Therapists’ Roles in Pressure Ulcer Management in Persons with Spinal Cord Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Among veterans with spinal cord injury (SCI), severe pressure ulcers (PrU) are treated by interdisciplinary rehabilitation teams in SCI units. Method: Cross-sectional survey administered to therapists attending a conference of the Therapy Leadership Council in SCI. Participants: Respondents included physical therapists (PTs; n = 24) and occupational therapists (OTs; n = 15). Main Outcome Measurements: Wound care practices as indicated by 75% or more of participants as “usual practice.” Results: In general, therapist involvement with wound care was initiated by physician order (eg, electrical stimulation) or postsurgery protocols. “Usual practice” after tissue healing included progressive range of motion; initial remobilization (first sitting after wound healing); progression of sitting time including assessment of skin tolerance; instruction in pressure relief maneuvers/techniques; and instruction in safe transfers. Practices in prevention of a new ulcer included education and evaluation of seating posture/positioning. Conclusions:\nResults indicate that centers may delegate responsibilities for management of ulcers differentially by discipline. A limitation was that we were unable to determine whether these centers were the same or different for OT and PT respondents. Although sample size was small and some sites had multiple respondents, the survey showed a growing role for OTs and PTs in PrU treatment. Because 75% of each discipline reported that there were usual practices, including patient education and remobilization protocols, this area requires further study to determine the clinical outcomes in terms of preventing PrUs and recurrence
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".