165 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26665871)
41. From costly treatment to cost-effective prevention: using Waterlow.
Waterlow J
Br J Community Nurs; 2005 Sep; 10(9):S25-6, S28, S30. PubMed ID: 16245392
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. Make a difference: standardize your heel care practice.
Blaszczyk J; Majewski M; Sato F
Ostomy Wound Manage; 1998 May; 44(5):32-40. PubMed ID: 9697545
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. The history and use of the Waterlow card.
Waterlow J
Nurs Times; 1998 Feb 18-24; 94(7):63-7. PubMed ID: 9536738
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
44. Pressure injury prevention strategies in acute medical inpatients: an observational study.
Latimer S; Chaboyer W; Gillespie B
Contemp Nurse; 2016; 52(2-3):326-40. PubMed ID: 27228380
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. [Care of decubitus ulcers].
Hallouët P; Eggers J; Malaquin-Pavan E
Soins Gerontol; 2007; (67):45-7. PubMed ID: 17983004
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
46. Pressure ulcer healing: what is it? What influences it? How is it measured?
Xakellis GC; Frantz RA
Adv Wound Care; 1997 Sep; 10(5):20-6. PubMed ID: 9362573
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. Waterlow assessment: not a predictor.
Waterlow JA
Br J Nurs; 2005 Jul 14-27; 14(13):689. PubMed ID: 16178097
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
48. National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel's updated pressure ulcer staging system.
Black J; Baharestani M; Cuddigan J; Dorner B; Edsberg L; Langemo D; Posthauer ME; Ratliff C; Taler G;
Urol Nurs; 2007 Apr; 27(2):144-50, 156. PubMed ID: 17494455
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. Pressure ulcer grading tools: how reliable are they?
Sharp A
J Wound Care; 2004 Feb; 13(2):75-7. PubMed ID: 14999993
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. Guidance on pressure ulcer risk assessment and prevention.
Young T
Nurs Times; 2004 Apr 6-12; 100(14):52-3. PubMed ID: 15119136
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. Assessing wounds accurately.
Woods A
Nursing; 2004 Nov; 34 Suppl Travel():1. PubMed ID: 15539986
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
52. Computer identification of patients at risk for skin breakdown.
Harbit MD
Clin Nurse Spec; 1996 May; 10(3):125-7; quiz 128-9. PubMed ID: 8846452
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. Tissue viability standards.
Boon H
Prof Nurse; 2000 Nov; 16(2):876. PubMed ID: 12029861
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
54. Challenges of identifying eczema in darkly pigmented skin.
Myers J
Nurs Child Young People; 2015 Jul; 27(6):24-8. PubMed ID: 26156613
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. Adopting Braden Q in the NICU to Identify Neonates at Risk of Developing Pressure Injuries.
Wacek M; Ecklund M
Neonatal Netw; 2018 Sep; 37(5):319-323. PubMed ID: 30567814
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. Tissue viability. Clinical guidelines: a pilot study of pressure sore care.
Townshend B
Nurs Stand; 1996 Jan; 10(19):49-52. PubMed ID: 8695415
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. [The agony of choice in wound management].
Protz K
Pflege Z; 2010 Apr; 63(4):206-9. PubMed ID: 20426380
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
58. Critical appraisal of pressure ulcer guidelines.
Young T
Community Nurse; 2000 Jan; 5(12):29-30. PubMed ID: 11189662
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
59. Education and QA: a model for continuous improvement in skin integrity.
Arikian VL; Kingery C; Beall K; Abbott R
J Nurs Qual Assur; 1990 Nov; 5(1):1-7. PubMed ID: 2211946
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
60. Revision of the PUSH Tool using an expanded database. Pressure Ulcer Scale for Healing.
Stotts NA; Rodeheaver GT
Adv Wound Care; 1997 Sep; 10(5):107-10. PubMed ID: 9362593
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
