P0935 A systematic review and quality assessment of clinical practice nursing guidelines for ostomy care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Patients living with stomas face numerous challenges following abdominal stoma surgery. Stoma nurse specialists play a crucial role in supporting these patients by utilizing evidence-based practices and specialist expertise. We evaluate nursing guidelines focused on the management of patients with ostomies, identify knowledge gaps, and support the development of evidence-based patient care pathways. Methods A comprehensive literature search was conducted across MEDLINE, Embase, and major nursing organization websites up to March 25 2024, to identify evidence-based practical guidelines developed specifically for nurses managing patients with abdominal stomas post-ostomy. Pre-specified inclusion (n=5) and exclusion (n=16) criteria were applied (Table 1). Two researchers independently screened references, extracted data, summarized the evidence, and assessed guideline quality using the AGREE II instrument. Results The database search yielded 97 references, with an additional 23 guidelines identified through major nursing organization websites. A total of 14 nursing guidelines met the inclusion criteria, originated from Australia, Canada, Italy, UK, USA, and three international groups. The guidelines varied in scope; offered recommendations across all stages of care, including preoperative, peri-operative, postoperative, and post-discharge phases. Key topics are presented in Table 2. Notably, no guideline statements specifically addressed patients with Crohn’s disease and permanent ostomies. Three guidelines did not specify whether a literature search and review were conducted. Five guidelines applied an evidence scale or numerical grading system, while only three used the GRADE approach. Most recommendations were based on a low level of evidence, often relying on retrospective or observational studies and expert opinion; two guidelines claimed their statements were consensus-based due to a lack of supporting evidence. In the AGREE II assessment, most guidelines were rated as moderate quality, with recommended modifications primarily in the rigor of development and applicability. Conclusion This quality assessment of clinical practice nursing guidelines for ostomy care highlights both strengths and weaknesses within current guidelines. Nursing guidelines offer extensive coverage of ostomy care topics and provide valuable first-line care experience and consensus statements, particularly for postoperative stoma and peristomal care. These insights are essential for non-nursing healthcare providers and contribute to the development of patient care pathways for individuals with Crohn’s disease and permanent ileostomies. However, the limited availability of high-quality evidence underscores the need for further research in ostomy care.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".