Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32027094›Full record

ArticleInternational wound journal2020

Pressure injury data in Australian acute care settings: A comparison of three data sets.

Victoria Team, Michelle Tuck, Judy Reeves, Margaret Way, Joanne Enticott, Susan Evans, Carolina D Weller

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in International wound journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

7 authors.

Victoria TeamMonash Nursing and Midwifery, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6615-6874
Michelle TuckNursing Services, Alfred Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Judy ReevesNursing Services, Alfred Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Margaret WaySafety and Quality, Barwon Health, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.
Joanne EnticottMonash Partners Academic Health Science Centre, Monash Partners, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4480-5690
Susan EvansPublic Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2962-8400
Carolina D WellerMonash Nursing and Midwifery, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8016-1060

Funding

Australian Government, Department of Health Health Services Research Fellowship
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Hospital-acquired pressure injuries (HAPIs) represent a serious clinical and economic problem. The cost of treating HAPIs in Australian public hospitals was recently reported at AUS$983 million per annum. There are three main sources of data for documenting pressure injury (PI) occurrence in Australian hospitals: incident reporting, medical record coded data, and real-time surveys of pressure injury. PI data reported at hospital level and to external agencies using these three different sources are variable. This reporting issue leads to inaccurate data interpretation and hinders improvement in accuracy of PI identification and PI prevention. This study involved a comparison of the three different data sources in selected Australian hospitals, to improve the accuracy and comparability of data. Findings from this study provide benchmark areas for improvement in PI documenting and reporting. Better understanding the agreement between the three data sets could lead to a more efficient and effective sharing of data sources.

Indexed as

Critical CareAgedAged, 80 and overAustraliaClinical AuditClinical CodingFemaleHospitalizationHumansIatrogenic DiseaseMaleMiddle AgedPressure UlcerPrevalenceRetrospective StudiesRisk Managementdata harmonisationhospital-acquired pressure injurypressure injury documentingpressure injury reportingPressure Ulcer Point Prevalence Survey

Identifiers

PMID32027094
PMCPMC7948723

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.