-
Journal of Clinical Nursing Aug 2021To systemically synthesise the evidence on the most effective nursing interventions to prevent pressure injuries among critical care patients. (Review)
Review
AIM
To systemically synthesise the evidence on the most effective nursing interventions to prevent pressure injuries among critical care patients.
BACKGROUND
Although pressure injury (PI) prevention is a focus of nursing care in critical care units, hospital-acquired pressure injuries continue to occur in these settings.
DESIGN
A systematic review of literature guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) and Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) guidelines.
METHODS
Four electronic databases were searched for relevant studies. Included studies were screened and then critically appraised using the appropriate Joanna Briggs Institute appraisal tool. Data were analysed and reported using a narrative synthesis.
RESULTS
The review included 14 studies. Randomised controlled trials, quasi-experimental, case series and cross-sectional studies were included. The review identified four broad categories of interventions that are the most effective for preventing pressure injuries: (a) PI prevention bundles, (b) repositioning and the use of surface support, (c) prevention of medical device-related pressure injuries and (d) access to expertise. All the included studies reported a reduction in pressure injuries following the interventions; however, the strength of the evidence was rated from moderate to very low.
CONCLUSIONS
Nurses are well qualified to lead in the prevention of pressure injuries in critical care units. Every critically ill patient requires interventions to prevent pressure injuries, and the prevention of PIs should be considered a complex intervention. Nurses must plan and implement evidence-based care to prevent all types of pressure injuries, including medical device-related pressure injuries. Education and training programmes for nurses on PI prevention are important for prevention of pressure injuries.
RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE
Nursing interventions should consist of evidence-based 'bundles' and be adapted to patients' needs. To prevent pressure injuries among critically ill patients, nurses must be competent and highly educated and ensure fundamental strategies are routinely implemented to improve mobility and offload pressure.
Topics: Humans; Critical Care; Critical Illness; Cross-Sectional Studies; Delivery of Health Care; Intensive Care Units; Pressure Ulcer
PubMed: 33590917
DOI: 10.1111/jocn.15709 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2015Pressure ulcers (i.e. bedsores, pressure sores, pressure injuries, decubitus ulcers) are areas of localised damage to the skin and underlying tissue. They are common in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pressure ulcers (i.e. bedsores, pressure sores, pressure injuries, decubitus ulcers) are areas of localised damage to the skin and underlying tissue. They are common in the elderly and immobile, and costly in financial and human terms. Pressure-relieving support surfaces (i.e. beds, mattresses, seat cushions etc) are used to help prevent ulcer development.
OBJECTIVES
This systematic review seeks to establish:(1) the extent to which pressure-relieving support surfaces reduce the incidence of pressure ulcers compared with standard support surfaces, and,(2) their comparative effectiveness in ulcer prevention.
SEARCH METHODS
In April 2015, for this fourth update we searched The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 15 April 2015) which includes the results of regular searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 3).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials, published or unpublished, that assessed the effects of any support surface for prevention of pressure ulcers, in any patient group or setting which measured pressure ulcer incidence. Trials reporting only proxy outcomes (e.g. interface pressure) were excluded. Two review authors independently selected trials.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data were extracted by one review author and checked by another. Where appropriate, estimates from similar trials were pooled for meta-analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
For this fourth update six new trials were included, bringing the total of included trials to 59.Foam alternatives to standard hospital foam mattresses reduce the incidence of pressure ulcers in people at risk (RR 0.40 95% CI 0.21 to 0.74). The relative merits of alternating- and constant low-pressure devices are unclear. One high-quality trial suggested that alternating-pressure mattresses may be more cost effective than alternating-pressure overlays in a UK context.Pressure-relieving overlays on the operating table reduce postoperative pressure ulcer incidence, although two trials indicated that foam overlays caused adverse skin changes. Meta-analysis of three trials suggest that Australian standard medical sheepskins prevent pressure ulcers (RR 0.56 95% CI 0.32 to 0.97).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
People at high risk of developing pressure ulcers should use higher-specification foam mattresses rather than standard hospital foam mattresses. The relative merits of higher-specification constant low-pressure and alternating-pressure support surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers are unclear, but alternating-pressure mattresses may be more cost effective than alternating-pressure overlays in a UK context. Medical grade sheepskins are associated with a decrease in pressure ulcer development. Organisations might consider the use of some forms of pressure relief for high risk patients in the operating theatre.
Topics: Bedding and Linens; Beds; Humans; Pressure Ulcer; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26333288
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001735.pub5 -
Journal of Wound Care Sep 2020The aim of this systematic review was to assess the effects of different repositioning regimens on pressure ulcer (PU) incidence in at-risk adult individuals without... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this systematic review was to assess the effects of different repositioning regimens on pressure ulcer (PU) incidence in at-risk adult individuals without existing PUs.
METHOD
Using systematic review methodology, randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster-RCTs, prospective non-RCTs, pre-post-studies and interrupted-time-series studies were considered. Specifically explored was the impact of the frequency of repositioning, use of repositioning systems and use of turning teams. The search was conducted in January 2019, using PubMed, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Cochrane and EMBASE databases. Data were extracted using a pre-designed extraction tool and analysis was undertaken using RevMan.
RESULTS
A total of 530 records were returned, of which 16 met the inclusion criteria. Half of studies were conducted in intensive care units (50%). The mean sample size was 629±604 participants. Frequency of repositioning was explored in nine studies. PU incidence was 8% (n=221/2834) for repositioning every 2-3 hours, versus 13% (n=398/3050) for repositioning every 4-6 hours. The odds ratio (OR) was 0.75 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.61-0.90, p=0.03), suggesting that there is a 25% reduction in the odds of PU development in favour of more frequent repositioning. Use of a repositioning system was explored in three studies. PU incidence was 2% (17/865) for the repositioning system, versus 5.5% (51/926) for care without using the repositioning system. The OR was 0.26 (95% CI: 0.05-1.29, p=0.10); this finding was not statistically significant. Use of a turning team was explored in two studies. PU incidence was 11% (n=22/200) with use of a turning team versus 20% (n=40/200) for usual care. The OR was 0.49 (95% CI: 0.27-0.86, p=0.01) suggesting that there is a 51% reduction in the odds of PU development in favour of use of a turning team. Using GRADE appraisal, the certainty of the evidence was assessed as low.
CONCLUSION
The results of this systematic review indicate that more frequent repositioning and use of a turning team reduce PU incidence. However, given the low certainty of evidence, results should be interpreted with caution.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Moving and Lifting Patients; Pressure Ulcer
PubMed: 32924821
DOI: 10.12968/jowc.2020.29.9.496 -
Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) Jan 2023Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) remains a common risk in mechanically ventilated patients. Different care bundles have been proposed to succeed VAP reduction. We... (Review)
Review
Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) remains a common risk in mechanically ventilated patients. Different care bundles have been proposed to succeed VAP reduction. We aimed to identify the combined interventions that have been used to by ICUs worldwide from the implementation of "Institute for Healthcare Improvement Ventilator Bundle", i.e., from December 2004. A search was performed on the PubMed, Scopus and Science Direct databases. Finally, 38 studies met our inclusion criteria. The most common interventions monitored in the care bundles were sedation and weaning protocols, semi-recumbent positioning, oral and hand hygiene, peptic ulcer disease and deep venus thrombosis prophylaxis, subglottic suctioning, and cuff pressure control. Head-of-bed elevation was implemented by almost all studies, followed by oral hygiene, which was the second extensively used intervention. Four studies indicated a low VAP reduction, while 22 studies found an over 36% VAP decline, and in ten of them, the decrease was over 65%. Four of these studies indicated zero or nearly zero after intervention VAP rates. The studies with the highest VAP reduction adopted the "IHI Ventilator Bundle" combined with adequate endotracheal tube cuff pressure and subglottic suctioning. Multifaced techniques can lead to VAP reduction at a great extent. Multidisciplinary measures combined with long-lasting education programs and measurement of bundle's compliance should be the gold standard combination.
PubMed: 36830138
DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics12020227 -
International Journal of Nursing Studies May 2020Pressure injuries are frequently occurred adverse events in hospitals, affecting the well-being of patients and causing considerable financial burden to healthcare... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Pressure injuries are frequently occurred adverse events in hospitals, affecting the well-being of patients and causing considerable financial burden to healthcare systems. However, the estimates of prevalence, incidence and hospital-acquired rate of pressure injury in hospitalised patients vary considerably in relevant published studies.
OBJECTIVES
To systematically quantify the prevalence and incidence of pressure injuries and the hospital-acquired pressure injuries rate in hospitalised adult patients and identify the most frequently occurring pressure injury stage(s) and affected anatomical location(s).
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and ProQuest databases from January 2008 to December 2018.
REVIEW METHODS
We included studies with observational, cross-sectional or longitudinal designs, reporting pressure injury among hospitalised adults (≥16 years) and published in English. Outcomes were point prevalence, incidence of pressure injuries and the hospital-acquired pressure injuries rate reported as percentages. Two reviewers independently appraised the methodological quality of included studies. Heterogeneity was assessed by using the I² statistic and random effects models were employed. Sources of heterogeneity were investigated by subgroup analysis and meta-regression.
RESULTS
Of 7,489 studies identified, 42 were included in the systematic review and 39 of them were eligible for meta-analysis, with a total sample of 2,579,049 patients. The pooled prevalence of 1,366,848 patients was 12.8% (95% CI 11.8-13.9%); pooled incidence rate of 681,885 patients was 5.4 per 10,000 patient-days (95% CI 3.4-7.8) and pooled hospital-acquired pressure injuries rate of 1,893,593 was 8.4% (95% CI 7.6-9.3%). Stages were reported in 16 studies (132,530 patients with 12,041 pressure injuries). The most frequently occurred stages were Stage I (43.5%) and Stage II (28.0%). The most affected body sites were sacrum, heels and hip. Significant heterogeneity was noted across some geographic regions. Meta-regression showed that the year of data collection, mean age and gender were independent predictors, explaining 67% variability in the prevalence of pressure injuries. The year of data collection and age alone explained 93% of variability in hospital-acquired pressure injuries rate.
CONCLUSION
This study suggested that the burden of pressure injuries remains substantial with over one in ten adult patients admitted to hospitals affected. Superficial pressure injuries, such as Stage I and II, are most common stages and are preventable. Our results highlight healthcare institutions' focus on pressure injuries globally and supports the need to dedicate resources to prevention and treatment on pressure injuries. Registration number: PROSPERO CRD42019118774.
Topics: Global Health; Hospitalization; Humans; Incidence; Pressure Ulcer; Prevalence
PubMed: 32113142
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103546 -
International Wound Journal Oct 2019The effective approach on pressure ulcer (PU) prevention regarding patient safety in the hospital context was evaluated. Studies were identified from searches in EBSCO... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The effective approach on pressure ulcer (PU) prevention regarding patient safety in the hospital context was evaluated. Studies were identified from searches in EBSCO host, PubMed, and WebofScience databases from 2009 up to December 2018. Studies were selected if they were published in English, French, Portuguese, or Spanish; incidence of PUs was the primary outcome; participants were adults (≥18 years) admitted in hospital wards and/or units. The review included 26 studies. Studies related to prophylactic dressings applied in the sacrum, trochanters, and/or heels, education for health care professionals, and preventive skin care and system reminders on-screen inpatient care plan were effective in decreasing PUs. Most of the studies related to multiple intervention programmes were effective in decreasing PU occurrence. Single interventions, namely support surfaces and repositioning, were not always effective in preventing PUs. Repositioning only was effective when supported by technological pressure-mapping feedback or by a patient positioning system. Risk-assessment tools are not effective in preventing PUs. PUs in the hospital context are still a worldwide issue related to patient safety. Multiple intervention programmes were more effective in decreasing PU occurrence than single interventions in isolation. Single interventions (prophylactic dressings, support surfaces, repositioning, preventive skin care, system reminders, and education for health care professionals) were effective in decreasing PUs, which was always in compliance with other preventive measures. These results provide an overview of effective approaches that should be considered when establishing evidence-based guidelines to hospital health care professionals and administrators for clinical practice effective in preventing PUs.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Bandages; Case-Control Studies; Dermatologic Agents; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Hospitalization; Humans; Inpatients; Male; Patient Positioning; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Pressure Ulcer; Primary Prevention; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Severity of Illness Index; Skin Care; Time Factors; Wound Healing
PubMed: 31264345
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.13147 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2021Pressure ulcers (also known as pressure injuries, pressure sores and bed sores) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both, caused by... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pressure ulcers (also known as pressure injuries, pressure sores and bed sores) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both, caused by unrelieved pressure, shear or friction. Specific kinds of beds, overlays and mattresses are widely used with the aim of preventing and treating pressure ulcers.
OBJECTIVES
To summarise evidence from Cochrane Reviews that assess the effects of beds, overlays and mattresses on reducing the incidence of pressure ulcers and on increasing pressure ulcer healing in any setting and population. To assess the relative effects of different types of beds, overlays and mattresses for reducing the incidence of pressure ulcers and increasing pressure ulcer healing in any setting and population. To cumulatively rank the different treatment options of beds, overlays and mattresses in order of their effectiveness in pressure ulcer prevention and treatment.
METHODS
In July 2020, we searched the Cochrane Library. Cochrane Reviews reporting the effectiveness of beds, mattresses or overlays for preventing or treating pressure ulcers were eligible for inclusion in this overview. Two review authors independently screened search results and undertook data extraction and risk of bias assessment using the ROBIS tool. We summarised the reported evidence in an overview of reviews. Where possible, we included the randomised controlled trials from each included review in network meta-analyses. We assessed the relative effectiveness of beds, overlays and mattresses for preventing or treating pressure ulcers and their probabilities of being, comparably, the most effective treatment. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We include six Cochrane Reviews in this overview of reviews, all at low or unclear risk of bias. Pressure ulcer prevention: four reviews (of 68 studies with 18,174 participants) report direct evidence for 27 pairwise comparisons between 12 types of support surface on the following outcomes: pressure ulcer incidence, time to pressure ulcer incidence, patient comfort response, adverse event rates, health-related quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. Here we focus on outcomes with some evidence at a minimum of low certainty. (1) Pressure ulcer incidence: our overview includes direct evidence for 27 comparisons that mostly (19/27) have very low-certainty evidence concerning reduction of pressure ulcer risk. We included 40 studies (12,517 participants; 1298 participants with new ulcers) in a network meta-analysis involving 13 types of intervention. Data informing the network are sparse and this, together with the high risk of bias in most studies informing the network, means most network contrasts (64/78) yield evidence of very low certainty. There is low-certainty evidence that, compared with foam surfaces (reference treatment), reactive air surfaces (e.g. static air overlays) (risk ratio (RR) 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.75), alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (e.g. alternating pressure air mattresses, large-celled ripple mattresses) (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.93), and reactive gel surfaces (e.g. gel pads used on operating tables) (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.01) may reduce pressure ulcer incidence. The ranking of treatments in terms of effectiveness is also of very low certainty for all interventions. It is unclear which treatment is best for preventing ulceration. (2) Time to pressure ulcer incidence: four reviews had direct evidence on this outcome for seven comparisons. We included 10 studies (7211 participants; 699 participants with new ulcers) evaluating six interventions in a network meta-analysis. Again, data from most network contrasts (13/15) are of very low certainty. There is low-certainty evidence that, compared with foam surfaces (reference treatment), reactive air surfaces may reduce the hazard of developing new pressure ulcers (hazard ratio (HR) 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.05). The ranking of all support surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers in terms of time to healing is uncertain. (3) Cost-effectiveness: this overview includes direct evidence for three comparisons. For preventing pressure ulcers, alternating pressure air surfaces are probably more cost-effective than foam surfaces (moderate-certainty evidence). Pressure ulcer treatment: two reviews (of 12 studies with 972 participants) report direct evidence for five comparisons on: complete pressure ulcer healing, time to complete pressure ulcer healing, patient comfort response, adverse event rates, and cost-effectiveness. Here we focus on outcomes with some evidence at a minimum of low certainty. (1) Complete pressure ulcer healing: our overview includes direct evidence for five comparisons. There is uncertainty about the relative effects of beds, overlays and mattresses on ulcer healing. The corresponding network meta-analysis (with four studies, 397 participants) had only three direct contrasts and a total of six network contrasts. Again, most network contrasts (5/6) have very low-certainty evidence. There was low-certainty evidence that more people with pressure ulcers may heal completely using reactive air surfaces than using foam surfaces (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.80). We are uncertain which surfaces have the highest probability of being the most effective (all very low-certainty evidence). (2) Time to complete pressure ulcer healing: this overview includes direct evidence for one comparison: people using reactive air surfaces may be more likely to have healed pressure ulcers compared with those using foam surfaces in long-term care settings (HR 2.66, 95% CI 1.34 to 5.17; low-certainty evidence). (3) Cost-effectiveness: this overview includes direct evidence for one comparison: compared with foam surfaces, reactive air surfaces may cost an extra 26 US dollars for every ulcer-free day in the first year of use in long-term care settings (low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Compared with foam surfaces, reactive air surfaces may reduce pressure ulcer risk and may increase complete ulcer healing. Compared with foam surfaces, alternating pressure air surfaces may reduce pressure ulcer risk and are probably more cost-effective in preventing pressure ulcers. Compared with foam surfaces, reactive gel surfaces may reduce pressure ulcer risk, particularly for people in operating rooms and long-term care settings. There are uncertainties for the relative effectiveness of other support surfaces for preventing and treating pressure ulcers, and their efficacy ranking. More high-quality research is required; for example, for the comparison of reactive air surfaces with alternating pressure air surfaces. Future studies should consider time-to-event outcomes and be designed to minimise any risk of bias.
Topics: Bedding and Linens; Beds; Humans; Incidence; Network Meta-Analysis; Pressure Ulcer; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34398473
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013761.pub2 -
Annals of the American Thoracic Society Oct 2017The application of prone positioning for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has evolved, with recent trials focusing on patients with more severe ARDS, and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
RATIONALE
The application of prone positioning for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has evolved, with recent trials focusing on patients with more severe ARDS, and applying prone ventilation for more prolonged periods.
OBJECTIVES
This review evaluates the effect of prone positioning on 28-day mortality (primary outcome) compared with conventional mechanical ventilation in the supine position for adults with ARDS.
METHODS
We updated the literature search from a systematic review published in 2010, searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL (through to August 2016). We included randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) comparing prone to supine positioning in mechanically ventilated adults with ARDS, and conducted sensitivity analyses to explore the effects of duration of prone ventilation, concurrent lung-protective ventilation and ARDS severity. Secondary outcomes included Pa/Fi ratio on Day 4 and an evaluation of adverse events. Meta-analyses used random effects models. Methodologic quality of the RCTs was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias instrument, and methodologic quality of the overall body of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) guidelines.
RESULTS
Eight RCTs fulfilled entry criteria, and included 2,129 patients (1,093 [51%] proned). Meta-analysis revealed no difference in mortality (risk ratio [RR], 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68-1.04), but subgroup analyses found lower mortality with 12 hours or greater duration prone (five trials; RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.56-0.99) and for patients with moderate to severe ARDS (five trials; RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.56-0.99). Pa/Fi ratio on Day 4 for all patients was significantly higher in the prone positioning group (mean difference, 23.5; 95% CI, 12.4-34.5). Prone positioning was associated with higher rates of endotracheal tube obstruction and pressure sores. Risk of bias was low across the trials.
CONCLUSIONS
Prone positioning is likely to reduce mortality among patients with severe ARDS when applied for at least 12 hours daily.
Topics: Adult; Critical Care; Humans; Intubation, Intratracheal; Pressure Ulcer; Prone Position; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiration, Artificial; Respiratory Distress Syndrome
PubMed: 29068269
DOI: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201704-343OT -
JMIR Medical Informatics Oct 2020The clinical decision-making process in pressure ulcer management is complex, and its quality depends on both the nurse's experience and the availability of scientific... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The clinical decision-making process in pressure ulcer management is complex, and its quality depends on both the nurse's experience and the availability of scientific knowledge. This process should follow evidence-based practices incorporating health information technologies to assist health care professionals, such as the use of clinical decision support systems. These systems, in addition to increasing the quality of care provided, can reduce errors and costs in health care. However, the widespread use of clinical decision support systems still has limited evidence, indicating the need to identify and evaluate its effects on nursing clinical practice.
OBJECTIVE
The goal of the review was to identify the effects of nurses using clinical decision support systems on clinical decision making for pressure ulcer management.
METHODS
The systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) recommendations. The search was conducted in April 2019 on 5 electronic databases: MEDLINE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Cochrane, and CINAHL, without publication date or study design restrictions. Articles that addressed the use of computerized clinical decision support systems in pressure ulcer care applied in clinical practice were included. The reference lists of eligible articles were searched manually. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to assess the methodological quality of the studies.
RESULTS
The search strategy resulted in 998 articles, 16 of which were included. The year of publication ranged from 1995 to 2017, with 45% of studies conducted in the United States. Most addressed the use of clinical decision support systems by nurses in pressure ulcers prevention in inpatient units. All studies described knowledge-based systems that assessed the effects on clinical decision making, clinical effects secondary to clinical decision support system use, or factors that influenced the use or intention to use clinical decision support systems by health professionals and the success of their implementation in nursing practice.
CONCLUSIONS
The evidence in the available literature about the effects of clinical decision support systems (used by nurses) on decision making for pressure ulcer prevention and treatment is still insufficient. No significant effects were found on nurses' knowledge following the integration of clinical decision support systems into the workflow, with assessments made for a brief period of up to 6 months. Clinical effects, such as outcomes in the incidence and prevalence of pressure ulcers, remain limited in the studies, and most found clinically but nonstatistically significant results in decreasing pressure ulcers. It is necessary to carry out studies that prioritize better adoption and interaction of nurses with clinical decision support systems, as well as studies with a representative sample of health care professionals, randomized study designs, and application of assessment instruments appropriate to the professional and institutional profile. In addition, long-term follow-up is necessary to assess the effects of clinical decision support systems that can demonstrate a more real, measurable, and significant effect on clinical decision making.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42019127663; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=127663.
PubMed: 33064099
DOI: 10.2196/21621 -
Medicina Intensiva 2017Pressure ulcers represent a significant problem for patients, professionals and health systems. Their reported incidence and prevalence are significant worldwide. Their... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Pressure ulcers represent a significant problem for patients, professionals and health systems. Their reported incidence and prevalence are significant worldwide. Their character iatrogenic states that its appearance is preventable and its incidence is an indicator of scientific and technical quality both in primary care and specialized care. The aim of this review was to identify risk factors associated with the occurrence of pressure ulcers in critically ill patients.
METHODOLOGY
The PRISMA Declaration recommendations have been followed and adapted to studies identifying risk factors. A qualitative systematic review of primary studies has been performed and a search was conducted of the PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Scopus and Web of Science databases. Methodological limitations in observational studies have been considered.
RESULTS
From 200 references, 17 fulfilled the eligibility criteria. These studies included 19,363 patients admitted to intensive care units. Six studies were classified as high quality and 11 were classified as moderate quality. Risk factors that emerged as predictive of pressure ulcers development more frequently included age, length of ICU stay, diabetes, time of MAP <60-70mmHg, mechanical ventilation, length of mechanical ventilation, intermittent haemodialysis or continuous veno-venous haemofiltration therapy, vasopressor support, sedation and turning.
CONCLUSIONS
There is no single factors which can explain the occurrence of pressure ulcers. Rather, it is an interplay of factors that increase the probability of its development.
Topics: Critical Illness; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Pressure Ulcer; Risk Factors
PubMed: 27780589
DOI: 10.1016/j.medin.2016.09.003