Wound Care Nursing Education in the Acute Care Setting
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of a survey study exploring how nurses in acute care prefer to be educated, particularly regarding wound management in the acute care setting. METHODS: This pilot study utilized a cross-sectional survey design that included both open-ended and close-ended questions. Participants (N = 47) completed the Index of Learning Styles Questionnaire and provided information regarding their educational preferences related to wound management through use of an online survey. RESULTS: Participants described the importance of varying educational techniques by topic, ensuring an appropriate time of day for education, and preferring smaller educational sessions over time. Most participants preferred one-on-one bedside education, and the most commonly reported learning styles were active, sensing, visual, and a balanced approach to sequential and global learning. There were few correlations between learning styles and choice of education method, only one of which was expected. CONCLUSIONS: It would be beneficial to conduct this study on a larger scale to confirm results, improve understanding of the correlations, and determine further potential correlations between study variables.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it