ArticlePloS one2020
Effects of a pressure-ulcer audit and feedback regional programme at 1 and 2 years in nursing homes: A prospective longitudinal study.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Article
- Improving Wound Care in Residential Aged Care Facilities: Development, Validation and Use of a Novel Knowledge Translation Framework.International journal of older people nursing · 2025Article
- Clinical Observation of Comfort Nursing Combined With Continuous Nursing Intervention After Discharge on Improving Pressure Ulcers, Falls, Quality of Life, and Prognosis in Patients With Intracerebral Hemorrhage.Frontiers in surgery · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPressure ulcer is a frequent complication in patients hospitalized in nursing homes and has a serious impact on quality of life and overall health. Moreover, ulcer treatment is highly expensive. Several studies have shown that pressure ulcer prevention is cost-effective. Audit and feedback programmes can help improve professional practices in pressure ulcer prevention and thus reduce their occurrence. The aim of this study was to analyze, with a prospective longitudinal study, the effectiveness of an audit and feedback programme at 1- and 2-year follow-up for reducing pressure ulcer prevalence and enhancing adherence to preventive practices in nursing homes.
methodsPressure ulcer point prevalence and preventive practices were measured in 2015, 2016 and 2017 in nursing homes of the Canton of Geneva (Switzerland). Oral and written feedback was provided 2 months after every survey to nursing home reference nurses.
resultsA total of 27 nursing homes participated in the programme in 2015 and 2016 (4607 patients) and 15 continued in 2017 (1357 patients). Patients were mostly females, with mean age > 86 years and median length of stay about 2 years. The programme significantly improved two preventive measures: patient repositioning and anti-decubitus bed or mattress. It also reduced acquired pressure ulcers prevalence in nursing homes that participated during all 3 years (from 4.5% in 2015 to 2.9% in 2017, p 0.035), especially in those with more patients with pressure ulcers.
conclusionAudit and feedback is relatively easy to implement at the regional level in nursing homes and can enhance adherence to preventive measures and reduce pressure ulcers prevalence in the homes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.