Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the pressure injury knowledge assessment tool 2.0

AimThe aim of this study was to develop a Turkish version of the Pressure Ulcer Knowledge Assessment Tool 2.0 (PUKAT 2.0) and determine its validity and reliability.Materials and MethodsThis was a cross-cultural adaptation and validation study. The study sample included a total of 451 participants (232 nurses and 219 nursing students). The validity of the Turkish version of the PUKAT 2.0 was evaluated with linguistic validity, content validity, item validity (item difficulty, discriminating index), and construct validity (known-groups technique) analyses. The reliability of the tool was evaluated by conducting a test–retest analysis.ResultsContent validity index (CVI) for the items (Item-CVI) ranged from 0.83 to 1.00 and the CVI for the scale (Scale-CVI) was 0.95. The difficulty index for 21 items ranged from 0.10 to 0.63. Four items were found to be too difficult. Item discriminating index values ranged from 0.00 to 0.61. The overall intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was found to be 0.80.ConclusionThe Turkish version of the Pressure Injury Knowledge Assessment Tool 2.0 (PIKAT 2.0-Tr) is supported by acceptable psychometric properties and can be used to evaluate the knowledge of nurses and nursing students in Turkey about the prevention of PI.     

Efficacy of a heel offloading boot in reducing heel pressure injuries in patients in Australian intensive care units: A single-blinded randomised controlled trial

ObjectivesTo compare time to incidence, extent of incidence and severity of heel pressure injury with a heel off-loading boot (intervention) or pillows (control).Research methodology/designMulti-centre, single-blinded randomised controlled trial of 394 critically ill patients. Patients were randomised to the intervention or control for heel offloading.SettingThree hospital intensive care units; two in greater Sydney, Australia and one in regional New South Wales, Australia.Main outcome measuresTime to intensive care unit-acquired pressure injury in heels of patients without pre-existing heel pressure injury within 28 days from intensive care unit admission. Secondary outcomes: incidence of heel pressure injury within 28 days of intensive care unit admission; severity of intensive care unit-acquired heel pressure injuries; occurrence of plantar contractures (a change in ankle dorsiflexion of 5° or greater) within 28 days of admission.ResultsWithin 28 days of admission, one pressure injury was recorded in the intervention group and 11 in the control group. Hazard of pressure injury incidence within 28 days of admission was significantly lower (p = 0.0239) in heels assigned to the intervention (hazard ratio 0.0896 [95% CI 0.0110, 0.727]). Odds of pressure injury incidence within 28 days of admission were significantly lower (p = 0.0261) in the intervention group (odds ratio 0.0883 [95% CI 0.0104, 0.749]). The pressure injury recorded in the intervention group was superficial (stage 1) whereas those recorded in the control group were more severe (stage 2 to 4).ConclusionThe heel-offloading boot used in this study significantly reduced heel pressure injury occurrence compared with heel offloading using pillows.     

Enhancing adherence and management in patients with hypertension: Impact of form and frequency of knowledge intervention

BackgroundThe alarming rise in prevalence of hypertension warrants psychosocial methods supplementing pharmacotherapy for better management and prevention of cardiac emergencies. The objective of the study was to assess the differential impact of the form and frequency of knowledge intervention on management of primary hypertension.Materials and methodThe study was conducted on 256 hypertensive patients recruited through purposive sampling at health centers in Hyderabad, India. Pretest post-test control group quasi-experimental design was adopted for the study. There were two forms of the knowledge intervention, namely ‘Direct Interaction’ and ‘Audio-Visual’. Each form was presented in two frequencies namely ‘single exposure’ and ‘double exposure’. The four groups were labelled as Direct Intervention Single (DIS), Direct Intervention Double (DID), Audio-Visual Single (AVS) and Audio-Visual Double (AVD). Adherence and management of hypertension were assessed at baseline and six weeks post experiment. Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was applied using IBM SPSS Statistics version 20.ResultsANCOVA followed by Bonferroni Multiple Group Comparison Test revealed significant differences between the four intervention groups and control group on adherence (p< .001). In case of hypertension management significant differences were observed between Control group and DIS, DID (p < .001), Control and AVS (p < .01). Control group did not differ from AVD.ConclusionThere was a positive impact of Knowledge Intervention on adherence and management of hypertension. Double exposure in audio visual form was counterproductive in hypertension management.     

1例直肠癌患者术后继发腹壁多处坏死性软组织感染的护理

总结1例直肠癌患者术后继发腹壁多处坏死性软组织感染的护理经验。护理要点：感染性休克的早期识别和有效控制;坏死性软组织感染的识别及护理,控制全身性感染再次发生;分阶段落实个体化镇痛,改善疼痛症状;分阶段动态落实营养支持方案;实施全程心理干预。经过122 d的精心护理,8处伤口全部愈合,患者恢复良好。     

两种术式对于胆道结石患者术后胆道压力与胃肠道功能研究

目的探讨微创手术和开腹手术治疗胆道结石患者的临床疗效及对胆道压力和胃肠道功能的影响，分析胆道压力与胃肠功能的相互关系。 方法回顾性分析2016年1月至2018年1月收治的124例胆道结石患者。开腹组60例患者采用开腹手术治疗，微创组64例患者采用腹腔镜下胆道镜内镜联合钬激光碎石术治疗。采用SPSS18.00统计软件分析，术中术后指标、炎性因子检测、术后胆道压测定和胃肠动力指标检测，以均数( ±s)形式录入，采用独立t检验；净石率、术后并发症比较采用χ²检验；胆道压力与胃肠动力指标相关性分析采用Spearman相关分析，以P<0.05表示差异有统计学意义。 结果微创组手术时间、住院天数、住院费用、净石率、并发症率均优于开腹组(P<0.05)；微创组术后3 d、 5 d血清IL－6、 IL－8、 TNF－α浓度、 MTL、 CCK、 VIP水平和胆道压力和均显著低于开腹组(P<0.05)；患者术后胆道压力与胃肠动力指标MTL、 CCK程负相关(r＝－0.632, －0.678; P均<0.05)；VIP水平与胆道压力程正相关(r＝0.712; P<0.05)。 结论腹腔镜下胆道镜内镜联合钬激光碎石术治疗胆道结石临床效果明显，术后机体炎症反、胆道压力、胃肠动力指标更优，且胆道压力与胃肠动力指标具有一定相关性。     

Adverse events following adenovirus type 4 and type 7 vaccine,live, oral in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), United States,October 2011–July 2018

BackgroundIn March 2011, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration licensed adenovirus type 4 and type 7 vaccine, live, oral (Barr Labs, Inc.) (adenovirus vaccine) for use in military personnel 17 through 50 years of age. The vaccine was first universally administered to U.S. military recruits in October 2011. We investigated adverse event (AE) reports following the adenovirus vaccine submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).MethodsWe searched the VAERS database for U.S. reports among persons who received adenovirus vaccine during October 2011 through July 2018 including participants in a military observational study. We reviewed all serious reports and accompanying medical records. We compared the proportion of serious reports in a proxy military recruit population and reviewed all reports of suspected allergic reactions following adenovirus vaccination.ResultsDuring the analytic period, VAERS received 100 reports following adenovirus vaccination; 39 (39%) were classified as serious and of these, 17 (44%) were from the observational study. One death was reported. Males accounted for 72% of reports. Median age of vaccinees was 19 years (range 17–32). The most frequently reported serious AEs were Guillain Barré syndrome (GBS) (n = 12) and anaphylaxis (n = 8); of these, two GBS and all the anaphylaxis reports were reported in the observational study. Reports documented concurrent receipt of multiple other vaccines (95%) and penicillin G (IM Pen G) or other antibiotics (50%).ConclusionsThe reporting rate for serious AEs was higher than with other vaccines administered in the comparison military recruit population (39% vs 18%); however, we identified no unexpected or concerning pattern of adenovirus vaccine AEs. Co-administration of vaccines and IM Pen G was commonly reported in this military population. These exposures may have contributed to the GBS and anaphylaxis outcomes observed with the adenovirus vaccine. Future adenovirus vaccine safety studies in a population without these co-administrations would be helpful in clarifying the vaccine’s safety profile.