{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02244039270687237, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008415147265077139, 'mean_word_length': 4.662698412698413, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The size of the pressure-sore problem in a teaching hospital.

A series of three prevalence surveys were undertaken in a teaching hospital (where medical students are taught) in the West Midlands of England to identify the numbers of patients at risk of developing pressure sores and the actual number of patients with pressure sores, prior to the purchase of pressure-relieving equipment. All in-patients were assessed using the Waterlow score. Full details of all pressure sores and any pressure-relieving equipment in use was recorded. There was a mean pressure sore prevalence of 7.32%, the prevalence for each survey being 8.77%, 5.1% and 8.1% respectively. Grades 2 and 3 were the most commonly reported grades and the sacrum was the most frequent position. It was anticipated that there would be a difference in dependency between the patient populations in each of the three surveys. This was not so and, when using the Waterlow score, the numbers of patients found to be at no risk, at risk and at high risk remained remarkably stable. Only those in the very high risk category fluctuated. It is postulated that the difference between the prevalence in the three surveys is related to the difference in the numbers of patients seen to be at very high risk. These surveys have provided a basis for selecting pressure-relieving equipment and baseline information for monitoring the efficacy of the prevention programme.