• myGriffith
    • Staff portal
    • Contact Us⌄
      • Future student enquiries 1800 677 728
      • Current student enquiries 1800 154 055
      • International enquiries +61 7 3735 6425
      • General enquiries 07 3735 7111
      • Online enquiries
      • Staff phonebook
    View Item 
    •   Home
    • Griffith Research Online
    • Journal articles
    • View Item
    • Home
    • Griffith Research Online
    • Journal articles
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

  • All of Griffith Research Online
    • Communities & Collections
    • Authors
    • By Issue Date
    • Titles
  • This Collection
    • Authors
    • By Issue Date
    • Titles
  • Statistics

  • Most Popular Items
  • Statistics by Country
  • Most Popular Authors
  • Support

  • Contact us
  • FAQs
  • Admin login

  • Login
  • Adherence to evidence-based pressure injury prevention guidelines in routine clinical practice: A longitudinal study

    Thumbnail
    View/Open
    Embargoed until: 2018-07-01
    Author
    Chaboyer, Wendy
    Bucknall, Tracey
    Gillespie, Brigid
    Thalib, Lukman
    McInnes, Elizabeth
    Considine, Julie
    Murray, Edel
    Duffy, Paula
    Tuck, Michelle
    Harbeck, Emma
    Year published
    2017
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    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.
    Journal Title
    International Wound Journal
    DOI
    https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.12798
    Copyright Statement
    © 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and Medicalhelplines.com Inc. This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Adherence to evidence-based pressure injury prevention guidelines in routine clinical practice: a longitudinal study, International Wound Journal, pp. 1-9, 2017, which has been published in final form at 10.1111/iwj.12798. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving (http://olabout.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-828039.html)
    Note
    This publication has been entered into Griffith Research Online as an Advanced Online Version.
    Subject
    Clinical Sciences not elsewhere classified
    Publication URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/10072/351282
    Collection
    • Journal articles

    Footer

    Social media

    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • YouTube
    • Instagram
    • Linkedin
    First peoples of Australia
    • Aboriginal
    • Torres Strait Islander

    Disclaimer

    • Privacy policy
    • Copyright matters
    • CRICOS Provider - 00233E

    Tagline

    • Gold Coast
    • Logan
    • Brisbane
    • Australia