Background: Previous studies show that using 12‐lead electrocardiogram (ECG) or 24‐h ECG monitor for the detection of cardiac arrhythmia events in patients with stroke or syncope is ineffective.Hypothesis: The 14‐day continuous ECG patch has higher detection rates of arrhythmias compared with conventional 24‐h ECG monitoring in patients with ischemic stroke or syncope.Methods: This cross‐sectional study of patients with newly diagnosed ischemic stroke or syncope received a 24‐h ECG monitoring and 14‐day continuous cardiac monitoring patch and the arrhythmia events were measured.Results: This study enrolled 83 patients with ischemic stroke or syncope. The detection rate of composite cardiac arrhythmias was significantly higher for the 14‐day ECG patch than 24‐h Holter monitor (69.9% vs. 21.7%, p = .006). In patients with ischemic stroke, the detection rates of cardiac arrhythmias were 63.4% for supraventricular tachycardia (SVT), 7% for ventricular tachycardia (VT), 5.6% for atrial fibrillation (AF), 4.2% for atrioventricular block (AVB), and 1.4% for pause by 14‐day ECG patch, respectively. The significant difference in arrhythmic detection rates were found for SVT (45.8%), AF (6%), pause (1.2%), AVB (2.4%), and VT (9.6%) by 14‐day ECG patch but not by 24‐h Holter monitor in patients with ischemic stroke or syncope.Conclusions: A 14‐day ECG patch can be used on patients with ischemic stroke or syncope for the early detection of AF or other cardiac arrhythmia events. The patch can be helpful for physicians in planning medical or mechanical interventions of patients with ischemic stroke and occult AF.

This study was to translate the Pieper–Zulkowski pressure ulcer knowledge test (PZ‐PUKT) into Traditional Chinese and evaluate its psychometric properties as well as identify the predictors of knowledge on pressure injury. The PZ‐PUKT was translated into Traditional Chinese (TC‐PZ‐PUKT), and its content validity was evaluated. A total of 296 nurses participated in this study and completed the 72‐item TC‐PZ‐PUKT online. The reliability of the TC‐PZ‐PUKT was analysed by evaluating its internal consistency and test–retest reliability. Hierarchical regression was used to determine factors associated with TC‐PZ‐PUKT scores. Content validity was achieved with a score of 0.986. Internal consistency was observed to be reliable, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.858. The mean knowledge score on the TC‐PZ‐PUKT was 72.5%, with a 1‐week test–retest reliability of r = 0.849. Education level, certification as a wound specialist and self‐learning through reading articles, books or guidelines on pressure injury were significantly associated with TC‐PZ‐PUKT scores. The TC‐PZ‐PUKT is a valid and reliable tool. Education level, certification as a wound specialist and self‐learning regarding pressure injury are related to knowledge of pressure injury.

Self-efficacy strongly predicts clinical performance and competence. In Taiwan, there is no reliable method for assessing self-efficacy in the management of pressure injury. This study aims to establish psychometric properties of the Pressure Ulcer Management Self-Efficacy Scale (PUM-SES) translated for Taiwan and determine the validity and reliability of the Taiwanese version of the PUM-SES. Materials and methods: The PUM-SES was translated for use in Taiwan using Brislin’s method. The translation’s content validity, concurrent validity, predictive validity, internal consistency, and test–retest reliability were evaluated. The Pressure Ulcer Management Self-Efficacy Scale, Taiwanese version (PUM-SES-T), the Attitude toward Pressure Injury Prevention Scale (APIPS) and the Practice toward Pressure Injury Prevention Scale (PPIPS) of preventing pressure injury, and the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES) were tested using Pearson’s correlation. A cross-sectional survey with 330 RNs in Taiwan was conducted. The PUM-SES-T was used to predict the PPIPS, and a predictive regression model was constructed considering nursing demographic variables. Results: Seven experts evaluated the PUM-SES-T with a CVI value of 0.995. An internal consistency, using Cronbach’s α, of 0.762 and a test–retest reliability of 0.997 were obtained. The PUM-SES-T was positively correlated with the GSES (p < 0.001). Multiple regression revealed that the PUM-SES-T predicted practice with a strong predictive validity (F = 8.077, p < 0.001), had an adjusted R² of 0.455, but collinearity was insignificant. In this study, PUM-SES-T is a valid instrument for intervention-related educational programs to measure self-efficacy with good reliability and validity. It can be employed when intervening in related education strategies or promoting policies.

Objectives: International guidelines for managing pressure injury (PI) and ulcers recommend that family members and caregivers should be involved in making decisions for appropriate wound care. However, the effect of shared decision-making (SDM) in the context of PI remains unknown. This study investigated the efficacy of nurse-led medical SDM for PI treatment. Materials and Methods: We constructed a patient decision aid (PDA) for PI treatment on the basis of nursing evidence. Subsequently, we conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of SDM compared with that of usual care (control group, [CG]) for PI treatment. Participants with stage 3, stage 4, or unstageable PI were included and randomized into two groups. In the SDM group (SDMG), 10 participants received the SDM intervention for PI before treatment. All participants were followed up for 4 weeks. Primary outcomes were measured using the nine-item SDM Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) and Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS). Secondary outcomes included wound size and cost of wound management. Results: The expert validity (medical professors and general population) of the PDA designed for PI was measured, and the content validity index was 0.96–0.97. A total of 20 participants were enrolled (10 received SDM and 10 received usual care). The mean age of the participants was 55.7 ± 8.8 years. No significant difference in baseline characteristics (sex, age, staging, or wound area) was observed between the two groups. The SDMG had higher SDM-Q-9 (P < 0.001) and DCS (P < 0.01) scores than did the CG. For the secondary outcomes, the SDMG had a decreased change of wound size and lower wound management costs than did the CG; nevertheless, the differences were not statistically significant. Conclusion: We constructed a PDA for PI treatment, which can be applied in clinical care. The pilot test results revealed that the participants had a lower cost related wound treatment and decreasing wound size in SDMG than CG after the intervention of SDM-PI for 4 weeks. In the future, clinical studies should conduct large-scale randomized trials based on the results of this pilot study.

Objective: Patients with chronic wounds experience substantial quality of life (QoL) impairments. The Wound–QoL is a simple, valid tool for the longitudinal assessment of QoL in patients with chronic wounds. In this study, the Wound–QoL was translated into traditional Chinese, and the validity of the translated version was investigated. Methods: The Wound–QoLwas translated into traditional Chinese following international standards. In total, 100 patients with chronic wounds were enrolled. Participants completed 2 questionnaires 1 week apart. Data on demographics and the seriousness of wounds were collected. The EQ–5D–5L, the EQ VAS, and a subjective pain assessment instrument were also used. Results: The mean global scores of the Wound–QoL–TC were 2.7 in the first test and 2.1 in the second test. The intraclass correlation coefficient between the first and second test was 0.70 for the global score. The Wound–QoL–TC showed good internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s α of 0.93 for the global score, 0.82 for the body subscale score, 0.89 for the psyche subscale score, and 0.88 for the everyday life subscale score. The global score of the Wound–QoL–TC was significantly correlated with the subjective pain score and the EQ–5D–5L total score (coefficient: 0.517, 0.386; both P < .001) but not with the EQ VAS (coefficient: −0.145; P = 0.234). Conclusion: The Wound–QoL–TC is a valid and simple instrument for assessing QoL in patients with chronic wounds.