The results of this study provides a description of patient experiences that can help to guide nursing practice as well as an understanding of what a malignant fungating wound means to cancer patients and how it influences their lives.

Although further, longer-term follow-up will be useful, this study demonstrates that multimedia packages can enhance patient involvement in their stoma care and can augment stoma education - particularly in resource challenged healthcare environments.

This study contributes to our understanding of the impact of malignant fungating wounds and how correct assessment and management is necessary to improve quality of life. Educational intervention research is needed for patients and caregivers in countries where this has not yet been performed. Further research should also identify whether nursing competence has a direct impact on quality of life.

PURPOSE: We systematically reviewed the literature in order to determine whether evidence indicated that preoperative stoma site marking reduces the occurrence of postoperative stoma and peristomal complications. DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis of pooled findings. SUBJECTS/SETTING: We systematically reviewed 6 electronic databases including PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library for English language articles, along with the Airiti Library and Wanfang Data for Chinese articles for evidence related to the effects of stoma site marking on stoma and peristomal complications. We sought articles published from their inception to January 31, 2018. METHODS: Ten studies that included 2109 participants, each comparing 2 groups of patients who did and did not undergo preoperative stoma site marking, were retrieved and analyzed. RESULTS: In patients who underwent stoma site marking, the marking was associated with reduced stoma and peristomal complications in all stoma types (odds ratio [OR] = 0.52; 95% CI, 0.42-0.64; P < .001). Patients who underwent stoma and had fecal ostomies experienced fewer complications (OR = 0.34; 95% CI, 0.25-0.47; P < .001) than patients with unmarked stomas. In contrast, patients with urostomies did not experience fewer complications when compared to those with unmarked ostomies (OR = 0.531; 95% CI, 0.23-1.21; P = .132). Persons with fecal ostomies also had fewer hernias and peristomal skin complications (ORs = 0.25 and 0.30; 95% CIs, 0.09-0.71 and 0.20-0.44, respectively; both Ps < .001). The results revealed that stoma site marking was associated with reduced early and late stoma and peristomal complications (ORs = 0.76 and 0.38; 95% CIs, 0.61-0.94 and 0.32-0.46; P = .010 and P < .001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative stoma site marking is associated with a reduced occurrence of stoma and peristomal complications and should be considered as a standard of preoperative care.

This study provides a cost effective way of addressing stoma care in the post-operative period that could be usefully transferred to stoma care settings internationally.

wang s.‐c., lee l.l., wang w.‐h., sung h.‐c., chang h.‐k., hsu m.‐y., chang s.‐c. & tai c.‐h. (2012) Psychometric testing of the Chinese evidence‐based practice scales. Journal of Advanced Nursing68(11), 2570–2577. Abstract Aim.  This article is a report of the psychometric testing of the Chinese version of Evidence‐Based Practice Implementation and Beliefs, and Barriers to, and Facilitators of Research Utilization scales. Background.  Investigations into the effect of evidence‐based practice on clinical care could be facilitated by instruments for measuring the levels of evidence‐based practice implementation; the strength of beliefs in evidence‐based practice; the barriers to, and the facilitators of research utilization. An English version of the scales measuring the above constructs has been tested whereas the Chinese one has not. Design.  Instrument development. Methods.  Psychometric analyses of the four evidence‐based scales were conducted on a sample of 361 nurses from a medical centre in Taiwan. Both the internal consistency and squared multiple correlation coefficients were used to examine reliability. The validity testing for the four scales was estimated by examining their construct and concurrent validity. Data were collected between December 2008–January 2009. Findings.  Internal consistencies exist for the Chinese Evidence‐Based Practice Implementation, Beliefs, and Barriers to, and Facilitator of Research Utilization scales (≥0·85); some were greater than 0·9, which may indicate redundancy in items. Construct validity of the four scales was supported by hypotheses testing. Concurrent validity of the four scales was supported by known‐group analysis, in which experienced nursing researchers had higher scores compared with clinical nurses. Conclusion.  These scales may have value in discrimination between implementation of EBP and perception of barriers to, and facilitators of research utilization among nurses with different education levels, research experiences or working years in clinical setting.

No abstract

A BSTRACT Objectives: International guidelines for managing pressure injury (PI) and ulcers recommend that family members and caregivers should be involved in making decisions for appropriate wound care. However, the effect of shared decision-making (SDM) in the context of PI remains unknown. This study investigated the efficacy of nurse-led medical SDM for PI treatment. Materials and Methods: We constructed a patient decision aid (PDA) for PI treatment on the basis of nursing evidence. Subsequently, we conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of SDM compared with that of usual care (control group, [CG]) for PI treatment. Participants with stage 3, stage 4, or unstageable PI were included and randomized into two groups. In the SDM group (SDMG), 10 participants received the SDM intervention for PI before treatment. All participants were followed up for 4 weeks. Primary outcomes were measured using the nine-item SDM Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) and Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS). Secondary outcomes included wound size and cost of wound management. Results: The expert validity (medical professors and general population) of the PDA designed for PI was measured, and the content validity index was 0.96–0.97. A total of 20 participants were enrolled (10 received SDM and 10 received usual care). The mean age of the participants was 55.7 ± 8.8 years. No significant difference in baseline characteristics (sex, age, staging, or wound area) was observed between the two groups. The SDMG had higher SDM-Q-9 ( P < 0.001) and DCS ( P < 0.01) scores than did the CG. For the secondary outcomes, the SDMG had a decreased change of wound size and lower wound management costs than did the CG; nevertheless, the differences were not statistically significant. Conclusion: We constructed a PDA for PI treatment, which can be applied in clinical care. The pilot test results revealed that the participants had a lower cost related wound treatment and decreasing wound size in SDMG than CG after the intervention of SDM-PI for 4 weeks. In the future, clinical studies should conduct large-scale randomized trials based on the results of this pilot study.