Oh, here we go again. Another study about pressure ulcers, those pesky skin sores that just won’t quit. Apparently, they’re a big deal for older adults, critically ill folks, and people with spinal cord injuries. Who knew? The US has a whopping 2.5 million cases, but that’s just in acute care facilities. Heaven forbid we count those at home or in nursing facilities.

Despite all the preventive measures, the incidence hasn’t decreased in decades. You’d think we’d have figured it out by now, right? But no, we’re still stuck with a $26.8 billion annual bill, half of which goes to treating Stage 3 and 4 pressure injuries.

So, what’s the solution? More guidelines, of course! This update is a collection of the “best available evidence” since the last update in 2015. It even includes a new section on ‘Palliative wound care for seriously ill patients with pressure ulcers’. How innovative!

The goal of the Wound Healing Society Guideline project is to provide clear, concise, and commercial-free guidelines. Because, you know, clinicians and researchers need more paperwork to understand the gaps in our knowledge base.

And remember, this article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. Because we wouldn’t want anyone else to take credit for this groundbreaking work, would we?

Oh, look at us, we’ve come up with a new communication framework called Connection First. Apparently, we’re going to close the empathy gap in health care. Because, you know, it’s not like doctors and nurses are already trying to do that every day.

So, what’s our grand plan? We’re going to expand beyond biomedicine. That’s right, we’re going to shake things up and restructure the whole business-as-usual in health care. Because, obviously, the current system is just too… well, usual.

Our brilliant idea is to transform the initial intake session from a transactional process into a transformational one. Because, who needs simple, straightforward medical procedures when you can have a life-changing experience instead?

Connection First is a structural intervention and skillset (because we love jargon) that includes disrupting diagnosis, humanizing history, and repairing ruptures. We’re not entirely sure what all that means, but it sounds impressive, doesn’t it?

And the best part? All these elements will magically close the empathy gap in health care during the initial clinical encounter, before intake, and improve outcomes. Because, obviously, all it takes to solve complex health care issues is a catchy name and a few buzzwords.

Oh, look at this, another study on burnout. This time, it’s about the children’s hospice staff. Because, you know, they’re just like the rest of us, working 9 to 5, right? Wrong. They’re dealing with life-limiting conditions in children, but hey, let’s throw in a couple of surveys and some structural equation modeling to see how they’re doing.

So, we’ve got 583 staff responses from 32 hospices. Most of them are women, aged 51-65 years old, with more than 15 years of experience. And surprise, surprise, the average burnout score is 32.5. But don’t worry, the work engagement score is 7.5. I mean, who wouldn’t be engaged in such a cheerful environment?

The results? Well, they’re as predictable as a rom-com. Demands predict burnout (b = 4.65, p ≤ 0.001), and resources predict work engagement (b = 3.09, p ≤ 0.001). But here’s the twist, the interaction between resources and demands only predicted work engagement (b = -0.31, p = 0.115). And burnout didn’t predict work engagement (b = -0.09, p = 0.194).

So, what’s the takeaway? Well, the Job Demands-Resource (JD-R) theory is partly supported. Resources and work engagement are clearly related, even when demands are considered. And demands are only directly associated with burnout. So, let’s use these findings to improve staff psychological well-being in children’s hospices. Because, you know, they’re just like the rest of us, working 9 to 5.