MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted among 60 registered nurses in the ICU at Taiping Hospital. to assess the nurses' knowledge and attitude level using the Knowledge and Attitude on prevention of PUs questionnaire. A descriptive analysis and Pearson Correlation were used to analyze the data.
RESULT: From a total of 60 nurses 36 (60%) of nurses demonstrated a moderate level of KAP, and 17 (28%) demonstrated a high level of knowledge. They also exhibited neutral attitudes towards PUs prevention 49 (82%). The findings revealed a positive relationship between nurses' KAP toward implementing preventive measures on PUs (p=0.04; r=0.3). The findings show that nurses regularly performed the assessment of the risk factors of PUs for all hospitalized patients when performing PUs care. However, the plan for preventive nursing care was not properly reviewed.
CONCLUSION: This study suggested that appropriate guidelines, education programs, and an environment that makes it possible to provide continuing education should be created for nurses to prevent PUs in the ICU.
METHOD: A convenience sample of 102 patients was recruited from four Cure and Care Service Centres in Malaysia.
RESULTS: Principal component analysis with varimax rotation supported two-factor solutions for each subscale: problem recognition, desire for help and treatment readiness, which accounted for 63.5%, 62.7% and 49.1% of the variances, respectively. The Cronbach's alpha coefficients were acceptable for the overall measures (24 items: ∝ = 0.89), the problem recognition scale (10 items; ∝ = 0.89), desire for help (6 items; ∝ = 0.64) and treatment readiness scale (8 items; ∝ = 0.60). The results also indicated significant motivational differences for different modalities, with inpatients having significantly higher motivational scores in each scale compared to outpatients.
CONCLUSION: The present study pointed towards the favourable psychometric properties of a motivation for treatment scale, which can be a useful instrument for clinical applications of drug use changes and treatment.
METHODS: A double-blind, parallel-group randomised controlled trial was carried out. The intervention group received oral care with chlorhexidine 0.2%, while the control group received routine oral care with thymol. Nurses provided oral care with assigned solutions of 20 mL once daily over seven days. Oral cavity assessment using the Brief Oral Health Status Examination form was performed before each oral care procedure. Data on medication received and the subsequent development of aspiration pneumonia was recorded. An oral swab was performed on Day 7 to obtain specimens to test for colonisation.
RESULTS: The final sample consisted of 35 (control) and 43 (intervention) patients. Chlorhexidine was effective in reducing oral colonisation compared to routine oral care with thymol (p < 0.001). The risk of oral bacterial colonisation was nearly three times higher in the thymol group compared to the chlorhexidine group.
CONCLUSION: The use of chlorhexidine 0.2% significantly reduced oral colonisation and is recommended as an easier and more cost-effective alternative for oral hygiene.