Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28744988›Full record

ArticleInternational wound journal2017

Adherence to evidence-based pressure injury prevention guidelines in routine clinical practice: a longitudinal study.

Wendy Chaboyer, Tracey Bucknall, Brigid Gillespie, Lukman Thalib, Elizabeth McInnes, Julie Considine, Edel Murray, Paula Duffy, Michelle Tuck, Emma Harbeck

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International wound journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
8.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Wendy ChaboyerMenzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9528-7814
Tracey BucknallDeakin University, Centre for Quality and Patient Safety, Alfred Health Partnership, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Health, Geelong, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9089-3583
Brigid GillespieMenzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3186-5691
Lukman ThalibDepartment of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar.
Elizabeth McInnesNursing Research Institute, Australian Catholic University, Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0567-9679
Julie ConsidineDeakin University, Centre for Quality and Patient Safety, Eastern Health Partnership, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Health, Geelong, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3801-2456
Edel MurraySt Vincent's Private Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Paula DuffyNursing Diagnostic, Emergency and Medical Services, Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia.
Michelle TuckWound Management, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Emma HarbeckMenzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6554-2658
Griffith University · AUDeakin University · AUGold Coast Hospital · AUQatar University · QASt Vincent's Health · AUSt Vincent’s Private Hospital Sydney · AUThe Alfred Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAustraliaClinical Nursing ResearchEvidence-Based NursingFemaleGuideline AdherenceHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleMiddle AgedPressure UlcerWounds and InjuriesYoung AdultAdverse eventsClinical practice guidelinesPressure ulcerPreventionProcesses of care

Identifiers

PMID28744988
PMCPMC7949936
OpenAlexW2737682690

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.