Background: PechaKucha (PK) is a presentation technique that uses visual and narrative presentations consisting of 20 slides, each shown for 20 seconds.
Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of the PK presentation on elderly care department students' knowledge about pressure injury prevention.
Methods: This study used a single-blinded randomized control trial. Elderly care department students were randomized to the PK presentation technique (intervention group) and traditional PowerPoint presentations only (control group). The sample of the study consisted of 54 (intervention group = 28, control group = 26) elderly care department students. Data was collected using the Sociodemographic Form and the Pressure Ulcer Prevention Knowledge Assessment Instrument (PUPKAI). PUPKAI was administered before the presentations (pre-test), after the presentations (post-test 1), and 4 weeks after the presentations (post-test 2).
Results: Following the presentations, the intervention group's PUPKAI mean score (47.23 ± 11.62) was significantly higher than the control group's mean score (36.64 ± 12.41) (P < .05). Four weeks after completing the education, the intervention group's mean PUPKAI score (43.11 ± 13.72) was significantly higher than the control group's mean score (36.46 ± 12.76) (P < .05).
Conclusion: The knowledge level of the elderly care department students was found to be below the satisfactory level. It was determined that the PK presentation increased the knowledge level of the students regarding pressure injury prevention.
Background: In March 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, hospitalizations in New York state were restricted to emergency purposes. Non-COVID related cases involving lower extremity wounds were only admitted for acute infections and limb salvage. Patients with these conditions were placed at higher risk for eventual limb loss.
Purpose: To understand the impact of COVID-19 on amputation rates.
Methods: A retrospective review of lower limb institution-wide amputations was conducted at Northwell Health from January 2020 to January 2021. The amputation rates during the COVID-19 shutdown period were compared to the pre-pandemic, post-shutdown, and reopening period.
Results: The pre-pandemic period had 179 amputations, of which 8.38 % were proximal. 86 amputations were performed during shutdown, with a greater proportion being proximal (25.58 %, p=0.0009). Following the shutdown period, amputations returned to baseline. The proportion of proximal amputations during post-shutdown was 18.5 % and during reopening was 12.06 %. Patients had 4.89 times higher odds of undergoing a proximal amputation during the shutdown period.
Conclusions: The effect of COVID-19 on amputation rates demonstrates an increase in proximal amputation during the initial shutdown. This study suggests an indirect negative effect of COVID-19 hospital restrictions on surgeries during the initial shutdown period.
Background: Wound debridement is one of the key treatment methods for chronic and acute wounds. Various tools are used to perform debridement, but the force applied to the tissue by these different instruments has been poorly documented in a limited number of past research efforts.
Purpose: The aim of this study was to provide insight into the actual amount of pressure exerted on wound tissue.
Methods: We used a digital force transducer to measure the pressure applied by multiple combinations of angiocatheter needles (catheters), syringes, and other common debridement tools. The data obtained were compared with the pressure measurements reported by previous studies. The common standard used in research is a 35-mL syringe with a 19-gauge catheter with a pressure of 7 to 8 pounds per square inch (psi), which is regarded as the most effective for wound care.
Results: Many of the instruments measured in this experiment closely reflected the pressure measurements previously published in the research literature and are safe to use to properly irrigate wounds. However, some discrepancies were also found, ranging from a small psi variability to several psi. Further studies and testing may be beneficial to confirm the results of this experiment.
Conclusion: Certain tools produced higher pressures that were not suitable for routine wound care. Findings from this study can also be used by clinicians to choose appropriate tools and to monitor pressure when they use various common irrigation tools.

