Adherence to evidence‐based pressure injury prevention guidelines in routine clinical practice: a longitudinal study
The aim of this longitudinal study was to describe adherence to evidence‐based pressure injury (PI) prevention guidelines in routine clinical practice in Australian hospitals. Data were analysed from four control sites of a larger‐cluster randomised trial of a PI intervention. The sample of 799 incl...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | International wound journal 2017-12, Vol.14 (6), p.1290-1298 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext bestellen |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1298 |
---|---|
container_issue | 6 |
container_start_page | 1290 |
container_title | International wound journal |
container_volume | 14 |
creator | Chaboyer, Wendy Bucknall, Tracey Gillespie, Brigid Thalib, Lukman McInnes, Elizabeth Considine, Julie Murray, Edel Duffy, Paula Tuck, Michelle Harbeck, Emma |
description | The aim of this longitudinal study was to describe adherence to evidence‐based pressure injury (PI) prevention guidelines in routine clinical practice in Australian hospitals. Data were analysed from four control sites of a larger‐cluster randomised trial of a PI intervention. The sample of 799 included 220 (27·5%) Not at risk, 344 (43·1%) At risk and 110 (13·8%) At high risk patients. A total of 84 (10·5%) patients developed a PI during the study: 20 (9·0% of 220) in the Not at risk group, 45 (13·1% of 344) in the At risk group, 15 (13·6% of 110) in the At high risk group and 4 (3·2% of 125) patients who did not have a risk assessment completed. Of all patients, 165 (20·7%) received only one PI prevention strategy, and 494 (61·8%) received ≥2 strategies at some point during the study period. There was no statistical difference in the proportion of time the three risk groups received ≥1 and ≥2 strategies; on average, this was less than half the time they were in the study. Thus, patients were not receiving PI prevention strategies consistently throughout their hospital stay, although it is possible patients' risk changed over the study period. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/iwj.12798 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_24P</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7949936</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1923745133</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4158-8b582a8ea2fb81f0bc6d2c51d9b7181fb1e744954f96b49ed17348ea2cc208553</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kc1O4zAUhS0E4m9Y8ALIS1gUYsdubBZIFRqYIqTZgIad5Tg3xVVqFzsp6m4egWfkSXCmpYLFeOPjez-de62D0DHJzkk6F_Z1ek5oIcUW2icFowMmyNP2RmdkDx3EOM0yKjkvdtEeFQVjUoh9tBhVzxDAGcCtx7CwVa_f_76VOkKF5wFi7AJg66ZdWPbvBbjWeocnXWIb6yCmJg6-a5PGJlWs0U0itWmtgUuscePdxLZdZV1qxCSWP9BOrZsIR-v7ED3e_Hy4_jW4_307vh7dDwwjXAxEyQXVAjStS0HqrDTDihpOKlkWJBVKAv1HOKvlsGQSKlLkrMeNoZngPD9EVyvfeVfOoDJp96AbNQ92psNSeW3V946zz2riF6qQTMp8mAxO1wbBv3QQWzWz0UDTaAe-i4pImheMkzxP6NkKNcHHGKDejCGZ6nNSKSf1L6fEnnzda0N-BpOAixXwahtY_t9Jjf_crSw_AM7Zog8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1923745133</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Adherence to evidence‐based pressure injury prevention guidelines in routine clinical practice: a longitudinal study</title><source>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</source><creator>Chaboyer, Wendy ; Bucknall, Tracey ; Gillespie, Brigid ; Thalib, Lukman ; McInnes, Elizabeth ; Considine, Julie ; Murray, Edel ; Duffy, Paula ; Tuck, Michelle ; Harbeck, Emma</creator><creatorcontrib>Chaboyer, Wendy ; Bucknall, Tracey ; Gillespie, Brigid ; Thalib, Lukman ; McInnes, Elizabeth ; Considine, Julie ; Murray, Edel ; Duffy, Paula ; Tuck, Michelle ; Harbeck, Emma</creatorcontrib><description>The aim of this longitudinal study was to describe adherence to evidence‐based pressure injury (PI) prevention guidelines in routine clinical practice in Australian hospitals. Data were analysed from four control sites of a larger‐cluster randomised trial of a PI intervention. The sample of 799 included 220 (27·5%) Not at risk, 344 (43·1%) At risk and 110 (13·8%) At high risk patients. A total of 84 (10·5%) patients developed a PI during the study: 20 (9·0% of 220) in the Not at risk group, 45 (13·1% of 344) in the At risk group, 15 (13·6% of 110) in the At high risk group and 4 (3·2% of 125) patients who did not have a risk assessment completed. Of all patients, 165 (20·7%) received only one PI prevention strategy, and 494 (61·8%) received ≥2 strategies at some point during the study period. There was no statistical difference in the proportion of time the three risk groups received ≥1 and ≥2 strategies; on average, this was less than half the time they were in the study. Thus, patients were not receiving PI prevention strategies consistently throughout their hospital stay, although it is possible patients' risk changed over the study period.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1742-4801</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1742-481X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/iwj.12798</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28744988</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Adverse events ; Clinical practice guidelines ; Original ; Pressure ulcer ; Prevention ; Processes of care</subject><ispartof>International wound journal, 2017-12, Vol.14 (6), p.1290-1298</ispartof><rights>2017 Medicalhelplines.com Inc and John Wiley & Sons Ltd</rights><rights>2017 Medicalhelplines.com Inc and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4158-8b582a8ea2fb81f0bc6d2c51d9b7181fb1e744954f96b49ed17348ea2cc208553</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4158-8b582a8ea2fb81f0bc6d2c51d9b7181fb1e744954f96b49ed17348ea2cc208553</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-3801-2456 ; 0000-0003-3186-5691 ; 0000-0001-9528-7814 ; 0000-0001-9089-3583 ; 0000-0002-6554-2658 ; 0000-0002-0567-9679</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7949936/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7949936/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,1417,11562,27924,27925,45574,45575,46052,46476,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><linktorsrc>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111%2Fiwj.12798$$EView_record_in_Wiley-Blackwell$$FView_record_in_$$GWiley-Blackwell</linktorsrc><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28744988$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Chaboyer, Wendy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bucknall, Tracey</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gillespie, Brigid</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thalib, Lukman</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McInnes, Elizabeth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Considine, Julie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Murray, Edel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Duffy, Paula</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tuck, Michelle</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Harbeck, Emma</creatorcontrib><title>Adherence to evidence‐based pressure injury prevention guidelines in routine clinical practice: a longitudinal study</title><title>International wound journal</title><addtitle>Int Wound J</addtitle><description>The aim of this longitudinal study was to describe adherence to evidence‐based pressure injury (PI) prevention guidelines in routine clinical practice in Australian hospitals. Data were analysed from four control sites of a larger‐cluster randomised trial of a PI intervention. The sample of 799 included 220 (27·5%) Not at risk, 344 (43·1%) At risk and 110 (13·8%) At high risk patients. A total of 84 (10·5%) patients developed a PI during the study: 20 (9·0% of 220) in the Not at risk group, 45 (13·1% of 344) in the At risk group, 15 (13·6% of 110) in the At high risk group and 4 (3·2% of 125) patients who did not have a risk assessment completed. Of all patients, 165 (20·7%) received only one PI prevention strategy, and 494 (61·8%) received ≥2 strategies at some point during the study period. There was no statistical difference in the proportion of time the three risk groups received ≥1 and ≥2 strategies; on average, this was less than half the time they were in the study. Thus, patients were not receiving PI prevention strategies consistently throughout their hospital stay, although it is possible patients' risk changed over the study period.</description><subject>Adverse events</subject><subject>Clinical practice guidelines</subject><subject>Original</subject><subject>Pressure ulcer</subject><subject>Prevention</subject><subject>Processes of care</subject><issn>1742-4801</issn><issn>1742-481X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kc1O4zAUhS0E4m9Y8ALIS1gUYsdubBZIFRqYIqTZgIad5Tg3xVVqFzsp6m4egWfkSXCmpYLFeOPjez-de62D0DHJzkk6F_Z1ek5oIcUW2icFowMmyNP2RmdkDx3EOM0yKjkvdtEeFQVjUoh9tBhVzxDAGcCtx7CwVa_f_76VOkKF5wFi7AJg66ZdWPbvBbjWeocnXWIb6yCmJg6-a5PGJlWs0U0itWmtgUuscePdxLZdZV1qxCSWP9BOrZsIR-v7ED3e_Hy4_jW4_307vh7dDwwjXAxEyQXVAjStS0HqrDTDihpOKlkWJBVKAv1HOKvlsGQSKlLkrMeNoZngPD9EVyvfeVfOoDJp96AbNQ92psNSeW3V946zz2riF6qQTMp8mAxO1wbBv3QQWzWz0UDTaAe-i4pImheMkzxP6NkKNcHHGKDejCGZ6nNSKSf1L6fEnnzda0N-BpOAixXwahtY_t9Jjf_crSw_AM7Zog8</recordid><startdate>201712</startdate><enddate>201712</enddate><creator>Chaboyer, Wendy</creator><creator>Bucknall, Tracey</creator><creator>Gillespie, Brigid</creator><creator>Thalib, Lukman</creator><creator>McInnes, Elizabeth</creator><creator>Considine, Julie</creator><creator>Murray, Edel</creator><creator>Duffy, Paula</creator><creator>Tuck, Michelle</creator><creator>Harbeck, Emma</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3801-2456</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3186-5691</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9528-7814</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9089-3583</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6554-2658</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0567-9679</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201712</creationdate><title>Adherence to evidence‐based pressure injury prevention guidelines in routine clinical practice: a longitudinal study</title><author>Chaboyer, Wendy ; Bucknall, Tracey ; Gillespie, Brigid ; Thalib, Lukman ; McInnes, Elizabeth ; Considine, Julie ; Murray, Edel ; Duffy, Paula ; Tuck, Michelle ; Harbeck, Emma</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4158-8b582a8ea2fb81f0bc6d2c51d9b7181fb1e744954f96b49ed17348ea2cc208553</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Adverse events</topic><topic>Clinical practice guidelines</topic><topic>Original</topic><topic>Pressure ulcer</topic><topic>Prevention</topic><topic>Processes of care</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Chaboyer, Wendy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bucknall, Tracey</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gillespie, Brigid</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thalib, Lukman</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McInnes, Elizabeth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Considine, Julie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Murray, Edel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Duffy, Paula</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tuck, Michelle</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Harbeck, Emma</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>International wound journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext_linktorsrc</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Chaboyer, Wendy</au><au>Bucknall, Tracey</au><au>Gillespie, Brigid</au><au>Thalib, Lukman</au><au>McInnes, Elizabeth</au><au>Considine, Julie</au><au>Murray, Edel</au><au>Duffy, Paula</au><au>Tuck, Michelle</au><au>Harbeck, Emma</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Adherence to evidence‐based pressure injury prevention guidelines in routine clinical practice: a longitudinal study</atitle><jtitle>International wound journal</jtitle><addtitle>Int Wound J</addtitle><date>2017-12</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>14</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>1290</spage><epage>1298</epage><pages>1290-1298</pages><issn>1742-4801</issn><eissn>1742-481X</eissn><abstract>The aim of this longitudinal study was to describe adherence to evidence‐based pressure injury (PI) prevention guidelines in routine clinical practice in Australian hospitals. Data were analysed from four control sites of a larger‐cluster randomised trial of a PI intervention. The sample of 799 included 220 (27·5%) Not at risk, 344 (43·1%) At risk and 110 (13·8%) At high risk patients. A total of 84 (10·5%) patients developed a PI during the study: 20 (9·0% of 220) in the Not at risk group, 45 (13·1% of 344) in the At risk group, 15 (13·6% of 110) in the At high risk group and 4 (3·2% of 125) patients who did not have a risk assessment completed. Of all patients, 165 (20·7%) received only one PI prevention strategy, and 494 (61·8%) received ≥2 strategies at some point during the study period. There was no statistical difference in the proportion of time the three risk groups received ≥1 and ≥2 strategies; on average, this was less than half the time they were in the study. Thus, patients were not receiving PI prevention strategies consistently throughout their hospital stay, although it is possible patients' risk changed over the study period.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>28744988</pmid><doi>10.1111/iwj.12798</doi><tpages>9</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3801-2456</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3186-5691</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9528-7814</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9089-3583</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6554-2658</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0567-9679</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext_linktorsrc |
identifier | ISSN: 1742-4801 |
ispartof | International wound journal, 2017-12, Vol.14 (6), p.1290-1298 |
issn | 1742-4801 1742-481X |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7949936 |
source | Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection) |
subjects | Adverse events Clinical practice guidelines Original Pressure ulcer Prevention Processes of care |
title | Adherence to evidence‐based pressure injury prevention guidelines in routine clinical practice: a longitudinal study |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-21T16%3A47%3A49IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_24P&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Adherence%20to%20evidence%E2%80%90based%20pressure%20injury%20prevention%20guidelines%20in%20routine%20clinical%20practice:%20a%20longitudinal%20study&rft.jtitle=International%20wound%20journal&rft.au=Chaboyer,%20Wendy&rft.date=2017-12&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=1290&rft.epage=1298&rft.pages=1290-1298&rft.issn=1742-4801&rft.eissn=1742-481X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/iwj.12798&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_24P%3E1923745133%3C/proquest_24P%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1923745133&rft_id=info:pmid/28744988&rfr_iscdi=true |