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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International wound journal 2017-12, Vol.14 (6), p.1290-1298
Hauptverfasser: Chaboyer, Wendy, Bucknall, Tracey, Gillespie, Brigid, Thalib, Lukman, McInnes, Elizabeth, Considine, Julie, Murray, Edel, Duffy, Paula, Tuck, Michelle, Harbeck, Emma
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 &amp; Sons Ltd</rights><rights>2017 Medicalhelplines.com Inc and John Wiley &amp; 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