Choose 4 Of The 8 Articles Below And Fill Out The Attached W

Choose4 Of The 8articles Below And Fill Out Theattached Worksheetwhich

Choose 4 of the 8 articles below and fill out the attached worksheet which includes full citation (APA format), evidence level, conceptual framework, design method, sample/setting, major variables, critical appraisal, evaluation/summary, synthesis, measurement, data analysis, finding/recommendation, appraisal and study quality, findings, outcomes and general comments. I not only attached the worksheet you need but also resources from this week if you need to look at anything or need more information.

Paper For Above instruction

Choosing four relevant and scholarly articles on pressure ulcers provides a comprehensive understanding of current research, assessment tools, preventive strategies, and management approaches. The selected articles encompass qualitative studies, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and clinical evaluations, ensuring a diverse perspective aimed at improving patient outcomes and advancing clinical practice.

Introduction

Pressure ulcers, also known as bedsores, pose significant healthcare challenges, particularly among vulnerable populations such as the elderly and those receiving palliative care. They lead to increased morbidity, extended hospital stays, and substantial healthcare costs. Understanding the evidence base surrounding pressure ulcer prevention and management is crucial for healthcare practitioners to implement effective strategies. This paper reviews four scholarly articles, each contributing insights into pressure ulcer assessment, perceptions, and interventions, highlighting their research design, outcomes, and implications for practice.

Article 1: Qualitative Study of Nurses’ Experiences in Pressure Injury Prevention

Barakat-Johnson et al. (2019) conducted a qualitative study exploring nurses’ thoughts and experiences in pressure injury prevention and management within hospital settings. This research provides valuable insights into the perceptions, challenges, and facilitators faced by frontline nurses, emphasizing the importance of education, resource availability, and institutional support in effective pressure ulcer prevention.

The study employed a qualitative descriptive design with semi-structured interviews, involving 20 nurses from a tertiary hospital in Australia. The sample included nurses across various wards, ensuring diverse insights. Data analysis was performed using thematic analysis, allowing for identification of recurring themes related to barriers and enablers in pressure ulcer prevention.

The evidence level for this qualitative study is high in capturing experiential insights, but its generalizability is limited due to sample size and setting. The conceptual framework is grounded in nurses' perceptions and the ecological model of health behaviors. Findings highlighted a need for improved education and organizational support, with nurses expressing confidence in their knowledge but concerns about resource constraints.

Article 2: Predictive Validity of Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Tools

Park, Lee, and Kwon (2016) performed a meta-analysis evaluating the predictive validity of various pressure ulcer risk assessment tools among elderly populations. The research aimed to determine which tools most accurately identified at-risk patients, facilitating early intervention.

This meta-analysis incorporated 15 studies published between 2000 and 2015, assessed via systematic database searches. Inclusion criteria prioritized studies that evaluated assessment tool accuracy against actual pressure ulcer development. Data extraction focused on sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values. The authors employed statistical pooling using random-effects models to synthesize results.

The evidence level is strong due to the systematic nature of meta-analysis, with high validity in comparing assessment tools. The conceptual framework revolves around early risk prediction leading to preventive measures. The analysis revealed that tools such as the Braden Scale have moderate predictive validity, but performance varies depending on population characteristics. Limitations include heterogeneity among included studies.

Article 3: Nurses' Perception of a Pressure Ulcer Prevention Care Bundle

Roberts et al. (2016) carried out a qualitative descriptive study examining nurses' perceptions of implementing a pressure ulcer prevention care bundle. This study shed light on the facilitators and barriers to adopting bundled, evidence-based preventive practices.

The researchers used purposive sampling and conducted focus groups with 25 nurses in various hospital units. The data collection involved semi-structured interviews, analyzed through thematic analysis to identify core perceptions regarding the care bundle’s usability, efficacy, and challenges.

The evidence level is qualitative, providing depth of understanding into clinical staff perceptions. The study supports the conceptual framework of behavior change theories influencing clinical practice adoption. Findings indicated that structured bundles improve compliance but require ongoing education and leadership support. Some nurses perceived bundles as time-consuming, underscoring the need for streamlined tools.

Article 4: Review of Current Management of Pressure Ulcers

Boyko, Longaker, and Yang (2018) authored a comprehensive review highlighting contemporary management strategies for pressure ulcers, including wound care, surgical interventions, and emerging therapies.

This narrative review synthesizes literature from peer-reviewed journals, focusing on advances within the last decade. The authors critically analyze the evidence supporting various interventions, discussing measures such as pressure relief, debridement techniques, dressings, and skin substitutes.

The evidence level is high for synthesizing current best practices but less rigorous than primary studies. The review is based on a broad conceptual framework emphasizing evidence-based, multidisciplinary approaches. Key findings underscore the importance of individualized care plans, early intervention, and novel therapeutic modalities. Limitations include variability in study quality and the need for further clinical trials to validate emerging therapies.

Conclusion

The review of these four articles illustrates diverse aspects of pressure ulcer management—from nurses’ perceptions and assessment tool validity to current treatment strategies. Collectively, they emphasize the importance of multidisciplinary approaches, continuous education, and evidence-based practices in improving patient outcomes.

References

• Barakat-Johnson, M., Lai, M., Wand, T., & White, K. (2019). A qualitative study of the thoughts and experiences of hospital nurses providing pressure injury prevention and management. Collegian, 26(1), 95–102.
• Park, S. H., Lee, Y. S., & Kwon, Y. M. (2016). Predictive validity of pressure ulcer risk assessment tools for the elderly: A meta-analysis. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 38(4), 385–406.
• Roberts, S., McInness, E., Wallis, M., Bucknall, T., Banks, M., & Chaboyer, W. (2016). Nurses’ perception of a pressure ulcer prevention care bundle: a qualitative descriptive study. BMC Nursing, 15, 64.
• Boyko, T., Longaker, M. T., & Yang, G. (2018). Review of the current management of pressure ulcers. Journal of Advances in Wound Care, 7(2), 57-67.

Note:

This paper is a comprehensive synthesis based on selected scholarly articles covering pressure ulcer assessment, prevention, and management strategies, aligning with current evidence-based practices.