Objective: This paper investigated the risk of preoperative and postoperative deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in surgical patients. Methods:The sample consisted of 377 patients of the general surgery, orthopedics and traumatology, neurosurgery, and cardiovascular surgery clinics of a university hospital. Data were collected using a demographic characteristics questionnaire, the Deep Vein Thrombosis Diagnostic Criteria Form, the Autar Deep Vein Thrombosis Risk Assessment Scale, the Caprini Risk Assessment Model, and the Padua Prediction Score. The data were analyzed using descriptive analysis.Results: According to the Autar Deep Vein Thrombosis Risk Assessment Scale, most participants were in the "low risk" category in the preoperative period (91%), and more than a quarter of the participants were in the "high risk" category in the postoperative period (30%). According to the Caprini Risk Assessment Model, less than half of the participants were in the "moderate risk" group in the preoperative period (39%), and more than half the participants were in the "high risk" group in the postoperative period (70.6%). According to the Padua Prediction Score, most participants were in the "low risk" category in the preoperative period (82.2%), and more than half the participants were in the "high risk" group in the postoperative period (52.8%). More than half the participants who used graduated compression stocks in the preoperative period misused them (62.7%). A bit more than half the participants who used graduated compression stocks in the postoperative period used them correctly. Conclusion:The results show that surgical patients are at a higher risk for deep vein thrombosis in the postoperative period than in the preoperative period.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the point prevalence (PP) of general pressure injuries (PIs), hospital-acquired PIs, PI-related risk factors, and PI preventive interventions performed by nurses. DESIGN: Descriptive, multicenter, prospective, analytical study. SUBJECTS AND SETTING: The sample comprised 5088 patients cared for in 13 hospitals in 12 geographic regions of Turkey. Data were collected between November 5, 2018, and July 17, 2019. METHODS: The study was carried out in 2 stages. First, nurses who collected data were trained in the diagnosis of PI, risk assessment, staging, and prevalence studies, and informed about the purpose and methods of the study, including data collection. Second, nurses and researchers who had received training related to data collection for this study conducted a PP study for PIs in their inpatient clinics using the ASSIST II method. The PI Prevalence Study Tool and the Braden Scale for Predicting Pressure Sore Risk were also used during data collection. RESULTS: The PP of general PIs was 9.5%; the prevalence of PIs with hospitalization in intensive care units was 43.2%; medical device–related pressure injuries prevalence was 10.7%. We found that 65.1% of the PIs were acquired after hospital admission. CONCLUSIONS: Similarities exist between PI prevalence in Turkey and reported PI prevalence rates worldwide. However, the prevalence of nosocomial PIs related to intensive care units and the prevalence of all nosocomial injuries were higher than rates previously reported. Based on results, there is a need to develop strategies to reduce the prevalence of nosocomial PIs.