PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 9325937

Protocols for wound management.

F M Dwyer·D Keeler
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

After 7 months of extensive research, wound management protocols were successfully developed and implemented at a 500-bed chronic care facility. The protocols gave registered nurses the authority and autonomy to initiate both treatment and preventive measures when caring for patients with pressure ulcers. The purpose of the protocols was twofold: (1) to prevent intact skin from breaking down and (2) to increase the healing rate of present ulcers.

Explore related subjects

Clinical ProtocolsHumansNursing AssessmentPatient Care PlanningPressure UlcerWounds and InjuriesJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

F M Dwyer, D Keeler. 1997. Protocols for wound management.. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006247-199707010-00013

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed1999

Treatment research at the crossroads: the scientific interface of clinical trials and effectiveness research.

OBJECTIVE: Policy and clinical management decisions depend on data on the health and cost impacts of psychiatric treatments under usual care, i.e., effectiveness. Clinical trials, however, provide information on treatment efficacy under best-practice conditions. An understanding of the design, analysis, and conventions of both efficacy and effectiveness studies can lead to research that better informs clinical and societal questions. METHOD: This paper contrasts the strengths and limitations of clinical trials and effectiveness studies for addressing policy and clinical decisions. These research approaches are assessed in terms of outcomes, treatments, service delivery context, implementation conventions, and validity. RESULTS: Clinical trials and effectiveness research share problems of internal and external validity despite more attention to internal validity in clinical trials (e.g., randomization, blinding, standardized protocols) and to external validity in effectiveness studies (e.g., community-based treatments, representative samples). CONCLUSIONS: To develop research at the interface of clinical trials and effectiveness studies, research goals must be redefined, and methods, such as cost-utility and econometric analyses, must be shared and developed. Development of hybrid designs that combine features of efficacy and effectiveness research will require separation of conventions such as frequency of follow-up, intensity of measurement, and sample size from the central scientific issues of aims and validity.

Clinical Protocols↗
PubMed1999

Clinical trials in general surgical journals: are methods better reported?

BACKGROUND: Reports of clinical trials often lack adequate descriptions of their design and analysis. Thus readers cannot properly assess the strength of the findings and are limited in their ability to draw their own conclusions. A review of 6 surgical journals in 1984 revealed that the frequency of reporting 11 basic elements of design and analysis in clinical trials was only 59%. This study attempted to identify areas that still need improvement. METHODS: Eligible studies published from July 1995 through June 1996 included all reports of comparative clinical trials on human subjects that were prospective and had at least 2 treatment arms. A total of 68 articles published in 6 general surgery journals were reviewed. The frequency that the previously identified 11 basic elements of design and analysis were reported was determined. RESULTS: Seventy-four percent of all items were reported accurately (a 15% increase from the previous study), 4% were reported ambiguously, and 23% were not reported; improvement was seen in every journal. The reporting of eligibility criteria and statistical power improved the most. For 3 items, reporting was still not adequate; 32% of reports provided information about statistical power, 40% about the method of randomization, and 49% about whether the person assessing outcomes was blind to the treatment assignment. CONCLUSIONS: Improvements have been made in reporting surgical clinical trials, but in general methodologic questions poorly answered in the 1980s continue to be answered poorly in the 1990s. Editors of surgical journals are urged to provide authors with guidelines on how to report clinical trial design and analysis.

Clinical Protocols↗