↓ Skip to main content

Improvement of pressure ulcer prevention care in private for-profit residential care homes: an action research study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Geriatrics, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
134 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Improvement of pressure ulcer prevention care in private for-profit residential care homes: an action research study
Published in
BMC Geriatrics, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12877-016-0361-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Enid WY Kwong, Maria SY Hung, Kevin Woo

Abstract

A need exits to develop a protocol for preventing pressure ulcers (PUs) in private for-profit nursing homes in Hong Kong, where the incidence of PUs is relatively high and which have high proportion of non-professional care staff. The implementation of such protocol would involve changes in the practice of care, likely evoking feelings of fear and uncertainty that may become a barrier to staff adherence. We thus adopted the Systems Model of Action Research in this study to manage the process of change for improving PU prevention care and to develop a pressure ulcer prevention protocol for private for-profit nursing homes. A total of 474 residents and care staff who were health workers, personal care workers, and/or nurses from four private, for-profit nursing homes in Hong Kong participated in this study. Three cyclic stages and steps, namely, unfreezing (planning), changing (action), and refreezing (results) were carried out. During each cycle, focus group interviews, field observations of the care staff's practices and inspections of the skin of the residents for pressure ulcers were conducted to evaluate the implementation of the protocol. Qualitative content analysis was adopted to analyse the data. The data and methodological triangulation used in this study increased the credibility and validity of the results. The following nine themes emerged from this study: prevention practices after the occurrence of PUs, the improper use of pressure ulcer prevention materials, non-compliance with several prevention practices, improper prevention practices, the perception that the preventive care was being performed correctly, inadequate readiness to use the risk assessment tool, an undesirable environment, the supplying of unfavorable resources, and various management styles in the homes with or without nurses. At the end of the third cycle, the changes that were identified included improved compliance with the revised risk assessment method, the timely and appropriate use of PU prevention materials, the empowering of staff to improve the quality of PU care, and improved home management. Through the action research approach, the care staff were empowered and their PU prevention care practices had improved, which contributed to the decreased incidence of pressure ulcers. A PU prevention protocol that was accepted by the staff was finally developed as the standard of care for such homes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 134 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 132 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 20 15%
Researcher 18 13%
Student > Master 13 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 9%
Student > Postgraduate 11 8%
Other 19 14%
Unknown 41 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 37 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 26 19%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Psychology 5 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Other 15 11%
Unknown 42 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 December 2016.
All research outputs
#15,866,607
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#2,420
of 3,201 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#253,880
of 419,253 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#35
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,201 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.9. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 419,253 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.