ArticleInternational wound journal2024
Acute care nurses' experience in providing evidence-based care for patients with laparotomy wounds: A scoping review.
Article in International wound journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Postoperative Wound Care Practices of Acute Care Nurses: An Integrative Review.International wound journal · 2025Review
- Acute care nurses' experience in providing evidence-based care for patients with laparotomy wounds: A scoping review.International wound journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To systematically search and synthesise available literature on barriers and enablers to evidence-based care for patients with laparotomy wounds reported by acute care nurses. Specifically, we focused on wound assessment, infection control techniques, wound products used, escalation of care, dressing application, documentation and holistic care. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews Checklist and explanation documents directed the review. The methodology framework created by Arksey and O'Malley, updated by Levac et al., and the Joanna Briggs Institute were utilised to assist the scoping review process. Data synthesis was guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework. Six qualitative and mixed methods studies were selected for the review. Most reported barriers and enablers were mapped to knowledge, skills, beliefs about consequences, environmental context and resources and beliefs about capability domains. The main barriers were limited access to and utilisation of wound assessment tools and clinical practice guidelines for wound management and suboptimal time management skills. Inconsistent management of laparotomy wounds was related to ward culture and nurses' lack of knowledge and skills in surgical wound assessment and aseptic technique during wound encounters. The reported enablers were knowledge of multi-factorial risk factors for surgical wound recovery, valuing education and reflective practice and believing that protocols should be utilised alongside comprehensive wound assessments. Holistic wound care included patient education on the role of mobilisation and nutrition in wound healing. Acute care nurses do not routinely incorporate comprehensive, evidence-based care recommendations for laparotomy wound management. Further research on evidence-based care behaviours in managing laparotomy wounds is required. The results indicate a need for standardising the practice of laparotomy wound management while acknowledging the current challenges faced in the ward environment.
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.