Enhancing prone positioning and skin damage prevention education: A randomized controlled non-inferiority trial comparing a digital education hub (PRONEtect) and a traditional lecture on final-year nursing participants' confidence and knowledge.

INTRODUCTION: The incidence of pressure ulcers remains high in patients with moderate to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome, ventilated in the prone position. A digital platform, dedicated to prone positioning and skin/tissue damage education was developed. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of the PRONEtect Education Hub versus a traditional lecture on final-year nursing students' confidence levels and knowledge in a non-inferiority study. DESIGN: A multicenter, non-blinded, parallel-group, non-inferiority study with equal randomization (1:1 allocation) was conducted at two nursing schools in Belgium. CLINICALTRIALS: gov (NCT05575869). METHODS: Following baseline assessments, the control group received a 1-h classroom lecture, and the experimental group gained access to the PRONEtect website. Three weeks later, participants completed the knowledge, confidence, and visual knowledge assessment. RESULTS: At baseline, 67 of the 80 participants completed the assessments and post-intervention, 28 and 27 participants respectively completed the confidence, knowledge, and visual knowledge assessments (dropout rate of 66.25%). Confidence levels: a mean ratio of relative change from baseline = 0.96 (Control (C)/Experimental (E)); 97.5% confidence interval (CI): 0.74 to 1.26; p = 0.74. Knowledge assessment: a mean difference in change from baseline = 1.58 (C-E); 97.5% CI: -0.58 to 3.75; p = 0.1. Although confidence and knowledge scores increased in both groups, the study cannot conclude non-inferiority. CONCLUSIONS: The trade-off between the inability to conclude efficacy of the impact of the website and the benefit of having an accessible educational platform on prone positioning and skin damage prevention makes the PRONEtect Education Hub an acceptable adjunct to traditional lecturing.

Stethoscope barriers narrative review; It's time for a strategy unfriendly to multi-drug resistant organisms (MDROs).

The current standard of stethoscope hygiene doesn't eliminate the transmission of harmful pathogens, including multi-drug resistant organisms (MDROs). In the era of the increasing prevalence of MDRO infections, the use of new systems providing touch free barriers may improve patient safety versus traditional stethoscope cleaning practices with chemical agents. Our purpose was to provide a narrative literature review regarding barriers as an improvement over the current standard of care for stethoscope hygiene. Searching PubMed, articles were identified if they were in English and published after 1990, using the search term "stethoscope barrier", or if they were from a previously published stethoscope hygiene article using "author's name + stethoscope". Included articles evaluated or discussed stethoscope barriers. Of 28 manuscripts identified, 15 met the inclusion criteria. Barriers were considered superior to alternatives if they were single use, disposable, applied in a touch free fashion, were impervious to pathogens, provided an aseptic patient contact, and were acoustically invisible. Use of a practitioner's personal stethoscope with a disposable diaphragm barrier should be recommended as a new standard of care as this represents an improvement in patient safety and patient experience when compared to the disposable stethoscope or isopropyl alcohol stethoscope diaphragm cleaning.