KNOWLEDGE AND ATTITUDES OF NURSES TOWARD PRESSURE ULCER PREVENTION IN A TERTIARY CARE HOSPITAL IN ISLAMABAD: A DESCRIPTIVE CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY

Abstract

Background: Pressure ulcers are a preventable source of pain, infection risk, prolonged admission and additional cost. Nurses are central to risk assessment and delivery of preventive care, but positive attitudes do not necessarily indicate accurate knowledge or consistent practice.

Objective: To describe registered nurses' knowledge-related responses, attitudes and self-reported practices concerning pressure ulcer prevention in a tertiary care hospital in Islamabad.

Methodology: A descriptive cross-sectional survey was conducted over four months among 20 registered nurses recruited by census sampling. A structured questionnaire collected demographic information and item-level responses about risk assessment, risk factors, staging, repositioning, perceived importance, confidence and preventive practice. Data were analyzed in SPSS using frequencies and percentages. Ethical exemption was granted by the Islamabad Medical and Dental College Institutional Research and Ethical Board, and written informed consent was obtained.

Results: Fourteen participants (70%) were women, 14 (70%) were aged 20-30 years, 13 (65%) had 1-5 years of experience and 13 (65%) worked in intensive care. Twelve nurses (60%) selected daily risk assessment and seven (35%) selected assessment every shift. Fifteen (75%) selected four numbered pressure ulcer stages, and all 20 selected frequent repositioning as the most effective preventive measure. However, 19 (95%) selected immobility when asked which option was not a primary risk factor; none selected high blood pressure, the intended answer. All nurses rated prevention as important or very important and described themselves as confident or very confident. Nineteen (95%) reported implementing preventive measures always or often.

Conclusion: The sample expressed strong perceived importance and confidence, but item-level responses exposed important inconsistencies in risk knowledge. Because the questionnaire did not produce validated composite scores, the study cannot support a precise overall knowledge or attitude classification. Larger multicentre studies should use validated instruments and direct practice audits.