Nurses' reported practice and knowledge of wound assessment, assessment tools and documentation in a selected hospital in Lagos, Nigeria.

O M Oseni, P O Adejumo
{"title":"Nurses' reported practice and knowledge of wound assessment, assessment tools and documentation in a selected hospital in Lagos, Nigeria.","authors":"O M Oseni,&nbsp;P O Adejumo","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Complete wound assessment and accurate documentation are two pivots on which effective wound care is based and wound care is the traditional role of nurses. This study was designed to assess nurses' reported practice and knowledge of wound assessment, assessment tools and documentation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Cross sectional descriptive design was adopted and the study was conducted in National Orthopaedic Hospital, Igbobi (NOHIL) Lagos, Nigeria which was selected because of high incidence of orthopaedic conditions with accompanying wounds of various types. A purposive sample of 251 nurses participated in the study.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Findings show less than adequate reported practice and knowledge. Some of the respondents, 83 (33.1%) reported that they were familiar with wound assessment methods. However, only 18 (7.2%), 29 (11.6%) and 7 (2.8%) correctly cited photographic method, physical observation, and tape rule respectively while 21 (25%) of them cited wrong methods such as evaluation of PH and chemical method, and the rest could not cite any method. Majority, 144 (57.4%) reported they were not quite or not at all familiar with Pressure Ulcer Status Tool, and none of the respondents who claimed to be familiar with these tools could answer any questions that tested their knowledge on specific aspects of the tool. What respondents claimed they included in their documentation varies from wound dressing done/wound is clean/wound is healing by 111(44.2%) while 40(16%) of them reported no idea of what to document. Modifiable variables like rank (NOII) and years of experience (1-5 years) were found to significantly affect their reported knowledge of wound assessment and reported practice of wound documentation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Participants in this study are deficient in knowledge and practice of wound assessment and documentation. Utilization of wound assessment tools and continuing professional development for nurses are necessary to improve care outcomes for all patients living with wounds.</p>","PeriodicalId":7616,"journal":{"name":"African journal of medicine and medical sciences","volume":"43 2","pages":"149-57"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"African journal of medicine and medical sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Complete wound assessment and accurate documentation are two pivots on which effective wound care is based and wound care is the traditional role of nurses. This study was designed to assess nurses' reported practice and knowledge of wound assessment, assessment tools and documentation.

Methods: Cross sectional descriptive design was adopted and the study was conducted in National Orthopaedic Hospital, Igbobi (NOHIL) Lagos, Nigeria which was selected because of high incidence of orthopaedic conditions with accompanying wounds of various types. A purposive sample of 251 nurses participated in the study.

Results: Findings show less than adequate reported practice and knowledge. Some of the respondents, 83 (33.1%) reported that they were familiar with wound assessment methods. However, only 18 (7.2%), 29 (11.6%) and 7 (2.8%) correctly cited photographic method, physical observation, and tape rule respectively while 21 (25%) of them cited wrong methods such as evaluation of PH and chemical method, and the rest could not cite any method. Majority, 144 (57.4%) reported they were not quite or not at all familiar with Pressure Ulcer Status Tool, and none of the respondents who claimed to be familiar with these tools could answer any questions that tested their knowledge on specific aspects of the tool. What respondents claimed they included in their documentation varies from wound dressing done/wound is clean/wound is healing by 111(44.2%) while 40(16%) of them reported no idea of what to document. Modifiable variables like rank (NOII) and years of experience (1-5 years) were found to significantly affect their reported knowledge of wound assessment and reported practice of wound documentation.

Conclusion: Participants in this study are deficient in knowledge and practice of wound assessment and documentation. Utilization of wound assessment tools and continuing professional development for nurses are necessary to improve care outcomes for all patients living with wounds.

尼日利亚拉各斯一家选定医院的护士报告的伤口评估、评估工具和文件的实践和知识。
背景:完整的伤口评估和准确的文献记录是有效伤口护理的两个关键,伤口护理是护士的传统角色。本研究旨在评估护士报告的伤口评估、评估工具和文件的实践和知识。方法:采用横断面描述性设计,选取尼日利亚拉各斯Igbobi (NOHIL) National Orthopaedic Hospital,该医院因骨科疾病伴各种类型创伤发生率高而选择。有目的的251名护士参与了这项研究。结果:调查结果显示,报告的实践和知识不足。部分受访者中,83人(33.1%)报告熟悉伤口评估方法。但正确引用摄影法、物理观察法和胶带法的分别只有18人(7.2%)、29人(11.6%)和7人(2.8%),错误引用PH值评价法和化学法等方法的有21人(25%),其余未引用任何方法。大多数,144人(57.4%)报告他们不太熟悉或根本不熟悉压力溃疡状态工具,并且没有一个声称熟悉这些工具的受访者可以回答任何测试他们对工具特定方面知识的问题。受访者声称他们在文件中包括的内容各不相同,111人(44.2%)表示伤口包扎完毕/伤口清洁/伤口愈合,而40人(16%)表示不知道记录什么。研究发现,等级(NOII)和经验年数(1-5年)等可修改变量显著影响他们报告的伤口评估知识和报告的伤口记录实践。结论:本研究的参与者缺乏创伤评估和记录的知识和实践。利用伤口评估工具和护士持续的专业发展对于改善所有伤口患者的护理结果是必要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信