Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38969344›Full record

Observational studyJournal of advanced nursing2025

Use of a risk-based intervention bundle to prescribe and implement interventions to prevent pressure injury: An observational study.

Paul Fulbrook, Josephine Lovegrove, Saroeun Ven, Sarah Schnaak, Tracy Nowicki

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Journal of advanced nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
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

5 authors.

Paul FulbrookSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Paramedicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Australian Catholic University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6547-1861
Josephine LovegroveNursing Research and Practice Development Centre, The Prince Charles Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1466-2374
Saroeun VenSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Paramedicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Australian Catholic University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6903-8926
Sarah SchnaakQuality and Effectiveness Support Team, The Prince Charles Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Tracy NowickiQuality and Effectiveness Support Team, The Prince Charles Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo explore the relationship between the prescription and implementation of pressure injury preventative interventions following risk assessment combined with a risk-stratified intervention bundle.

designSingle-centre, cross-sectional, observational, prospective.

methodsThe charts and bedsides of 341 adult inpatients were examined. Data collection included pressure injury risk level, prescribed preventative interventions and evidence of intervention implementation.

resultsMost patients (68.6%) were at risk of pressure injury, and most interventions were prescribed according to their risk level. However, evidence from direct observation and/or documentation indicated intervention implementation rates were relatively poor. Of nine interventions mandated for all patients, compliance with three patient-/carer-focused interventions was particularly poor, with evidence indicating they had been implemented for 3%-10% of patients. Also, nutritional screening-related interventions were implemented poorly. Clinically indicated implementation of heel-elevation devices and bariatric equipment was low for at-risk patients, and the implementation of interventions for patients with existing pressure injuries was suboptimal. Significant proportions of several interventions that were observed as having been implemented were not documented as such.

conclusionWhile most interventions were prescribed according to patient risk level, the overall implementation of interventions was poor. However, the results may in part be due to failure to document interventions as opposed to omitting them. IMPLICATIONS FOR PATIENT CARE: Documentation of interventions is crucial as it provides evidence of the care provided. An increased focus on documentation of pressure injury preventative interventions is required, with a clear distinction between prescription and implementation. IMPACT: The results highlighted several deficiencies in care, particularly relating to evidence of implementation, patient involvement and nutritional screening. The results from this study will be used to inform and improve future pressure injury prevention practice within the study hospital and should be used to inform and benchmark pressure injury preventative practices in other hospitals. REPORTING

methodThe study adheres to STROBE guidelines. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: None.

Indexed as

Pressure UlcerAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesRisk Assessmentacute careadult nursingassessmentdocumentationpatient safetypressure injurypressure ulcerpreventionrisk managementwaterlow score

Identifiers

PMID38969344
PMCPMC12371779

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.