CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 71Pressure Ulcer Prevention and ManagementHealth Sciences Research and EducationClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills

The treatment of pressure sores: a comparison of novice and expert nurses’ knowledge, information use and decision accuracy

Open access
Lamond, Dawn, Farnell, Sarah·1998·Journal of Advanced Nursing
DOI 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1998.00532.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The knowledge experts have and the way it is organized is thought to affect their decision accuracy and the information they use to make decisions. This exploratory study examines the information used by experts, the way they organize their knowledge and their decision accuracy when considering treatments for pressure sores. A convenience sample of 14 subjects (seven experts and seven novices) were given a card sorting task and a decision task. The cards for the sort contained photographs of pressure sores and various dressings, which the subjects had to place into meaningful categories. In the decision task they were given a photograph of a pressure sore, together with various items of information which could be used to make a decision about the appropriate treatment for the pressure sore. The accuracy of the subjects’ decisions were compared to a ‘gold standard’ decision formulated by an expert panel. Results indicated that experts were more accurate in their choice of treatments in the decision task, and also focused on specific items of information to make their decisions. The accuracy of their decisions was not linked to the categorization strategy used in the card sorts. The findings from this study indicate that more research into the way in which such treatment decisions are undertaken needs to be carried out. Specifically, the way in which education into wound care treatments affects decision accuracy needs to be identified, and ways of aiding individuals to focus on relevant information explored.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1998.00532.x

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The nursing literature is replete with studies of novice-expert differences in the performance of particular nursing skills such as pressure sore treatment, pain assessment and administration of analgesia, and why an infant is crying.

    “To date, the nursing literature is replete with studies of novice-expert differences in the performance of particular nursing skills such as pressure sore treatment (Lamond & Farnell 1998), pain assessment and administration of analgesia (Noyes 1995, Hamers et al 1997) and why an infant is crying (Holden & Klinger 1988).”

    From The acquisition and exercise of nephrology nursing expertise: a grounded theory study (2006) · cites this paper as Lamond & Farnell 1998

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 27 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Lamond, D., & Farnell, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Stirling (GB)
  • St George's Hospital (GB)
Venue
Journal of Advanced Nursing
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1998-02
Volume
27
Issue
2
Pages
280-286
ISSN
  • 0309-2402 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2648
DOI
10.1046/j.1365-2648.1998.00532.x
OpenAlex
W2154835160
Cited by
71
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
FWCI
4.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Advanced Nursing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Research Repository (Kingston University London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Pressure Ulcer Prevention and Management
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Keywords
pressure ulcers, pressure ulcer treatment, expert-novice differences, clinical decision-making, decision accuracy, nursing knowledge, information use, card sorting, wound care education, dressing selection
MeSH terms
Adult, Clinical Competence, Decision Making, Pressure Ulcer, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Nursing Assessment, Nursing Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review