Introduction
Pressure ulcers (PUs) often become a research subject, yet they continue to harm many immobile patients. PUs are considered to be an indicator of the quality of care, as they require highly efficient nursing personnel (Ebi et al., 2019). There is a need to determine how to alleviate PUs’ impact on patients’ wellbeing via research. The paper uses both electronic database results and the outcome of the interview with a nursing practitioner as the sources of information. The purpose of this research is to determine the most suitable way to explore the current issues and methods of PU prevention and analyze their efficiency.
Interview
The interview has been conducted with a nursing practitioner (NP) from a local long-care facility via an online meeting. During this meeting, the primary method of prevention was determined to be repositioning. High levels of stress and an improper attitude towards PU appear to be the main obstacles to this intervention. The most valuable keywords for PU prevention articles were identified by the NP. The suggested method of article search was to examine the most popular medicine-oriented databases.
These insights imply that there is a need for a proper managerial approach to PU prevention methods. According to the interviewed NP, personnel tends to skip PU interventions involuntarily when their schedule is heavily overloaded. The interviewee suggested focusing on caregiver stress and nurses’ attitudes towards PU prevention. The issues stated by the NP have been put into the basis of search queries in several forms. Overall, the input by the NP had valuable information that was used to formulate the search.
Locating Resources
Aside from the interview, this research includes the data from several peer-reviewed articles regarding PU prevention. Some of the papers were found with the help of the NP’s advice. However, it was necessary to examine other possible ways to prevent PUs. The evidence provided by the NP needed to be proven by peer-reviewed sources. PU prevention is a widely discussed topic, with numerous studies examining many of its aspects. References that overview most of its elements were deemed suitable.
The data of some articles focused solely on issues leading to the lacking PU prevention. Other papers reveal how these methods can be further improved. To be more suitable for generalization, studies need to have a sufficient sample size and clearly outline the sampling procedure. For example, the survey by Etafa et al. has a sample size of 222 nurses who answered a standardized questionnaire (Etafa et al., 2018). To choose the most suitable article, it was necessary to separate them based on their primary and secondary focus of research.
To evaluate the sources of information, it is essential to determine their setting, the scope of the study, and other factors. These factors have a direct impact on the possibility of applying their results to practice. There are significant differences in settings among the nursing papers that rely on culture and the standards of care in the country where the search was conducted. The prevalence of PU in hospital settings varies greatly, ranging from 7.9% in Spain to 22.9% in Canada (García-Sánchez et al., 2019). This notion makes it challenging to apply the results of some studies to practice in a different location.
Electronic Databases
BioMed, PLOS ONE, and ScienceDirect were used to find sources. The research was limited to the articles from the past five years that have been posted in peer-reviewed journals. Most of the papers were obtained from searching for “pressure ulcer prevention nursing,” although some specifications were necessary. There was a necessity to narrow the search to separate results regarding methods of prevention and the causes for its absence. Several articles that were proposed by the search engines were highly specialized or did not focus on PU prevention.
PLOS ONE was the most used database due to the flexibility and clarity of provided results. The results from PLOS ONE required additional filters to be applied to specify that methods must not include reviews of new technologies. However, the search enabled the analysis of the factors that affect the quality of care, and the articles clearly revealed that there is a deficit of knowledge among nurses regarding PU prevention (Ebi et al., 2019; Etafa et al., 2018). BioMed was the most difficult to navigate due to its limited search output. ScienceDirect, despite its broad spectrum of articles, provided a multitude of papers that were correlating with other findings.
Strengths and Weaknesses
There are several differences in outcomes between the interview questionnaire and electronic databases. The interviewed NP was able to provide an inside view on the issue and explain the constraints that contribute to the occurrence of PU. In turn, electronic databases overview multiple settings and provide data from a number of reputable sources. Their articles can incorporate various sources of evidence to compile a meta-analysis (Shi et al., 2018). The primary weakness of both peer-reviewed articles and the interviewee’s answers is their limited generalization.
Many articles provide similar findings, which contributes to their reliability. While there are technologies involved in this process, many healthcare facilities continue to rely on repositioning, which requires extensive attention (Ünver et al., 2017). Ebi et al. (2019) explicitly state that many “nurses rely on their own knowledge and experience rather than research evidence to decide what skincare to deliver” (p. 2). Other papers share similar information regarding the issues with PU prevention.
Adequacy
The databases that have been used for this assignment are an adequate source of information. All of the articles are peer-reviewed and clearly state their purpose, methods, results, and draw conclusions. They highlight the most efficient ways of PU prevention, such as scheduled repositioning, active air surfaces, gel pads, and other technological interventions (Shi et al., 2018). Moreover, they point out common reasons for PU occurrence and their roots. Overall, electronic databases require a degree of search finesse to be useful, but their contribution is immense.
Not only do they provide only verified information, but they are also obliged to state their affiliation and competing interests. For example, research by Ebi et al. was conducted with financial help from Wollega University and clearly outlines that it is generalizable only in the local setting (Ebi et al., 2019). In turn, the adequacy of the information from the interview can be put in doubt. While the issues identified by the NP have a valid basis for concern, they can be limited to the setting where they were observed. It is vital to review how both hospitals and long-term care facilities alleviate the issue, as nurses’ attitudes differ in these settings (Ünver et al., 2017). The interviewee’s contribution is limited in comparison to the potential of search engines.
Conclusion
In conclusion, there are several key components in searching for a proper PU prevention method. To acquire a full image of the situation, it is vital to examine all the available sources on various subtopics. The data highlighted by the interviewee provided a solid basis for further research, although it did not reveal all the common issues. Databases might require additional manipulation of search results to provide the most accurate data. Many articles point out that the lack of knowledge is the critical factor in PU prevention, and not stress or attitude (Ebi et al., 2019; Etafa et al., 2018; Ünver et al., 2017). There is a strong need to combine the input from practice with the most recent knowledge on any topic.
References
Ebi, W. E., Hirko, G. F., & Mijena, D. A. (2019). Nurses’ knowledge to pressure ulcer prevention in public hospitals in Wollega: A cross-sectional study design. BMC Nursing, 18(1). Web.
Etafa, W., Argaw, Z., Gemechu, E., & Melese, B. (2018). Nurses’ attitude and perceived barriers to pressure ulcer prevention. BMC Nursing, 17(1). Web.
García-Sánchez, F. J., Martínez-Vizcaíno, V., & Rodríguez-Martín, B. (2019). Barriers and facilitators for caregiver involvement in the home care of people with pressure injuries: A qualitative study. PLOS ONE, 14(12), e0226359. Web.
Shi, C., Dumville, J. C., & Cullum, N. (2018). Support surfaces for pressure ulcer prevention: A network meta-analysis. PLOS ONE, 13(2), e0192707. Web.
Ünver, S., Fındık, Ü. Y., Özkan, Z. K., & Sürücü, Ç. (2017). Attitudes of surgical nurses towards pressure ulcer prevention. Journal of Tissue Viability, 26(4), 277-281. Web.