Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Pressure ulcer prevention knowledge among Jordanian nurses: a cross- sectional study

BMC Nursing201413:6

DOI: 10.1186/1472-6955-13-6

Received: 1 January 2013

Accepted: 20 February 2014

Published: 24 February 2014

Abstract

Background

Pressure ulcer remains a significant problem in the healthcare system. In addition to the suffering it causes patients, it bears a growing financial burden. Although pressure ulcer prevention and care have improved in recent years, pressure ulcer still exists and occurs in both hospital and community settings. In Jordan, there are a handful of studies on pressure ulcer. This study aims to explore levels of knowledge and knowledge sources about pressure ulcer prevention, as well as barriers to implementing pressure ulcer prevention guidelines among Jordanian nurses.

Methods

Using a cross-sectional study design and a self-administered questionnaire, data was collected from 194 baccalaureate and master’s level staff nurses working in eight Jordanian hospitals. From September to October of 2011, their knowledge levels about pressure ulcer prevention and the sources of this knowledge were assessed, along with the barriers which reduce successful pressure ulcer care and prevention.

ANOVA and t-test analysis were used to test the differences in nurses’ knowledge according to participants’ characteristics. Means, standard deviation, and frequencies were used to describe nurses’ knowledge levels, knowledge sources, and barriers to pressure ulcer prevention.

Results

The majority (73%, n = 141) of nurses had inadequate knowledge about pressure ulcer prevention. The mean scores of the test for all participants was 10.84 out of 26 (SD = 2.3, range = 5–17), with the lowest score in themes related to PU etiology, preventive measures to reduce amount of pressure/shear, and risk assessment. In-service training was the second source of education on pressure ulcer, coming after university training. Shortage of staff and lack of time were the most frequently cited barriers to carrying out pressure ulcer risk assessment, documentation, and prevention.

Conclusions

This study highlights concerns about Jordanian nurses’ knowledge of pressure ulcer prevention. The results of the current study showed inadequate knowledge among Jordanian nurses about pressure ulcer prevention based on National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel guidelines. Also, the low level of nurses’ pressure ulcer knowledge suggests poor dissemination of pressure ulcer knowledge in Jordan, a suggestion supported by the lack of relationship between years of experience and pressure ulcer knowledge.

Keywords

Pressure ulcer Knowledge Sources Barriers Nurses Jordan

Background

Pressure ulcer (PU) still exist as a pervasive problem and occurs in both hospital and community settings, affecting all age groups, but mostly occurring among the elderly, the immobile, and those patients with severe acute illness or neurological deficits [1]. Pressure ulcer remains a significant health problem causing suffering for patients and a growing financial burden [2]. Pain and distress from PU are viewed as indications of poor PU prevention practice, since they restrict a patient’s lifestyle; PU prevention should be regarded as a priority in clinical and non-clinical areas, especially where patients are at high risk [3].

Nurses are often found to demonstrate poor adherence to the PU prevention guidelines [410]. The compliance of nurses to the guidelines was found to be influenced by several barriers [11, 12]. A lack of knowledge is an apparent barrier for using the guidelines in clinical practice [7, 8].

Limited application of knowledge is a common problem in clinical practice [12]. Nurses are not fully aware the importance of using up-to-date PU prevention protocols and may not have been exposed to current evidence-based practices; sometimes their practices can be influenced by intuition, experience, or habit [13]. Jordan O’Brien and Cowman [14] found a significant gap between nursing records of skin condition, and actual skin examination in relation to PU, which means that nurses were unable to identify the early signs of PU development. Hill [15] concluded that lack of knowledge and insufficient equipment are considered barriers that prevent healthcare providers from maintaining effective PU prevention and treatment.

Lack of knowledge and skills in PU prevention contributes significantly to the occurrence or worsening of PU; therefore, nurses require regular training and education in this area of practice [13]. Moreover, increased knowledge about PU prevention among nurses not only improves the quality of PU care but also reduces hospital stays, and the number of patients suffering from this condition [16]. Beeckman et al. [17] declared that adequate knowledge about PU prevention is important for deciding: (1) which patients should receive prevention, (2) which prevention should be applied, and (3) how prevention should be applied. Although PU education improves knowledge, studies have also shown that regular educational updates are needed to maintain and improve PU knowledge and practice standards [18]. Within Jordanian healthcare settings, there is a dearth of information relating to PU prevention. There are few studies on PU in Jordan, but one such study [19] found that the prevalence rate of PU in Jordan was 12% and emphasised the need to raise the awareness of nurses regarding PU.

Objectives

The objective of this study was to explore the knowledge levels and sources of knowledge about PU prevention, as well as the barriers to implementing PU prevention guidelines among Jordanian nurses.

Methods

Study design

A cross-sectional survey was used; approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board at the University of Jordan.

Setting and sample

The data in this study pertain to nurses working in hospitals of the Amman Region of Jordan. Amman is the capital of Jordan and is located in the middle part of Jordan. It contains 52 hospitals (50% of the total hospitals in Jordan) with a total capacity of 6,305 beds according to the Jordan ministry of health (MOH) annual statistical report [20]. Only those hospitals having Medical, Orthopedic, Intensive Care, Burns, Surgical, or Coronary Care units and also having 150 beds or more were included to ensure exposure of participants to PU cases, and to represent adequately the nurses working in the region. Only eight hospitals were included in the study out of the 52 hospitals in Amman, as not all of them had 150 beds or more. The steps involved in selecting hospitals are illustrated in Figure 1.
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1472-6955-13-6/MediaObjects/12912_2013_Article_164_Fig1_HTML.jpg
Figure 1

Study sampling and data collection points.

The accessible population consisted of all eligible nurses who worked in the eight selected hospitals. The nursing staff working directly with adult patients at the eight selected hospitals comprised 2,153 baccalaureate and master’s level nurses.

A number of nurses were randomly selected (N = 220) by picking names from the staff lists at the eight selected hospitals. A random sample of participants was drawn from the population of nurses who met the eligibility criteria. The inclusion criteria was: (a) those male and female nurses who have acquired a bachelor’s or master’s degree in nursing, (b) who provide direct care nursing in their units (Medical, Orthopedic, Intensive Care, Burns, Surgical, and Coronary Care), and (c) who have at least one year of clinical experience.

Study instrument

A questionnaire was developed consisting of a demographic characteristics part which included gender, age, years of clinical experience, level of current higher education, previous participation in PU research, sources of knowledge, and recent exposure to PU education.

The second part was the PU Knowledge Test Tool, English version, which was developed and validated by Beeckman et al. [17]. This test tool was used to examine the nurses’ knowledge level about PU by the sum of total correct answers. The test includes 26 multiple-choice questions reflecting six themes that express the most relevant aspects of PU. Questions and answers were based on evidence-based literature and conform to the 2009 international guidelines for PU prevention [21, 22]. The instrument multiple-choice questions have 3 answer options, and the fourth was “I do not know the answer” option. The fourth answer was included to avoid the respondents guessing. Correct answer scored one point while incorrect one scored zero. The tool was validated for difficulty, discriminating index, and quality of the response alternatives [17]. The internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s α) was 0.77 and the 1-week test-retest interclass correlation coefficient (stability) was 0.88. Content validity index (CVI) was 0.78–1.00. The item difficulty index of the questions ranged from 0.27 to 0.87, while values for item discrimination ranged from 0.29 to 0.65 [17].

The third part was a list of knowledge sources on pressure ulcer prevention (the sources from which nurses obtained their PU prevention knowledge). This was used to explore the common sources used by nurses to gain knowledge on PU prevention, and allowed respondents to choose more than one source.

The fourth part was a list of barriers to the implementation of PU prevention. It was used to measure barriers related to assessing, documenting, and carrying out PU prevention practices. This allowed respondents to rank the most important three barriers in each category. The third and fourth parts of the questionnaire were taken from an instrument developed and validated by Moore and Price [10].

Data collection

An invitation with a full written description of the study was sent to the hospitals through the Jordanian Nurses and Midwifery Council (JNMC). The hospitals which agreed to participate were asked to send a list of their nurses, including those nurses who met the eligibility criteria and accepted participation. Before participation, all participants signed a written consent form after they had received an explanation about the research, the voluntary nature of their participation, and a guarantee of anonymity. These data collection points are illustrated in Figure 1. The questionnaire was administered in English because all nurses in Jordan are taught nursing in the English language.

Data analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 17. A p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Descriptive statistics were used to draw summary measures of central tendency and frequencies for demographic items. Nurses’ knowledge of PU prevention was assessed using the t test to compare the nurses’ knowledge scores between the two levels’ variables (gender, level of higher education, and previously involved in PU research), and the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) test to compare the three or more levels’ variables (age, sources of education on PU, and years of clinical experience). Nurses’ knowledge of PU prevention was determined by calculating the total and mean scores. Since each theme of PU knowledge has different number of items, Z score used to compare the level of nurses’ PU knowledge between the six themes of PU knowledge. Nurses’ perceived barriers to the implementation of PU prevention were assessed by calculating the frequency and percentage of the three most important perceived barriers as ranked by nurses.

Results

Participants’ characteristics

The sample consisted of 194 eligible nurses who provide direct bedside care for patients. Table 1 shows demographic details of the sample. The majority of participants were males (n = 114, 58.8%). Age ranged from 22 to 40 years, with a mean age of 27.3 years (SD = 3.47, range = 22–40). The majority had a bachelor’s degree (88.1%, n = 171), while other nurses had master’s degrees (11.9%, n = 23), and 36.6% (n = 69) of the nurses reported that they had not received training or education about PU. Most of the participants (93.8%, n = 182) had clinical nursing experience of between one to ten years, and 45.9% (n = 89) had one to four years, while 47.9% (n = 91) had five to ten years of clinical nursing experience. The majority of participants (84.0%, n = 163) had not previously participated in PU research.
Table 1

Demographic details of the sample (N = 194)

Nurses’ characteristics

%

n

Gender

 Male

114

58.8

 Female

80

41.2

Age

 20-25 years

67

34.5

 26-30 years

99

51.2

 31-35 years

25

12.8

 36-40 years

3

1.5

Current higher degree

 Bachelor

171

86.0

 Master

23

14.0

Nursing clinical experience

 < 2 year

10

5.1

 2-4 years

89

45.8

 5-10

93

47.9%

 11-15

1

0.5

 16-20

1

0.5

Source of PU education

 University

111

57.2

 In-service

45

32.1

 Conference

6

3.0

 Product pro

11

5.6

 other

4

2.0

PU research

 Yes

23

35.6

 No

125

64.4

Last attend training on PU

 < 1 year

78

82.9

 1-2 year

14

7.2

 > 2 year

28

14.4

 Never

69

35.5

PU, pressure ulcer.

The statistical analysis of the participants’ demographics revealed that there was no significant relationship between nurses’ knowledge of PU prevention and their age, clinical nursing experience, current higher education, PU research participation, and last attendance at PU training. In contrast, gender had a significant relationship with nurses’ knowledge of PU prevention (see Table 2).
Table 2

Differences in PU prevention knowledge and participants’ characteristics (N = 194)

Nurses' characteristics

n

M

SD

t-test

ANOVA

P-value

Gender

 Male

114

11.4

2.2

2.33

 

0.021*

 Female

80

10.5

2.1

Age

 20-25 years

67

11.4

2.0

 

1.12

0.13

 26-30 years

99

10.7

2.1

 31-35 years

25

11.6

2.6

 36-40 years

3

12.0

1.4

Current higher degree

 Bachelor

167

10.6

2.0

-1.25

 

0.21

 Master

23

11.4

2.7

Nursing clinical experience

 < 2 year

10

11.4

2.0

 

0.41

0.66

 2-4 years

89

11.4

1.7

 5-10

93

10.7

2.6

 11-15

1

10.0

 

 16-20

1

11.0

Source of PU education

 University

111

11.4

2.2

1.0

 

0.42

 In-service

45

11.0

1.8

 Conference

6

10.2

2.6

 Product

11

10.3

1.5

 other

4

11.0

0.0

PU research

 Yes

23

10.8

2.2

1.79

 

0.075

 No

125

9.9

2.1

 

Last attend training on PU

 < 1 year

78

10.7

2.3

 

1.42

0.23

 1-2 year

14

11.1

2.5

 > 2 year

28

11.4

1.7

 Never

69

11.4

2.1

*Significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

**Significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

PU, pressure ulcer.

Nurses’ knowledge of PU prevention

The possible score of the PU Knowledge Test ranged from 0 to 26. The results of the PU Knowledge Test were calculated for the nurses who participated in the study (N = 194). The mean score for all participants was 10.84 out of 26 (SD = 2.3, range = 5–17). The passing score was 13 (50%): 142 (73%) of participants did not pass the test, while 27% (n = 52) did pass the test (with a score range of 13 to 17). The PU Knowledge Test showed low level in PU knowledge among nurses with the lowest score in themes related to PU etiology, preventive measures to reduce amount of pressure/shear, and risk assessment. Other themes of PU Knowledge Test scores as classification, nutrition, and preventive measures to reduce the duration of pressure/shear) had higher scores but still low. Twenty five percent of nurses did pass the Z score (.20) in PU risk assessment, Z score (.22) in PU etiology (n = 100), Z score (.35) in PU preventive measures to reduce amount of pressure/shear, Z score (.65) in PU preventive measures to reduce duration of pressure/shear, and Z score (.96) in both the PU preventive classification and PU nutrition (See Figure 2).
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1472-6955-13-6/MediaObjects/12912_2013_Article_164_Fig2_HTML.jpg
Figure 2

Distribution of mean Z score of the six themes of PU knowledge test. **Significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). PU = Pressure Ulcer.

Nurses’ sources of knowledge on PU prevention

The results presented in Table 3 revealed that most of the participants 51% (n = 99) did not receive any type of education on PU after graduation from university. In-service training is the second source of education on PU (32%, n = 63), coming after university at 51% (n = 99).
Table 3

Knowledge Sources on PU (N = 194)

Sources of pressure ulcer prevention education

Number (%)

Total number of respondents

194 (100)

University

99 (51.1)

In-service training

50 (25.9)

In-service training plus degree

13 (6.7)

Product promotion

11 (5.9)

Conference

7 (3.7)

Other

4 (2.2)

PU, pressure ulcer.

Nurses’ perceived barriers to implementing PU prevention

Barriers to implementing PU prevention were measured using a list of barriers related to assessing, documenting, and carrying out PU prevention practices. The most commonly cited possibilities were lack of time (34.1%, n = 46), shortage of staff (24.4%, n = 33), the patient’s condition (17.8%, n = 24), and lack of resources or equipment (19.3%, n = 26).

Potential barriers to carrying out PU risk assessment, PU documentation, and PU prevention are presented in Table 4. Shortage of staff and lack of time were the most frequently cited barriers to carrying out PU risk assessment (48.1%, n = 93), documentation (56.3%, n = 109), and prevention (39.2%, n = 76). Barriers related to patients were the third most frequently cited after staff and time: for instance, the patient may be too ill to be assessed or may be uncooperative (14.8%, n = 20), making assessment difficult. Lack of training and lack of aides (15.6%, n = 21) were also perceived as important barriers. However, lack of knowledge (9.6%, n = 13) was mentioned as at least as important a barrier for carrying out PU risk assessment, documentation, and prevention.
Table 4

Barriers to carrying out PU* risk assessment, PU documentation, and PU prevention (N = 194)

Barriers to carrying out PU

Risk assessment number (%)

Documentation number (%)

Prevention number (%)

Total number of respondents

194 (100)

194 (100)

194 (100)

Lack of time

32 (23.7)

46 (34.1)

33 (24.4)

Unstable patient

17 (12.6)

16 (11.9)

24 (17.8)

Lack of training, resources, equipment, guidelines

26 (19.3)

0 (0)

22 (16.3)

Short staffed

33 (24.4)

30 (22.2)

20 (14.8)

Lack of knowledge

13 (9.6)

14 (10.4)

19 (14.1)

Lack of aids

0 (0)

15 (11.1)

14 (10.4)

Unable to assess

9 (6.7)

0 (0)

13 (9.6)

Problem with assessment tool

9 (6.7)

21 (15.6)

0 (0)

Forget

0 (0)

13 (9.6)

0 (0)

Lack of equipment

18 (13.3)

10 (7.4)

0 (0)

Patient un-cooperative/too ill

20 (14.8)

0 (0)

0 (0)

*PU, pressure ulcer.

Discussion

Nurses’ knowledge of PU prevention

Apparently, knowledge about PU prevention is poor and not very well known among nurses [4, 23]. Pressure ulcer prevention rarely seems to be based on scientific evidence, but rather on expert opinion and tradition [9].

A 50% cutoff point (answering 13 out of 26 items on the PU knowledge test correctly) was used to identify nurses’ PU knowledge, which was considered low compared to similar results in the relevant literature [4]. Although other studies had higher cutoff, only 27% (n = 52) of the nurses passed the test. A higher cutoff point may pose serious questions about nurses’ PU knowledge.

Although the results of the current study were similar to those of Pieper and Mott [23], Panagiotopoulou and Kerr [5], Abou El Enein and Zaghloul [24], and Beeckman et al. [17], different methods, a different knowledge test, and different evaluation criteria were used. For example, Pieper and Mott [23] examined nurses’ knowledge of PU prevention and staging using a PU knowledge test and found that nurses had poor knowledge about PU prevention and staging. In more recent studies [17, 24], results revealed that nurses’ knowledge was poor and inadequate. While Abou El Enein and Zaghloul [24] found that nurses’ knowledge about PU prevention was below the cutoff point they established (70%), Beeckman et al. [17] used a lower cutoff point (60%) and reported similar results. These studies suggested that nurses’ knowledge about prevention of PU must be increased and guidelines should be implemented in clinical practice. Different outcomes came from Sinclair et al. [18] and Gunningberg [12], who assessed nurses’ knowledge on PU care and reported that nurses’ knowledge was moderate.

Numerous factors could be contributing to the lack of nurses’ knowledge revealed in the current study. One is related to educational opportunities, including the availability, timing, and cost of education, as well as the associated staffing issues. Furthermore, staff turnover has increased in the last five years [25], making it difficult for a facility to maintain necessary PU educational programmes and to maintain a staff educational base related to up-to-date PU prevention. Hayajneh et al. [25] considered the turnover of Jordanian registered nurses in hospitals a significant problem that requires effective strategies to resolve.

An additional aspect in PU prevention is the Risk Assessment Scale (RAS). Risk assessment tools along with advanced PU prevention measures are not available in most Jordanian hospitals. The fact that nurses were not well oriented with such advanced measures and using the PU RAS could also explain their lack of knowledge about PU prevention. This lack of knowledge could lead to less than optimal care, especially if nurses use and practice outdated methods and/or inconsistent therapies.

Moreover, a lack of both tissue viability nurse specialists in Jordan and national PU guidelines may impact PU prevention in Jordan through inadequate knowledge and an absence of updated, evidence-based practice in this area of specialisation.

Nurses’ knowledge of PU prevention and their demographics

The current study showed few differences in knowledge scores with regard to nursing education, years in practice, PU training, age, or source of knowledge on PU prevention, which confirms the results of Pieper and Mott [23] and Hulsenboom, Bours, and Halfens [26]. Pieper and Mott [23] evaluated the knowledge of PU prevention and staging among nurses. Their results revealed that nurses’ knowledge had no relations with nurses’ education, age, or years of work experience. This may be limited to their study sample. The sample did not include non-professional staff who may be less likely to attend continuing education or who may have greater problems with literacy and providing PU care in clinical practice. Hulsenboom, Bours, and Halfens [26] found that demographic variables, including the age and experience of nurses, had no significant influence on PU prevention interventions.

The present study is inconsistent with the findings of Choa, Parkb, and Chunge [27], who analysed nurses’ characteristics in relation to PU prevention and found that more PU prevention was documented by those who were younger, less experienced, and more educated.

In the current study, the non-significant influence of age, previous participation in PU research, and level of education on nurses’ PU knowledge could be explained by unequal representation between the levels in these variables. The sample of nurses included only 11.9% (n = 23) with a master’s degree compared to 88.1% (n = 167) with a bachelor’s degree. The age of the majority of nurses was between 25 and 30 years. The turnover rate of registered nurses in Jordan [25] in addition to the inclusion of only those nurses who provide bedside care could have contributed to the young age of the sample participants. An additional impact on inadequate knowledge of PU prevention among nurses may have arisen from the unequal proportions in these variables, and might have contributed to the non-significant results.

Barriers to implementing PU prevention

The dissemination of knowledge about PU prevention among nurses was found to be influenced by barriers related to the use of guidelines, lack of staff, and lack of time. Similar results were found by Moore and Price [10], who pointed out a gap between theory and practice despite nurses’ positive attitudes toward PU prevention due to barriers such as a lack of staff and time. Compared to Halfens and Eggink [4] and Abou El Enein and Zaghloul [24], the current study concludes that despite the increased attention and new developments in the area of PU care, knowledge of PU prevention is still low and has not significantly increased.

In this study, lack of time and shortage of staff were first and most commonly cited as nurses’ perceived barriers to carrying out PU prevention, whilst lack of training and education was ranked second. These findings were supported by the result of Jordan O’Brien and Cowman [14], who found that a lack of time and staff was the main barrier to the completion of nursing documentation of PU care plans. Moreover, the ward rounds reduced the time for documenting the delivery of care [14].

Pressure ulcer prevention is an interdisciplinary problem. Thus, it needs multidisciplinary efforts and team work to contribute to successful care. An additional problem is created by staff shortages, which result in work overloads for staff at the clinical level. Certain aspects of PU prevention, such as repositioning, are difficult to carry out unaided. If staff shortages continue, with the stress caused during the busy and overloaded clinical shifts, it will be no surprise if PU prevention becomes less of a priority.

This study highlights concerns about Jordanian nurses’ knowledge of PU prevention. The results of the current study showed inadequate knowledge among Jordanian nurses of PU prevention based on National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel guidelines. Also, these findings suggest poor dissemination of PU knowledge in Jordan, which the lack of relationship between years of nursing experience and PU knowledge seems to substantiate.

Limitations

Our study has some limitations, such as the sample selection being limited to Amman hospitals and the use of a self-administered questionnaire. However, the researcher believes that the results of this study can be applied to all nurses working in the Jordan healthcare system since nurses in Amman hospitals are similar to those of other Jordan regions in that there are no great regional differences in the type of education that nurses receive.

Conclusions

In the current study, the majority of the nurses did not have sufficient knowledge to demonstrate competency in PU prevention. In fact, too few nurses achieved the minimum score (50%; 13 out of 26 correct answers) required to pass the PU knowledge test. The findings demonstrated that nurses are not equipped with enough education to predict and prevent PU appropriately. This supports the need to implement a PU educational programme in Jordanian healthcare settings to improve patients’ outcomes. In conclusion, Jordanian nurses’ knowledge about PU prevention was inadequate. Furthermore, adequate dissemination of PU prevention guidelines seems to be a prerequisite to improving the quality of PU prevention. Improving practice requires a multi-faceted approach to ensure adequate support to make changes based on patients’ outcomes. Further research on PU prevention in healthcare settings is needed.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the Jordanian Nurses and Midwifery Council (JNMC), the participants, and the hospital directors for their cooperation.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Faculty of Medicine and Health sciences, An-Najah National University
(2)
Faculty of Nursing, Jarash University

References

  1. European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel: Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers: Quick Reference Guide. 2009, Washington, DC: National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel,http://www.epuap.org/guidelines/Final_Quick_Treatment.pdf,Google Scholar
  2. Spilsbury K, Nelson A, Iglesias C, Nixon J, Mason S: Pressure ulcers and their treatment and effects on quality of life: hospital inpatient perspectives. J Adv Nurs. 2007, 57 (5): 494-504. 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.04140.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Hopkins A, Dealey C, Bale S, Defloor T, Worboys F: Patient stories of living with a pressure ulcer. J Adv Nurs. 2006, 56 (4): 345-353. 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.04007.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Halfens RJG, Eggink MC: Knowledge, beliefs and use of nursing methods in preventing pressure sores in Dutch hospitals. Int J Nurs Stud. 1995, 32: 16-26. 10.1016/0020-7489(94)00032-F.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Panagiotopoulou K, Kerr SM: Pressure area care: an exploration of Greek nurses’ knowledge and practice. J Adv Nurs. 2002, 40 (3): 285-296. 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2002.02370.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Meesterberends E, Halfens R, Lohrmann C, de Wit R: Pressure ulcer guideline development and dissemination in Europe. J Clin Nurs. 2010, 19 (11–12): 1495-1503.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Ajzen I, Madden TJ: Prediction of goal-directed behaviour: attitudes, intentions and perceived behavioural control. J Exp Soc Psychol. 1986, 22: 453-474. 10.1016/0022-1031(86)90045-4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Buss IC, Halfens RJG, Huijer Abu-Saad H, Kok G: Pressure ulcer prevention in nursing homes: views and beliefs of enrolled nurses and other health care workers. J Clin Nurs. 2004, 13: 668-676. 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2004.00953.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Stephens F, Bick D: A national pilot to implement pressure ulcer guidelines: results of the baseline audit. Br J Community Nurs. 2002, 7 (Suppl 3): 34-38.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Moore Z, Price P: Nurses’ attitudes, behaviors and perceived barriers towards pressure ulcer prevention. J Clin Nurs. 2004, 13: 942-952. 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2004.00972.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Van Gaal BG, Schoonhoven L, Vloet LC, Mintjes JA, Borm GF, Koopmans RT, van Achterberg T: The effect of the SAFE or SORRY? programme on patient safety knowledge of nurses in hospitals and nursing homes: a cluster randomized trial. Int J Nurs Stud. 2010, 47 (9): 1117-1125. 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.02.001.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Gunningberg L: Are patients with or at risk of pressure ulcers allocated appropriate prevention measures?. Int J Nurs Prac. 2005, 11: 58-67. 10.1111/j.1440-172X.2005.00503.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Gunningberg L: Pressure ulcer prevention: evaluation of an education programme for Swedish nurses. J Wound Care. 2004, 13 (3): 85-89.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Jordan O’Brien JA, Cowman S: An exploration of nursing documentation of pressure ulcer care in an acute setting in Ireland. J Wound Care. 2011, 20 (5): 197-205.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Hill L: Wound care nursing. The question of pressure. Nurs Times. 1992, 88 (12): 76-82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Smith D, Waugh S: Research study: an assessment of registered nurses’ knowledge of pressure ulcers prevention and treatment. Kansas Nurs. 2009, 84 (1): 3-5.Google Scholar
  17. Beeckman D, Vanderwee K, Demarre´ L, Paquay L, Van Hecke A, Defloor T: Pressure ulcer prevention: development and psychometric validation of a knowledge assessment instrument. Int J Nurs Stud. 2010, 47 (4): 399-410. 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.08.010.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Sinclair L, Berwiczonek H, Thurston N, Butler S, Bulloch G, Ellery C, Giesbrecht G: Evaluation of an evidence-based education program for pressure ulcer prevention. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2004, 31 (1): 43-50. 10.1097/00152192-200401000-00007.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Tubaishat A, Anthony D, Saleh M: Pressure Ulcer in Jordan: A point prevalence. Journal of tissue viability. 2011, 20: 14-19. 10.1016/j.jtv.2010.08.001.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Ministry of Health: Annual Statistical Book. 2009, Amman, Jordan: Ministry of Health,http://www.moh.gov.jo/EN/Pages/Periodic-Newsletters.aspx,Google Scholar
  21. Vanderwee K, Clark M, Dealey C, Gunningberg L, Defloor T: Pressure ulcer prevalence in Europe: a pilot study. J Eval Clin Pract. 2007, 13 (2): 227-235. 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2006.00684.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Dealey C, Defloor T: Prevention Pressure Ulcer Guidelines. 2009, Arlington, Virginia (D.C. Area): Presentation at the 11th National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel National Biennial Conference, February 27, 2009Google Scholar
  23. Pieper B, Mott M: Nurses’ knowledge of pressure ulcer prevention, staging, and description. Adv Wound Care. 1995, 8 (3): 34-38, 40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Abou El Enein NY, Zaghloul AA: Nurses’ knowledge of prevention and management of pressure ulcer at a Health Insurance Hospital in Alexandria. Int J Nur Prac. 2011, 17 (3): 262-268. 10.1111/j.1440-172X.2011.01933.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Hayajneh YA, AbuAlRub RF, Athamneh AZ, Almakhzoomy IK: Turnover rate among registered nurses in Jordanian hospitals: an exploratory study. Int J Nur Prac. 2009, 15 (4): 303-310. 10.1111/j.1440-172X.2009.01758.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Hulsenboom MA, Bours GJ, Halfens RJ: Knowledge of pressure ulcer prevention: a cross-sectional and comparative study among nurses. BioMed Central Nurs. 2007, 6 (2): 1-11.Google Scholar
  27. Choa I, Parkb HA, Chunge E: Exploring practice variation in preventive pressure-ulcer care using data from a clinical data repository. Int J Med Inform. 2011, 80: 47-55. 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2010.10.019.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Pre-publication history

    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6955/13/6/prepub

Copyright

© Qaddumi and Khawaldeh; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.

Advertisement