Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Sep 8;18(9):e0290970. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0290970

Attitude and preventive practices of pressure ulcers among orthopedic nurses in a tertiary hospital in Ghana

Evans Osei Appiah 1,2,*, Stella Appiah 3, Ezekiel Oti-Boadi 4, Beatrice Ama Boadu 5, Samuel Kontoh 6, Roland Iddrisu Adams 7, Cyndi Appiah 8, Collins Sarpong 9
Editor: Nabeel Al-Yateem10
PMCID: PMC10490930  PMID: 37682963

Abstract

Background

Pressure ulcers (PUs), which affect millions of people worldwide, are among the five most prevalent hospitalized cases causing adverse impairment. Nevertheless, pressure ulcers are largely preventable, and their management depends on their severity. The authors, therefore, explored the attitude and preventive practices of pressure ulcers among orthopedic nurses in a tertiary hospital in Ghana.

Methods

An exploratory descriptive qualitative approach was employed for this study to help researchers explore the attitude and practices toward PU (Pressure Ulcer). Purposive sampling approach was employed, and data was analyzed using thematic content analysis. The sample size for this study was 30 which was obtained based on saturation. Participants were engaged in face-to-face interviews which were transcribed verbatim.

Findings

Two themes and eight subthemes were generated from the analysis of this study. The two themes were preventive practices and attitude towards PU. The study identified that there were no specific protocols illustrated on the wards for managing pressure ulcers. Nevertheless, the study participants were keen on preventing pressure ulcers and hence engaged in practices such as early patients’ ambulation, early identification of PU signs, removing creases and crumps from patient beds, nutritional management for PU prevention, and dressing of PU wounds.

Conclusion

Practices of pressure ulcer management were highly valued by the orthopedics nurses. Hence, the nurses recommended the need for accepted guidelines on pressure ulcer management to be illustrated in the various orthopedic wards in the country.

Introduction

Pressure ulcers (PUs), which affect millions of people worldwide, are among the five most prevalent hospitalized cases causing adverse impairment [1]. Globally, pressure injuries were the direct cause of death in 7–8% of all patients with paraplegia, with approximately 60,000 people dying of complications of pressure injuries [2]. Individuals with pressure ulcers have a 4.5-times greater risk of death than persons with the same risk factors but without pressure injuries [3]. It was ascertained by [4] that Europe has the highest prevalence of pressure ulcers with the Netherlands, nevertheless topping the list and Finland recording the least prevalence. In the USA, pressure ulcers remain a major health problem affecting approximately 3 million adults and the total cost of treating PU for 19 patients, was estimated at $129,248 annually [5].

Pressure ulcers are frequent complications among bedridden patients in most African countries [6]. The authors stated that the cumulative incidence of pressure ulcers was 20% in general and 50% in the population at risk. Other authors emphasized that recently, the prevalence of pressure ulcers in Africa reported was similar to figures from the recent review of prevalence in Europe of which the figures were high [7]. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, pressure ulcers remain a real public health problem with the majority of patients developing pressure ulcers during their time at hospitalization [8].

Similarly, in Ethiopia, the collective prevalence of pressure ulcers was relatively high. This was due to the fact that up to 90% of patients develop pressure ulcers on admission [1]. In addition, it was asserted that most patients admitted to the ward in most Nigerian hospitals with spinal cord injury, orthopedic injury, and head injury develop pressure ulcers even before they are discharged [9]. According to [10] the situation in Ghana was not different, most patients on the ward ended up developing pressure ulcers most commonly occurring at the head, sacrum, and heels which were often referred to as the jeopardy areas, due to the prominent bony features at these anatomical areas.

Nevertheless, pressure ulcers are largely preventable in nature, and their management depends on their severity [11]. The National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, and Pan Pacific Pressure Injury Alliance Nutrition Guidelines discuss the role of nutrition in managing and preventing pressure ulcers [12, 13]. The prevention of pressure ulcer formation is directed at alleviating the risk factors for the individual patient [14]. The authors stated that the primary focus of minimizing episodes of prolonged pressure ulcers was either by placing appropriate padding at pressure points or by frequent patient repositioning to help prevent pressure ulcers. Some authors from Ghana discovered that having knowledge about pressure ulcer management alone does not guarantee pressure ulcer prevention [15], hence The current study presents the following aims:

  • Attitude toward pressure ulcer management among orthopedic nurses in a tertiary hospital in Ghana

  • Preventive practices of pressure ulcers among orthopedic nurses in a tertiary hospital in Ghana

Methodology

Research design is the blueprint for a study that guides the research process to move from a research purpose or a question to a possible result or an outcome [16]. An exploratory descriptive qualitative approach was used to obtain idiosyncratic data about the phenomenon used in this research [17]. It allowed the researchers to fully understand a given phenomenon while enabling participants to contribute to the development of new knowledge. It helps uncover details of events or experiences and the people involved in them. This design helped the researchers to gather data and bring out insight into the preventive practices of pressure ulcer management among orthopedic nurses at the Korle-Bu Teaching Hospital

The target population for this study was orthopedic nurses at the Korle Bu Teaching Hospital. The inclusion criteria for selecting participants for this study were; Nurses at the orthopedic units, nurses who were on duty, and those who consented to partake in the study

Sampling technique

In this study, a purposive sampling technique was used to recruit participants for the study. Purposive sampling also known as a judgmental or expert sample is a form of non-probability sampling in which researchers rely on their own judgment when choosing members of the population to participate in their surveys [18]. This technique was deliberately employed to gather the needed data specifically for the research. Only participants who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were involved in the project.

The sample size for this study was justified with saturation. Data saturation is when no more in-depth data can be collected because data has been exhausted and not merely because the sample size is consumed [18]. According to [19], saturation is used to determine when there is adequate data provided, this is proven to be more vital than a large population with inadequate information. This, therefore, implied that no specific sample size can be given but data was gathered until no new information was forthcoming. A total of 36 nurses were initially contacted for this study, however, 2 declined due to scheduling conflicts. The remaining 34 nurses were considered for participation, but the data collection was ultimately concluded after reaching a sample size of 30. This was due to the point of saturation being reached, meaning that further data collection was unlikely to yield additional insights or perspectives. A semi-structured interview guide was used to collect the needed data. This method is more appropriate for conducting an open-ended in-depth interview to gather more insights into the participant’s thoughts and beliefs regarding the topic under study [20]. It also aids in collecting data with small sample size and with a particular group of people. The semi-structured interview guide used was in the English language and was structured into four parts. The first part (section A) consisted of the socio-demographic data of the participants which was intended to establish rapport with the research participants in order to get rich data in the subsequent sections. The other sections were based on the study objectives. During interviews in this study, probes were asked for clarifications of issues that were raised.

The Institutional Review Board of the Dodowa Health Research Center granted ethical clearance for the study. Afterward, a pilot study was conducted among four orthopedic patients from 37 Military Hospital. Following this, an introductory letter was submitted with the ethical clearance to the administration of the Korle Bu Teaching Hospital (as it has one of the largest orthopedics units in the country) for their permission and then to the Head of the Department of Trauma, Accident, and Orthopedic Unit, and finally to the Deputy Director for Nursing Services (DDNS) of the orthopedic unit to commence data collection. After obtaining permission to proceed, the researchers reached out to the ward charges to seek permission for contacting the nurses. The researchers then initiated communication by exchanging greetings, introducing themselves, and clearly outlining the study’s objectives. The participants were provided with a thorough explanation of the study’s purpose.

The interviews were conducted at the convenience of the participants (in a private room in the facility and the homes of some participants) in the English language by EOA, SA, EOB, BAB. Four authors conducted the interviews to facilitate a comprehensive data collection process, distribute the workload, ensure inter-rater reliability, maintain consistency in data collection, and minimize potential biases. In addition, the participants were informed that the interviews would be audio-recorded. The interviews were conducted face-face and lasted for about 45–60 minutes. The safety of the participants was ensured by observing covid-19 protocols such as; maintaining social distance during the interview, and ensuring that both the participants and the researchers all masked.

Data analysis

Data analysis in qualitative research is defined as the process of systematically searching and arranging the interview collected from the respondent through transcripts, observational notes, or other non-textual materials that the researcher accumulates to increase the understanding of the phenomenon [21]. Thematic content analysis was used to analyze data in this study as it was a flexible method that allows a wide range of analytical options and interpretation of themes supported by data. Thematic content analysis is a method of analyzing qualitative data systematically. It is usually applied to a set of texts, such as interviews or transcripts. The researcher closely examined the data to identify common themes–topics, ideas, and patterns of meaning that come up repeatedly [22].

There are basically five stages in thematic content analysis. This includes; familiarization, coding, generating themes, reviewing themes, and defining and naming themes. Familiarization involves getting to know the data collected through transcription and reading the transcribed data [23]. At this phase, the researcher focuses on what to identify through a thorough assessment and reading the data in an active way to search for meanings and patterns in the transcribed data collected during the audio recording. Familiarization with data in qualitative research could be time involving, and frustrating [24]. This was followed by coding where ideas and identification of possible patterns were shaped. This phase was very important to get ideas and a pattern of the transcripts that were read.

Coding is done by highlighting ideas and allocating them with short labels to describe them [25]. Since the transcribed work was based on the basic idea of the code that comes from the previous information from the literature review. The data was analyzed in thematic content and across codes were highlighted and grouped according to each theme identified in the study. The COREQ (Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research) checklist consisting of 32 items was used to report the findings [26].

Methodological rigour

Rigour is made up of several elements which come together, to ensure that the conclusion of a qualitative research is robust [27]. These elements purposively serve as guidelines in maintaining the integrity of qualitative research. It consists of; credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability.

The authors achieved credibility by ensuring that the questions collected from the patients were guided by questions in the semi-structured interview guide, doing the data analysis systematically to produce credible results, and contacting participants for ambiguities following transcriptions of recorded data. This was also achieved by pretesting the interview guide designed by the researchers among 4 orthopedic patients at 37 Military Hospital in Ghana. A reflective journal was kept by the researchers during the data collection to record some observed behavior and well as preconceived views and ideas of researchers that could influence the results.

To achieve dependability, all the researchers read, edited, and reviewed the entire manuscript. Other researchers who were experts in this field of study and qualitative analysis were allowed to review and add their inputs where necessary. Transferability was achieved by describing in detail the methods for this study including the sampling technique and size, the instrument for data collection, and the data collection procedure and as well as ethical considerations. Finally, with confirmability, field notes were taken whilst collecting the data, and results were presented with verbatim quotes from participants.

Results

Analysis of socio-demographic data

Thirty participants N1,N2,N3…..N30 (males and female nurses) were recruited in this study and the socio-demographic characteristics were categorized as; age, gender, religion, number of children, marital status, educational status, and rank. The age of the participants ranged from the least age (23 years) to the highest which was 50 years. The analysis of the result demonstrated that females dominated the gender category with a percentage of 70% as compared to males (30%). The most populated religion in this analysis was Christianity (76.7%), followed by Muslims (23.3%) in this analysis. See Table 1 for detailed illustrations.

Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of participants.

VARIABLE FREQUENCY (N = 30) PERCENTAGE (%)
AGE
    23–30 21 70
    31–40 8 26.7
    41–50 1 3.3
GENDER
    Male 9 30
    Female 21 70
RELIGION
    Christian 23 76.7
    Muslim 7 23.3
NUMBER OF CHILDREN
    0 11 36.7
    1 8 26.7
    2 7 23.3
    3 4 13.3
MARITAL STATUS
    Single 19 63.3
    Married 11 36.7
    Divorce 0 0
EDUCATIONAL STATUS
    Diploma 11 36.7
    Degree 18 60
    Masters 1 3.3
RANK
    SN 7 23.3
    SSN 5 16.7
    NO 13 43.3
    SNO 4 13.3
    PEN 1 3.3

Organization of the themes

There were 2 main themes and eight sub-themes. They were presented in Table 2 as shown below.

Table 2. Themes and subthemes.

THEMES SUB-THEMES
1. Attitudes towards pressure ulcer management 1. Worried about the lack of Specific protocols
2. Negligence of patients
3. Regular observation of pressure areas
4. Busy schedules and lack of time
2. Preventive practices of PU. 5. Dressing of pressure ulcer wound
6. Frequent ambulation
7. Diet for pressure ulcer management
8. Clean and creaseless bed

Themes 1: Attitude towards pressure ulcer management

Worried about the lack of specific protocols

The usage of protocols in the health field by nurses was very key to being proactive in caring for patients. The protocols served as an authorized document that gives guidance for actions to be followed by all staff, in relation to the management of a particular condition with these actions generally agreed upon by the hospital authorities which are placed at advantageous points for easy access by all. However, the current study revealed an obvious lack of protocols especially for preventing and managing pressure ulcers. Some of their views were;

We manage pressure ulcers however the only problem is that we do not have protocols on it in this ward. Pertaining to this, we sometimes do things differently according to how we were taught in school. If there is a protocol pasted, it helps you as a nurse to easily reference when you forget something” (N1, female)

No, no written protocols are telling you what to do and how to do it when you have such patients who are likely to develop pressure ulcers. I think just like the way we have several protocols for managing diabetes, malaria, convulsion, and other disease conditions, the same should be done when it comes to pressure ulcers. (N5, male)

A few of the nurses also said there were protocols just that it is not written and pasted on the wards but has been taught in school. The statement was expressed as below;

I think there are protocols, it’s just that it has not been written in paper form and pasted on the walls of each ward. But nurses have been taught how to manage pressure ulcers in our various colleges. It is the same thing we apply here in taking care of our patients with pressure sores and also in its prevention. The only thing is, it hasn’t been colorfully pasted on walls” (N15, Female).

Negligence of patients

Negligence refers to the failure of a nurse to provide standardized care to their patients, potentially causing harm. Professional nurses are expected to consistently uphold high standards of care and avoid negligence, as it reflects negatively on their professionalism. The findings of this study consistently demonstrated that nurses were diligent in meeting all patient needs and avoiding negligence. Participants shared their experiences, highlighting the commitment of nurses to deliver professional and attentive care, thereby mitigating the risk of negligence. The following narratives depict what the participants said;

There is no reason for a nurse to neglect the care of a patient to develop a pressure ulcer. That’s why no matter what, I make sure that at least twice on my shift, I make my patient ambulate if they can, and for those who can’t I assist them to turn in bed.” (N22, Female)

As the in-charge, I would have felt guilty if my patient should develop a pressure ulcer. I always make a list of what has to be done when we report to work. So, I assign everyone to a patient so that they would spend more time taking care of the patient to prevent such instances of ulcer development. With this, each nurse takes full responsibility for their patients” (N13, male)

I feel so disappointed when patients who do not have pressure ulcers develop ulcers during admission and I attribute this to the negligence of the nurses” (N30, Female)

Other participants also indicated that there were few instances of neglect even though it was unintentional. This was expressed below;

Sometimes, you do your best as the nurse in caring for the patients to ensure that they do not develop any pressure ulcer whilst on admission. But where the patient does not cooperate, it makes it difficult because you can turn a patient to the other side only to return and the patient is comfortably back to the same position. (N18, Female)

Regular observation of pressure areas

Observation is the act of monitoring closely, to notice to detect normality and early signs of abnormalities. Without close observation, signs indicating early development of pressure sores may be overlooked and only noticed when it’s in the dire stages increasing patient costs and prolonging the hospital stay. Some of these observations done by the nurses were captured as follows;

When I’m giving bed bath to my patient at all times, I closely check his skin color especially around the buttocks, to assess if the area has become reddened which is a sign of pressure ulcer development. Then, I also assess for tenderness and the tone of the skin comparing it to the surrounding skin, I do this every time on my shift because I know how it is difficult to treat pressure ulcers” (N29, Female).

During my clinical in one government hospital, I encountered a woman who had developed deep pressure ulcers on both buttocks to the point that she couldn’t lie and the back, sadly she couldn’t survive, since then I have taken it upon myself to always assess pressure areas of patients under my care daily to prevent situations like this because I do not want it to happen on my ward. (N11, male).

While changing the soiled diaper or any bedridden patient, the first thing I tend to do after cleaning them up is to check if there is any sore or rashes or blisters because of the constant heat generated from the diaper as a result of friction. These rashes could cause itching and when scratched, may result in pressure ulcers so I am peculiar about that” (N23, male).

In some instances, stated that paying close observations to these prone areas was impossible when it comes to patients with complicated fractures.

when it comes to close observations of some patients it’s a bit challenging especially when movement is restricted in cases of the patient having a spine and cervical injury repositioning them becomes challenging. Hence the possibility of developing ulcer is higher. (N8, male)

Busy schedules and lack of time

An imbalanced nurse-patient ratio is a challenge in both developed and developing countries such as Ghana making few nurses overburdened with the tasks, especially in the developing countries. Hence, it is expected some duties such as pressure ulcer care will be ignored, However?? the majority of the orthopedic nurses in this study indicated that pressure ulcer care was their priority and hence did not allow obstacles such as busy schedules and lack of time to discourage them from doing it as stated below;

There is nothing like being busy for my patient. I always make time for my patient. Even on the days that the ward is very busy, I don’t ignore that part of my nursing care. Especially in the orthopedic ward, most of the patients are immobile and are at risk of developing pressure ulcers. Hence there is no way I leave pressure ulcer management out of my patients’ care” (N7, Female)

How can a nurse say you are so busy that you can’t even tell your patient to ambulate or assist them to turn in bed. This is not possible! There is nothing like a lack of time in my ward, it is of most priority that no patients develop pressure ulcers. It is part of our key duties when we report to work that things” (N4, Female)

Few of the participants also commented that due to lack of staff shortage they became busy and do not have enough time to render all the necessary care to their patients.

At times, I can say the ward can be very busy with new admissions causing a lot of pressure on us when we come to work. By the time you realize the day has already ended with performing care of pressure areas. (N20,

Sometimes I come on a shift with no degree nurse to even guide us on how to care for this patient, the few of us will feed patients, bath them, give medications, prepare some for x-rays…We are being forced to do things hurriedly, and we tend to forget about doing that, so sometimes it is not intentional but we sometimes become exhausted that we have to reschedule it to the following day. (N17, Male)

Theme 2: Preventive practices of PU

Preventive measures were actions that were put in place specifically to sort off and serve as a guide for the nurses against pressure injury happening. Out of this, four (4) sub-themes emerged.

Dressing of pressure ulcer

Wound dressing is one of the tasks practiced by nurses to promote wound healing and prevent infection, it was, therefore, necessary that the orthopedic nurses in this study manage the few orthopedic patients with pressure ulcer wounds to prevent infections and other complications. From the interviews conducted, the nurses cited the essence of wound dressing when bedsores developed. Their views were reported as below;

If the patient has a bed ulcer it is important to dress it and prevent it from increasing in size. So I clean the wound with normal saline and sterile gauze then cover it with povidone solution and secure it with plaster or bandage” (N13, male)

Hmmm, this morning we noticed one of our orthopedic patients ware is bedridden has developed bed sores while we were giving him a bed bath. We did the dressing afterward with normal saline solution and covered it with gauze soaked in a povidone-iodine and held it in place with plaster. Then documented in the nurse’s note and informed the doctor when he came forward rounds who has also prescribed some antibiotics” (N18, Female).

One thing I’m so scared of is my patients developing bedsores hence, I try to do all I can to prevent it from happening especially since these wounds turn to take a long time to heal but sometimes it occurs as much as you try to prevent it. Sometimes too, the patient may even have a pressure ulcer before admission that’s why it is good to do a proper assessment of patients. But when I observe my patient has a pressure ulcer, I dress it as the doctor instructs so that it can heal” (N25, Male)

Frequent ambulation

Ambulation is the act of walking or moving about. The act of ambulating was done independently or with assistance depending on the ability of the patient. There are various benefits of ambulation for orthopedic patients, for this reason, ambulation was one of the key practices the nurses in this study ensured daily in orthopedic patients who could. Their narrations were captured as follows;

Oh, for moving out of the bed I only encourage those patients who can do it. What I do is every four hours I instruct the patients to move around the ward or even the bed. Some of them can do it without assistance and for those who are not able, I support them to move others also move with their crutches we just ensure that they are safe” (N18, female).

To ensure that the orthopedics patients who are canulated dialy, assist them daily to the washroom every morning to perform their hygienic needs and later assist them back to their beds I do this because it is not only pressure sores they can develop but also DVT and pneumonia.” (N7, Female)

Diet for pressure ulcer management

The nutritional needs of the patients are equally important in the maintenance of skin integrity and healing of pressure ulcers. Hence, both oral and parenteral nutrition was provided to the patients to ensure this. The participants in this study expressed this opinion as stated below;

We all know food plays a part in tissue healing because of this, I always teach my patient’s relatives about the foods they bring to patients. Some of the relatives would bring the patient, rice porridge in the morning, banku and hot chilly source in the afternoon, and rice in the evening which is less in protein and fruits. When I see something like this, I interact with the relatives and teach them about the need to add foodstuff rich in protein and vitamins such as milk to the rice porridge, some orange or banana or any fruit in between, and meat or fish to the banku or any lunch they bring and egg and some vegetables to the rice for the patient to get the nutritious diet for early recovery” (N 25, Male)

In my facility, meals are inclusive of the NHIS benefits and so meals are served to patients who are covered by the NHIS. As you know, we have dietetic and nutrition departments in this facility so it is their responsibility for all meals served to our patients. I can boldly tell you that all the meals served to our patients are balanced to meet the specific needs of a patient taking it” (N29, Female).

There was this orthopedic patient we had who was diabetic and had also developed pressure sores you can imagine how challenging it was for both the patients and us. Meanwhile, he was also not adhering to his diet and drugs, because of that he has been here 6 months and the wound is still not healing” (N21, Female)

Clean and creaseless bed

Bed making is crucial in the nursing profession to ensure comfort, cleanliness, ness and the beautification of the ward. It also helps in managing patient conditions and preventing complications. The interviewees in this study mentioned this in the narrations as follows;

One of the basic things I do is that once I take up, as part of my list of priorities I make bed free of creases for the patient to lie in it. I check to see if there are no crumbs of any sort in the patient’s bed so that they can be comfortable. You see, if you allow the patient to lie in an unkempt bed with folds they interfere with the skin surface causing irritation which leads to pressure ulcer” (N9, Female)

One of the patients developed incontinence during the accident, hence he is in a diaper and we ensure that it changes twice daily and in case it soils the bedsheet we change the bedsheet and lay it neatly with a new one. We don’t that to prevent the patient from developing an ulcer. (N 17, Male)

If there is one thing I hate is seeing patients lying on the bare mattress with mackintosh which is too rough on the skin. I try as much as I can to lay bedlinens all the time on the beds before I put my patients on them. I also discourage other staff from doing that and hence even if we are short of bed sheets, we use the patient’s bed sheet to prevent this” (N15, Female)

Discussions

A lack of specific protocols was found to hinder pressure ulcer prevention and management. The study participants expressed that the lack of accepted protocols in various orthopedics units on pressure ulcer management makes pressure ulcer preventive practices inconsistent from one unit to the other. The participants indicated that it leads to controversies regarding the care of patients with pressure ulcer, unlike conditions that have standardized protocols such as diabetes, malaria, and many more. Availability of protocols helps guide care given to patients and ensure that standard of care is provided hence effort should be made to develop protocols on pressure ulcer management throughout various facilities in Ghana. This current study builds on a study conducted by [28] stating that the lack of policies, guidelines, and lack of evidence supported by the research were factors that affected pressure ulcer practice.

Negligence was indicated by the participants to hinder patient care and recovery. Hence, participants of this study revealed that they were diligent with pressure ulcer prevention in order to prevent complications. They specified that as orthopedic nurses, helping patients to turn in bed 2 hourly and ambulating is one of their core duties and hence should not be neglected. Some of the participants also stated they would feel guilty if their patient should develop a pressure ulcer under their care and hence prioritize pressure ulcer prevention. Patients’ needs should be met at all times and therefore, with the prioritization of patients’ needs, pressure ulcer prevention techniques will be well implemented by nurses caring for orthopedics patients and those who are bedridden to enhance pressure ulcer prevention and prevention of other complications. Similar to a study by some researchers, two hourly repositioning was a common nursing intervention nurses performed to prevent the risk of skin breakdown [29]. Contrary, [30] study revealed that 83.1% of the participants revealed heavy workload and inadequate staff as factors hindering pressure ulcer prevention care. Similarly, the study ascertained that 62.5% of the patients were uncooperative in managing pressure ulcers, which made it difficult for ulcer prevention and management [31].

Regular observation of pressure risk areas was also found to be one of the findings from the study that was identified to help in the early detection of pressure ulcers. The participants indicated that they engaged in the daily assessment of patients during bed bath by observing for signs such as; pain, tenderness, changes in skin color and tone, rashes, and blisters which were indicators of early signs of pressure ulcer development. Some also indicated that while changing diapers of bedridden patients, the first thing they check out is if there is any sore formation or rashes at their pressure points. To prevent pressure ulcers, the most critical role is to pay close attention to pressure prone areas and changes or signs of early pressure ulcer development, as it aids in prompt intervening when pressure ulcer sets in and avoid pressure sores from developing or complications from occurring. This is consistent with a study conducted stating, that early identification is pivotal to pressure ulcer care. Warm over bony prominences, edema and induration, and non-blanchable erythema which changes the skin pigmentation were viewed as characteristics of injury to the pressure areas [11].

Most of the participants believed that there was nothing like an increased workload deterring them from attending to their patients and ensuring that pressure ulcer care practice was being applied. They mentioned that the care of the patient should be of utmost priority to the nurse even when the ward is busy. These attitudes cultivated by the participants would help reduce the incidence of pressure ulcers. This is in line with a study conducted, which indicated that prioritization of patient care was equally identified as essential in attending to patient care with large patient numbers [32].

This study has revealed that the majority of the participants interviewed identified dressing pressure ulcers as part of the measures used by the nurses in managing pressure ulcers and noted that it requires a primitive initiative. They acknowledged that though they undertake preventive measures to pressure ulcer formation when the ulcer develops the nurses dress it aseptically on alternate days with normal saline and a povidone-iodine solution covered with sterile gauze and secured with plaster or bandage. Some of the participants also shared their views that they dress the patient’s wound with savlon solution covered with soaked gauze in povidone solution and held in place with plaster. The dressing of pressure sores is of primary concern to the nurse since they nurse knows that a first-degree ulcer could be developed to 2nd,3rd and 4th-degree burns if not managed properly. This is consistent with a study that discovered that wound dressing in patients with pressure sores is one of the important interventions provided to prevent complications and facilitate healing [14].

Another preventive measure implemented by the participants who partook in the study was frequent ambulation. All the participant’s acknowledged ambulation was regularly encouraged among patients who could move to prevent ulcer formation as well as other complications. They expounded that wanting their patients to mobilize was not necessarily to see patients walking about vigorously but it can be as little as a patient moving out of bed and sitting on a chair, walking around the bedside, or even stepping into the washroom. They further explained that frequent ambulation was encouraged as it improved blood circulation and offload pressure exerted on the body parts. Mobilization of patients as condition permits is of priority when planning preventive measures to implement on the patients at risk of pressure ulcer formation. This is in consonance with a study conducted by [33] which also indicated that early mobilization was implemented by nurses in the intensive units but however, noted that there was statistically no significant decrease in hospital-acquired pressure ulcer injury among the patients.

The study also revealed that a well-nutritious diet was a key to pressure ulcer management. They expressed that the nutrient content of the food the patient eats must be nutritious enough to promote skin integrity and prevent skin breakdown, hence their relatives were educated on a high protein diet and fruits which aids in tissue repair. The study also revealed that consultation with nutritionists was covered by NHIS which was also essential in pressure also prevention. Intake of the right amount of certain food nutrients helps to improve the healing process of wounds. This is consistent with a survey conducted 4 years ago which established that nutritional supplements were beneficial to patients with limited oral intake and enteral or parenteral feeding is necessitated in patients with an inability to safely ingest oral nutrition. Zinc, energy-giving foods, protein, and vitamins A, C, and E were mentioned to be increased in patient intake to promote pressure ulcer healing [34].

Conclusion

Practices of pressure ulcer management were highly valued by the orthopedics nurses. Hence, the nurses were concerned about the absence of PU protocol management guidelines and recommended the need for accepted guidelines on pressure ulcer management to be illustrated on the various orthopedic wards in the country.

Limitations of the study

The study’s scope was restricted to only gathering the opinions of nurses, which may not necessarily reflect the perspectives of other important stakeholders, such as patients and physicians. As a result, future research could seek to incorporate the views of other relevant groups. Additionally, the research was limited to a single tertiary care facility, and therefore, the generalizability of the findings to other settings may be limited.

Abbreviations

DDNS

Deputy Director of Nursing Services

DHRCIRB

Dodowa Health Center Institutional Review Board

PU

Pressure Ulcer

USA

United States of America

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Shiferaw WS, Akalu TY, Mulugeta H, Aynalem YA. The global burden of pressure ulcers among patients with spinal cord injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC musculoskeletal disorders. 2020. Dec;21(1):1–1. doi: 10.1186/s12891-020-03369-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Landi F, Onder G, Russo A, Bernabei R. Pressure ulcer and mortality in frail elderly people living in community. Archives of gerontology and Geriatrics. 2007. Jan 1;44:217–23. doi: 10.1016/j.archger.2007.01.030 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Ferris A, Price A, Harding K. Pressure ulcers in patients receiving palliative care: a systematic review. Palliative medicine. 2019. Jul;33(7):770–82. doi: 10.1177/0269216319846023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Moore Z, Avsar P, Conaty L, Moore DH, Patton D, O’Connor T. The prevalence of pressure ulcers in Europe, what does the European data tell us: a systematic review. Journal of wound care. 2019. Nov 2;28(11):710–9. doi: 10.12968/jowc.2019.28.11.710 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Mervis JS, Phillips TJ. Pressure ulcers: Pathophysiology, epidemiology, risk factors, and presentation. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. 2019. Oct 1;81(4):881–90. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2018.12.069 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Idowu OK, Yinusa W, Gbadegesin SA, Adebule GT. Risk factors for pressure ulceration in a resource constrained spinal injury service. Spinal cord. 2011. May;49(5):643–7. doi: 10.1038/sc.2010.175 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Anthony D, Alosaimi D, Shiferaw WS, Korsah K, Safari R. Prevalence of pressure ulcers in Africa: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Tissue Viability. 2021. Feb 1;30(1):137–45. doi: 10.1016/j.jtv.2020.10.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Valimungighe M.M., Sikakulya F.K., Mitamo A.A., Ketha J.K., Ilumbulumbu M.K., & Akinja S.U. (2018). Epidemiological and Clinical Characteristics of Patients with Pressure Ulcers in Butembo, Democratic Republic of the Congo. Archives of Current Research International, 12(4), 1–6 [Google Scholar]
  • 9.TeslimOnigbinde A, Ogunsanya GI, Oniyangi SO. Pressure ulcer incidence among high-risk inpatients in Nigeria. British journal of nursing. 2012. Jun 25;21(Sup12):S4–10. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Angmorterh SK, England A, Anaman-Torgbor J, Kortei NK, Alidu H, Yarfi C, et al. A narrative review on pressure ulcer (PU) studies relevant to medical imaging. Pan African Medical Journal. 2020. Jun 4;36(1). doi: 10.11604/pamj.2020.36.66.19431 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Mishra RK, Bhattacharya S. Pressure Ulcers of the Lower Limb. Ulcers of the Lower Extremity. 2016:309–40. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Posthauer ME, Banks M, Dorner B, Schols JM. The role of nutrition for pressure ulcer management: national pressure ulcer advisory panel, European pressure ulcer advisory panel, and pan pacific pressure injury alliance white paper. Advances in skin & wound care. 2015. Apr 1;28(4):175–88. doi: 10.1097/01.ASW.0000461911.31139.62 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Munoz N, Posthauer ME. Nutrition strategies for pressure injury management: Implementing the 2019 International Clinical Practice Guideline. Nutrition in Clinical Practice. 2022. Jun;37(3):567–82. doi: 10.1002/ncp.10762 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.BoykoTatiana V, LongakerMichael T, YangGeorge P. Review of the current management of pressure ulcers. Advances in wound care. 2018. Feb 1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Jönsson A, Engman E. Pressure ulcer prevention in Ghana: What is the nurses´ knowledge?. 2011-03-22 [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Abutabenjeh S, Jaradat R. Clarification of research design, research methods, and research methodology: A guide for public administration researchers and practitioners. Teaching Public Administration. 2018. Oct;36(3):237–58. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Elliott R, Timulak L. Descriptive and interpretive approaches to qualitative research. A handbook of research methods for clinical and health psychology. 2005. Jul 1;1(7):147–59. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Etikan I, Musa SA, Alkassim RS. Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American journal of theoretical and applied statistics. 2016. Jan 5;5(1):1–4. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Hennink MM, Kaiser BN, Marconi VC. Code saturation versus meaning saturation: how many interviews are enough?. Qualitative health research. 2017. Mar;27(4):591–608. doi: 10.1177/1049732316665344 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.DeJonckheere M, Vaughn LM. Semistructured interviewing in primary care research: a balance of relationship and rigour. Family medicine and community health. 2019;7(2). doi: 10.1136/fmch-2018-000057 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Zerengok D, Guzel P, Ozbey S. The Impact of Leisure Participation on Social Adaptation of International Students. Journal of Education and Training Studies. 2018. Feb;6(2):1–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Herzog C, Handke C, Hitters E. Analyzing talk and text II: Thematic analysis. Springer International Publishing; 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Kuckartz U, Rädiker S. Analyzing qualitative data with MAXQDA. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Rowley J. Conducting research interviews. Management research review. 2012. Mar 23;35(3/4):260–71. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Braun V, Clarke V. Can I use TA? Should I use TA? Should I not use TA? Comparing reflexive thematic analysis and other pattern‐based qualitative analytic approaches. Counselling and psychotherapy research. 2021. Mar;21(1):37–47. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International journal for quality in health care. 2007. Dec 1;19(6):349–57. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzm042 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Snyder TD, Dillow SA. Digest of Education Statistics, 2011. NCES 2012–001. National Center for Education Statistics. 2012 Jun. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Dilie A, Mengistu D. Assessment of nurses’ knowledge, attitude, and perceived barriers to expressed pressure ulcer prevention practice in Addis Ababa government hospitals, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2015. Advances in Nursing. 2015. Dec 22;2015:1–1. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Andayani RP, Nurhaeni N, Wanda D. Assessing effectiveness of regular repositioning in preventing pressure ulcers in children. Pediatric Reports. 2020. Jun;12(s1):8696. doi: 10.4081/pr.2020.8696 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Etafa W, Argaw Z, Gemechu E, Melese B. Nurses’ attitude and perceived barriers to pressure ulcer prevention. BMC nursing. 2018. Dec;17:1–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Mwebaza I, Katende G, Groves S, Nankumbi J. Nurses’ knowledge, practices, and barriers in care of patients with pressure ulcers in a Ugandan teaching hospital. Nursing research and practice. 2014 Feb 24;2014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.O’Connor PJ, Sperl-Hillen JM, Margolis KL, Kottke TE. Strategies to prioritize clinical options in primary care. The Annals of Family Medicine. 2017. Jan 1;15(1):10–3. doi: 10.1370/afm.2027 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Nieto‐García L, Carpio‐Pérez A, Moreiro‐Barroso MT, Alonso‐Sardón M. Can an early mobilisation programme prevent hospital‐acquired pressure injures in an intensive care unit?: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. International Wound Journal. 2021. Apr;18(2):209–20. doi: 10.1111/iwj.13516 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Saghaleini SH, Dehghan K, Shadvar K, Sanaie S, Mahmoodpoor A, Ostadi Z. Pressure Ulcer and Nutrition. Indian J Crit Care Med. 2018. Apr;22(4):283–289. doi: 10.4103/ijccm.IJCCM_277_17 ; PMCID: PMC5930532. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Maria Elisabeth Johanna Zalm

8 Sep 2022

PONE-D-22-19280Attitude and preventive practices of pressure ulcers among orthopedic nurses in a tertiary hospital in GhanaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Appiah,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Your manuscript has been assessed by one peer-reviewer and their report is appended below.

The reviewer comments that your study is interesting, but that critical elements of the methodology have not been reported. In addition, the reviewer comments that the discussions section needs to include a deeper discussion of the literature and the limitations to this study.  Please note that we have only been able to secure a single reviewer to assess your manuscript. We are issuing a decision on your manuscript at this point to prevent further delays in the evaluation of your manuscript. Please be aware that the editor who handles your revised manuscript might find it necessary to invite additional reviewers to assess this work once the revised manuscript is submitted. However, we will aim to proceed on the basis of this single review if possible. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 19 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Maria Elisabeth Johanna Zalm, Ph.D

Editorial Office

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript. 

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is an interesting manuscript exploring nurses attitudes and preventive practices towards pressure ulcers in a hospital setting in Ghana. I acknowledge the need for studies particularly in African countries where the incidence appears to be high with an associated burden on patients and their care providers. However, there a number of areas where this paper lacks sufficient detail for publication, which needs to be addressed.

1. The whole manuscript needs to be proof read for spelling and grammer

2. National and International guidelines for the prevention of pressure ulcers should be cited e.g. NPIAP, EPUAP, PPPIA 2019 guidelines for the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers.

3. There appears to be no clear rationale statement, aim or research question. This should be at the end of the introduction to highlight the specific focus of the study.

4. The methods are a mix of third person and past tense statements. A more coherent depiction of the methods and rationale are required.

5. Critical components of methodology are absent, including triangulation, reflexivity and rigour.

6. Purposeful sampling is stated, but no clear inclusion/exclusion criteria are stipulated.

7. Some characteristics of participants appear to be redundant e.g. number of children and marital status - do you expect these to influence pressure ulcer prevention practice?

8. Themes are interesting and well documented with relevant quotes. These are interspersed with discussion points which aids the reader.

9. The discussion is a little sparse on relevant literature.

10 There is no limitations section.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Sep 8;18(9):e0290970. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0290970.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


18 Sep 2022

REVIEWER COMMENT RESPONSE

Reviewer #1: This is an interesting manuscript exploring nurses attitudes and preventive practices toward pressure ulcers in a hospital setting in Ghana. I acknowledge the need for studies, particularly in African countries where the incidence appears to be high with an associated burden on patients and their care providers. However, there a number of areas where this paper lacks sufficient detail for publication, which needs to be addressed.

1. The whole manuscript needs to be proofread for spelling and grammar

2. National and International guidelines for the prevention of pressure ulcers should be cited e.g. NPIAP, EPUAP, PPPIA 2019 guidelines for the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers.

3. There appears to be no clear rationale statement, aim or research question. This should be at the end of the introduction to highlight the specific focus of the study.

4. The methods are a mix of third-person and past tense statements. A more coherent depiction of the methods and rationale are required.

5. Critical components of methodology are absent, including triangulation, reflexivity and rigour.

6. Purposeful sampling is stated, but no clear inclusion/exclusion criteria are stipulated

.

7. Some characteristics of participants appear to be redundant e.g. number of children and marital status - do you expect these to influence pressure ulcer prevention practice?

8. Themes are interesting and well documented with relevant quotes. These are interspersed with discussion points which aids the reader.

9. The discussion is a little sparse on relevant literature.

10 There is no limitations section.

________________________________________ Thank you

The grammatical errors has been addressed throughout the manuscript and shown in track changes

The national and international guidelines has been cited and illustrated in track changes

The aims have been included as suggested

The entire methods section has been revised

These components have been included, triangulation has been included as a limitation

Inclusion and exclusion criteria has been added

The socio-demographic section has been revised

Thanks

The entire discussion section has been reviewed

Thanks

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewers comment Pressure Ulcer.docx

Decision Letter 1

Nabeel Al-Yateem

2 May 2023

PONE-D-22-19280R1Attitude and preventive practices of pressure ulcers among orthopedic nurses in a tertiary hospital in GhanaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Appiah,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 16 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Nabeel Al-Yateem, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The rebuttal to comments to sparse and requires the reviewer to systematically check the revised manuscript. In the future, a more detailed summary of changes and the rationale for their inclusion is needed.

Substantive effort has been made to amend the document, although further additions are required. I recommend that the authors use the COREQ guidelines to ensure all key elements of the qualitative paper are included, and have a check list as a key appendix as per the GOLD standard for reporting qualitative studies.

Of the changes that have been made, the limitations section is still far too spare. The restriction to nurse only is not the only limitation of the study. More reflection is required with a full depiction in the discussion.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Sep 8;18(9):e0290970. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0290970.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


3 May 2023

REVIEWER COMMENTS RESPONSE

Reviewer #1: The rebuttal to comments to sparse and requires the reviewer to systematically check the revised manuscript. In the future, a more detailed summary of changes and the rationale for their inclusion is needed.

Substantive effort has been made to amend the document, although further additions are required. I recommend that the authors use the COREQ guidelines to ensure all key elements of the qualitative paper are included, and have a check list as a key appendix as per the GOLD standard for reporting qualitative studies.

Of the changes that have been made, the limitations section is still far too spare. The restriction to nurse only is not the only limitation of the study. More reflection is required with a full depiction in the discussion.

Thank you for taking your time to review this manuscript

COREQ SOFTWARE HAS BEEN USED TO REPORT THE STUDY AND UPLOADED AS A SUPPLEMENTARY FILE

The limitation section has been revised as shown below “The study's scope was restricted to only gathering the opinions of nurses, which may not necessarily reflect the perspectives of other important stakeholders, such as patients and physicians. As a result, future research could seek to incorporate the views of other relevant groups. Additionally, the research was limited to a single tertiary care facility, and therefore, the generalizability of the findings to other settings may be limited”

Attachment

Submitted filename: REVIEWERS COMMENTS RESPONSE.docx

Decision Letter 2

Nabeel Al-Yateem

4 Jun 2023

PONE-D-22-19280R2Attitude and preventive practices of pressure ulcers among orthopedic nurses in a tertiary hospital in GhanaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Appiah,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 19 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Nabeel Al-Yateem, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for addressing all the comments. This represents an interesting paper exploring pressure ulcer knowledge.

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors,

The paper is an interesting piece, which contains pertinent information regarding pressure ulcer prevention and care. I am happy that, the pieces of information the article carries across may go a long way to improve the clinical care of patients who are prone to developing pressure ulcers. There are number of suggestions which have been made which are likely to improve the quality of this article. Thank you.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: REVIEWER REPORT FOR PONE-D-22-19280R2 PDF.pdf

PLoS One. 2023 Sep 8;18(9):e0290970. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0290970.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2


6 Jun 2023

REVIEWER COMMENTS AUTHORS RESPONSE

Under the Methods

1. The first part of the first sentence “A descriptive exploratory qualitative approach” should read

as “An exploratory descriptive qualitative approach”……..

2. The second sentence “The sampling technique used was purposive to analyze data using

thematic content analysis” should read as “Purposive sampling approach was employed, and data

was analyzed using thematic content analysis” Thank you for making time out of your busy schedule to review this paper

The two sentences under the method section of the abstract have been changed as suggested and shown in the tracks.

Under Introduction

1. The second sentence needs reference and is it annually? If this is annually, it should be

indicated as such as noted at the end of the sentence “Globally, pressure injuries are the direct

cause of death in 7-8% of all patients with paraplegia, with approximately 60,000 people dying

of complications of pressure injuries annually (Reference?). The sentences has been cited using Landi et al., 2007

Under Methodology 1. The second sentence “A descriptive exploratory qualitative approach was used to obtain idiosyncratic data about the phenomenon used in this research (Elliott & Timulak 2005)” should read as “An exploratory descriptive qualitative approach was used to obtain idiosyncratic data about the phenomenon used in this research (Elliott & Timulak 2005)”. The sentence mentioned has been replaced as suggested and illustrated in the track changes

Under Sample Technique 1. Paragraph 2. Line 5-6 “This, therefore, implied that no specific sample size can be given but data was gathered until no new information was elicited”. The word “elicited” as used in the sentence should be replaced with the word “forthcoming”.

1. During Data Collection, how many interviews were conducted in the private room in the hospital, and how many were also conducted in participants’ homes. 2. Interviews were conducted in the English language by EOA, SA, EOB, BAB. What is justification for all the four researchers conducting the interviews? How did you ensure consistency in the choice of words and sentences when four persons conducted the interviews as there was higher probability of variations in meanings of sentences, statements and words to the research participants? Elicited has been replaced with forth coming

The information has been added as suggested see below

Four authors conducted the interviews to facilitate a comprehensive data collection process, distribute the workload, ensure inter-rater reliability, maintain consistency in data collection, and minimize potential biases. Additionally, all participants reviewed the data to address any discrepancies that arose, ensuring data accuracy and consensus among the researchers

Under Data Analysis 1. “DATA ANALYSIS” should be bolded and formatted in text.

2. Last paragraph, last sentence needs to be referenced “The COREQ (Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research) checklist consisting of 32 items was used to report the findings” (Reference). The COREQ with 32 items was developed by which researcher?

Under Analysis of Socio-Demographic Data 1. On the table, Table 1: Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Respondents, it may be important to indicate who the false names such as N1, N2, N3……N30 represent, either males or females. 2. The last word “who” as noted in the sentence should be deleted “The analysis of the result demonstrated that females dominated the gender category with a percentage of 70% as compared to males (30%). who.” Data analysis have been boldened

Reference has been provided as suggested

This has been included as suggested

Thirty participants N1,N2,N3…..N30 (males and female nurses)

“Who”has been deleted as suggested

Under Negligence of patients 1. Paragraph 1, line 5, the word “professional” as stated in the sentence should read as “professionals” “This study analysis has indicated that in almost all instances, the nurses were professional in meeting all the needs of the patients to avoid negligence”. Also the sentence “This was narrated as follows” should read as “The following narratives depict what the participants said”; The entire paragraph has been revised as followed

Negligence refers to the failure of a nurse to provide standardized care to their patients, potentially causing harm. Professional nurses are expected to consistently uphold high standards of care and avoid negligence, as it reflects negatively on their professionalism. The findings of this study consistently demonstrated that nurses were diligent in meeting all patient needs and avoiding negligence. Participants shared their experiences, highlighting the commitment of nurses to deliver professional and attentive care, thereby mitigating the risk of negligence. The following narratives depict what the participants said

Under Discussions 1. Paragraph 1, line 8-11, The sentence “This current study is supported by a study conducted by Dilie & Mengistu, (2015) stating that the lack of policies, guidelines, and lack of evidence supported by the research were factors that affected pressure ulcer practice” needs to be written as “This current study builds on a study conducted by Dilie & Mengistu, (2015) stating that the lack of policies, guidelines, and lack of evidence supported by the research were factors that affected pressure ulcer practice”. The sentence has been replaced as suggested in the discussion section and shown in the tracks

Thank you

Attachment

Submitted filename: AUTHORS RESPONSE.docx

Decision Letter 3

Nabeel Al-Yateem

26 Jun 2023

PONE-D-22-19280R3Attitude and preventive practices of pressure ulcers among orthopedic nurses in a tertiary hospital in GhanaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Appiah,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 10 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Nabeel Al-Yateem, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: All comments addressed and the manuscript is much improved. This is an important aspect of clinical practice with important implications for healthcare workers.

Reviewer #2: Please, I have made a number of suggestions to the authors to improve the quality of the article.

Thanks very much for giving me the opportunity once again to review this paper.

My comment are ATTACHED based on headings from the article.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: DR. KWADWO AMEYAW KORSAH

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: REVIEWER COMMENTS ON Manuscript Number PONE-D-22-19280R3.doc

Attachment

Submitted filename: MANUSCRIPT PONE-D-22-19280R3.doc

PLoS One. 2023 Sep 8;18(9):e0290970. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0290970.r008

Author response to Decision Letter 3


11 Jul 2023

REVIEWER COMMENTS RESPONSE

1 Under Abstract

Background

The sentence “The authors, therefore, explored the attitude and preventive practices of pressure ulcers in a tertiary hospital in Ghana” should read as “The authors, therefore, explored the attitude and preventive practices of pressure ulcers among orthopedic nurses in a tertiary hospital in Ghana” (inserted “among orthopedic nurses” as done for you. Thanks you)

Thank you for revising this statement “The sentence “The authors, therefore, explored the attitude and preventive practices of pressure ulcers in a tertiary hospital in Ghana” has been changed as suggested

Reviewer 1 Under Introduction, line 3

This sentence under the introduction, line 3 in red in-text (also below) refers to which particular year or it is a projected figure or a general statement that you have made “Globally, pressure injuries were the direct cause of death in 7-8% of all patients with paraplegia, with approximately 60,000 people dying of complications of pressure injuries (Landi et al., 2007)”. Not clear, you need to indicate what I have asked you in this case. Thank you for revising this statement “Under Introduction, line 3

“Globally, pressure injuries were the direct cause of death in 7-8% of all patients with paraplegia, with approximately 60,000 people dying of complications of pressure injuries (Landi et al., 2007)”.

Reviewer 1 The purple part of the ensuing sentence may be considered to make the whole sentence stand out clearly “The first part (section A) consisted of the socio-demographic data of the participants which was intended to establish rapport with the research participants in order to get rich data in the subsequent sections. The other sections were based on the study objectives.

(I have inserted it for you as appeared above in-text “which was intended to establish rapport with the research participants in order to get rich data in the subsequent sections” Please you may this change as suggested above. Thank you).

The sentence in parenthesis in purple colour below is noted before paragraph 3 under the Under Sampling Technique “The questions had probes to support the main questions”.

Note that probes are not supposed to be part of the original interview questions. Probes are follow up questions during the interview and so are not supposed to be part of the interview questions. However, as the research participant speaks, or during the course of interview conversation, follow up questions may be asked as probes.

In view of this above explanation, the sentence “The questions had probes to support the main questions” may be written as “During interviews in this study, probes were asked for clarifications of issues which were raised”.

Under Sampling Technique

What informed your decision to conduct this research at the Korle-Bu Teaching Hospital and not in any other hospital in Ghana? Indicate this in paragraph 3, line 4, where you have mentioned the Korle Bu Teaching Hospital. (Where I have highlighted Korle-Bu Teaching Hospital in red ink in-text. Thanks)

Under Sampling Technique

Paragraph 4, lines 5 – 6, you have made the following sentence “Additionally, all participants reviewed the data to address any discrepancies that arose, ensuring data accuracy and consensus among the researchers”. – How did you do this? Can you expand on how you went about this by explaining further?

Thank you for making these changes. Changes accepted

Changes accepted as suggested. Thank you

Thak you changes suggested have been effected

Changes have been effected in the manuscript as you suggested

The reason for choosing KBTH have been added

That statement has been deleted.

Thanks

Reviewer 1 UNDER RESULTS

Analysis of Socio-Demographic Data

Please, you were asked to indicate on the table 1: Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Respondents, the sex of each research participant. For instance N1 (male or female), N2 (female or male), N3 (male or female), N4 (female or male) N5………………..N30.

It is important that you have indicated the overall number of males (9) and females (21) as found on the table 1 (I have highlighted in red ink on the table). However, it may imperative to show individual sexes on the table 1 to give sense of who is that particular participant, especially as you have used the N1, N2, N3, N4, N5……….N30 as pseudonyms in the findings section.

UNDER RESULTS

Under Busy schedules and lack of time

Paragraph 1, line 4, the word “However” should start small letter and read as “however”.

The participants’ genders have been included as suggested

A small letter has been used to replaced the capitalize letter of the “H” as suggested. Thank you

Reviewer 1 Under Discussions

Paragraph 5, last sentence, facilitate healing(Boyko, Longaker, & Yang,2018). Please bring the space between healing and the reference (Boyko, Longaker, & Yang,2018). It has been highlighted in-text with red ink.

Thank you

The spacing has been corrected as suggested

Attachment

Submitted filename: REVIEWERS COMMENT RSPONSE JULY 2023.docx

Decision Letter 4

Nabeel Al-Yateem

21 Aug 2023

Attitude and preventive practices of pressure ulcers among orthopedic nurses in a tertiary hospital in Ghana

PONE-D-22-19280R4

Dear Dr. Appiah,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Nabeel Al-Yateem, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: REVIEWER’S REPORT

PONE-D-22-19280R4

Attitude and preventive practices of pressure ulcers among orthopedic nurses in a tertiary hospital in Ghana

UNDER RESULTS Analysis of Socio-Demographic Data

Please, you were asked to indicate on the table 1: Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Respondents, the gender or sex of each research participant. For instance N1 (male or female), N2 (female or male), N3 (male or female), N4 (female or male) N5………………..N30. It is important that you have indicated the overall number of males (9) and females (21) as found on the table 1. In the current submission, I have observed that the gender or sex of the research participants were not indicated on the table as suggested, however the gender or sex of most of the participants were indicated at the end of the quotes but not all of them, some inconsistencies are here. If you like to keep them as they are now, you may have to indicate at the end of each quote the sex or the gender of the research participants.

I am satisfied about the responses to the queries which raised in other sections of the article.

I suggest that it may be accepted for publication.

Thank you

Dr. Kwadwo Ameyaw Korsah

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: Yes: Kwadwo Ameyaw Korsah

**********

Attachment

Submitted filename: REVIEWER REPORT .doc

Acceptance letter

Nabeel Al-Yateem

30 Aug 2023

PONE-D-22-19280R4

Attitude and preventive practices of pressure ulcers among orthopedic nurses in a tertiary hospital in Ghana

Dear Dr. Appiah:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Nabeel Al-Yateem

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviewers comment Pressure Ulcer.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: REVIEWERS COMMENTS RESPONSE.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: REVIEWER REPORT FOR PONE-D-22-19280R2 PDF.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: AUTHORS RESPONSE.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: REVIEWER COMMENTS ON Manuscript Number PONE-D-22-19280R3.doc

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: MANUSCRIPT PONE-D-22-19280R3.doc

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: REVIEWERS COMMENT RSPONSE JULY 2023.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: REVIEWER REPORT .doc

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES