wound care services. Open-ended surveys were distributed to participants in a series of learning workshops, and data analysed to identify leading themes. RESULTS: A total of 261 participants took part and 194 surveys were returned (response rate: 74%). From the analysis five themes emerged: patient/family wound-related education; health professional wound-related education; implementation of evidence-based wound care and dissemination of evidence-based wound information across professions and contexts; teamwork and respectful communication within teams; and a higher value and priority placed on wound care through collaborative teams by managers, leaders and policymakers. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that ongoing, system-wide education is needed to improve prevention, assessment, treatment and management of four wound types: venous leg ulcer (VLU), diabetic foot ulcer (DFU), pressure ulcer (PU) and surgical wounds. Health professionals are committed to delivering best practice in wound care. Participants identified that effective patient-focused, evidence-based wound care involves having a health-care system with a clear mandate to ensure wound care is a priority. A high value placed on wound care by managers and clinical leadership could transform the present systems. Additionally, effective and widespread dissemination of evidenced-informed practice information is crucial to positive patient outcomes. Education and team commitment for consistent and respectful communication would improve care delivery.
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 | 0.027 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".