Knowledge about medications and products to prevent and treat pressure ulcers: a cross-sectional survey of nurses and physicians in a primary health care setting

Opinion on the benefits of nurse prescribing in Catalonia. Consensus of health professionals and managers

OBJECTIVE

To study the level of agreement among health professionals and managers in Catalonia on the benefits of nurse prescribing (NP).

METHOD

An online Real Time Delphi was conducted to collect the level of agreement of health professionals and managers. Participants voted in a 6-point scale (1 low benefit and 6 high benefit) for 12 items describing benefits of NP. A total of 1332 professionals participated. The level of consensus was calculated applying interquartile ranges of scores and standardized mean differences among subgroups using effect sizes (ES) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

The scores indicate a general agreement on the perceived benefits of NP among participants. Standardized differences among scores on the perceived benefits among professionals were small to high (ES range between 0.2 and 1.2) between nurses and medical doctors and high between nurses and pharmacists (ES range: 1.2 and 2.4). Differences between scores of nurses and those of managers or other professionals in the present study were smaller for most voted benefits.

CONCLUSIONS

The study shows an agreement on the benefits of NP. Nevertheless, when standardized scores are taken into consideration, differences among professionals' perceptions emerged, and aligned with documented barriers identified in the literature such as corporative aspects, cultural limitations, institutional and organisational inertia, beliefs and unawareness of what NP implies.

Critical Care Nurses’ Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Regarding Pressure Injury Treatment: A Nationwide Cross-Sectional Survey

Background

Pressure injury is a common problem in intensive care units. Critical care nurses play an important role in multidisciplinary teams performing pressure injury treatment. Identifying the clinical status of pressure injury treatment may contribute to improving care quality.

Aim

To identify the knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding pressure injury treatment in critical care nurses.

Design

A cross-sectional survey.

Methods

Secondary data were extracted from a multicenter clinical trial. Knowledge and attitudes toward pressure injury treatment were assessed through a self-administered eight-item questionnaire. The observed practices were recorded using a case report form. The report was in accordance with the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement.

Results

A total of 950 critical care nurses in 15 hospitals from six provinces/municipalities of China were investigated. The mean knowledge score was 2.89 ± 1.16 (95% confidence interval: 2.82–2.97) out of a possible total of 5 points. The correct rates of selecting wound dressings and pain management were 34.4% and 45.6%, respectively. The mean attitude score was 9.07 ± 1.09 (95% confidence interval: 9.00–9.13) out of a possible total of 12 points. A total of 2092 patient days of pressure injury treatment practices were observed and recorded. Repositioning was the most commonly employed treatment measure (98.8%). Foam dressing was the common dressing for stage I (53.6%), stage II (47.5%), and more severe pressure injury (67.9%), including stage III, IV, unstageable, and suspected deep tissue injury.

Conclusion

Critical care nurses exhibited a generally low level of knowledge and moderate attitudes regarding pressure injury treatment. Practices of pressure injury treatment were generally acceptable.