The present study was carried out as a comparative observational study in order to determine the effect of prophylactic dressing on the prevention of skin injuries due to the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) in health care workers (HCWs) working with COVID-19 patients. In addition, the effect of nasal strip on the prevention of discomfort in breathing with mask was also investigated. Materials and methods: The present study was carried out with 48 HCWs (Control Group-CG, n = 20; Experimental Group 1-EG1, n = 20; Experimental Group 2-EG2, n = 8) who use PPE on the face region and work with COVID-19 patients. Data was collected with Data Collection Form developed by researchers. In participants in CG, normal procedures of the institution in using PPE were followed. In EG1, prophylactic dressing was used on risky areas on the face. In EG2, nasal strip sticky on one side was used in addition to prophylactic dressing. The evaluation of the facial skin was made once a day by a researcher with expertise in wound management. Results: Groups were similar in terms of demographic characteristics of participants. Overall rate of skin injuries associated with PPE use was 47.9%. Skin injuries developed in all participants in CG (n = 20), and in two and one participants in EG1 and EG2 respectively, with significant difference between groups. The most common skin injuries were Stage 1 pressure injury (29.2%), blanchable erythema of intact skin (27.1%) and itching (18.8%). No participant in EG2 reported discomfort in breathing (n = 8). Significant difference was found between groups in favor of EG2 in terms of experiencing discomfort in breathing (p < 0.001). Conclusions: In the present study, it was established that using prophylactic dressing under PPE prevents skin injuries on the facial skin and using nasal strip prevents discomfort in breathing with mask. In view of these results, it was recommended that prophylactic dressing should be used under PPE.
OBJECTIVE:To determine the presence of evidence-based practice protocols for the prevention and management of pressure injuries (PIs) in home care settings, whether the contents of existing protocols were based on current evidence, and adherence to these protocols.
OBJECTIVE:To determine nurses' knowledge level about skin tears (STs). METHODS: This cross-sectional study included 346 nurses working in acute care hospitals in Turkey who completed web-or paper-based surveys in September and October 2021. Researchers used the Skin Tear Knowledge Assessment Instrument, which consists of 20 questions across six domains, to assess nurses' level of ST knowledge. RESULTS:The mean age of the nurses was 33.67 (SD, 8.88) years, 80.6% were women, and 73.7% had an undergraduate degree. Nurses' mean number of correct answers on the Skin Tear Knowledge Assessment Instrument was 9.33 (SD, 2.83) of 20 (46.66% [SD, 14.14%]). The mean numbers of correct answers by domain were as follows: etiology, 1.34 (SD, 0.84) of 3; classification and observation, 2.21 (SD, 1.00) of 4; risk assessment, 1.01 (SD, 0.68) of 2; prevention, 2.68 (SD, 1.23) of 6; treatment, 1.66 (SD, 1.05) of 4; and specific patient groups, 0.74 (SD, 0.44) of 1. Significant associations were found among the nurses' ST knowledge scores and whether they had graduated from a nursing program (P = .005), their working years (P = .002), their working unit (P < .001), and whether they provided care to patients with STs (P = .027).CONCLUSIONS: Nurses' level of knowledge of the etiology, classification, risk assessment, prevention, and treatment of STs was low. The authors recommend including more information about STs in basic nursing education, in-service training, and certificate programs to increase nurses' ST knowledge.
Aims We aimed to develop and test the psychometric properties of a Medical Device‐related Pressure Injuries Knowledge and Practice Assessment Tool. Background Assessment of nurses' knowledge and practices is critical in the prevention of Medical Device‐related Pressure Injuries. Design This was an instrument development and testing study. Methods The sample of the study consisted of nurses (n = 189). The study was conducted in three phases between January and February 2021. In the first phase, multiple‐choice items contained within Aetiology/Risk Factors, Prevention Interventions, and Staging domains were created. In the second phase, content validity and criterion validity were evaluated, and the tool was pre‐tested. The third phase examined item difficulty, discrimination index and distractor quality. The test–retest method was used for reliability. Results The Content Validity Index was found to be 0.75, 0.86 and 0.96 for the domains of Aetiology/Risk Factors, Prevention and Staging, respectively. The item difficulty values of the items were between 0.18 and 0.96. A positive, strong and significant relationship was found between the results and a positive, moderate and significant relationship between the tools administered for the proof of scale validity. The Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient was found to be 0.54. Conclusions The tool is a suitable measurement instrument for use in nursing education, research and clinical settings.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.