-
Nursing in Critical Care Nov 2020The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess if early mobilization and rehabilitation in the intensive care unit (ICU) could reduce ICU-acquired weakness (ICU-AW),... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess if early mobilization and rehabilitation in the intensive care unit (ICU) could reduce ICU-acquired weakness (ICU-AW), improve functional recovery, improve muscle strength, shorten the length of ICU and hospital stays, and reduce the mortality rate.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, SinoMed (Chinese BioMedical Literature Service System, China), and National Knowledge Infrastructure, China (CNKI) was performed. Results were expressed as a risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) or weight mean difference (WMD) with 95% CIs. Pooled estimates were calculated using a fixed-effects or random-effects model according to the heterogeneity among studies.
RESULTS
Fifteen randomized controlled trials involving a total of 1941 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled estimates suggested that early mobilization significantly reduced the incidence of ICU-AW (RR = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.26, 0.91; P = .025), shortened the length of ICU (WMD = -1.82 days, 95% CI: -2.88, -0.76; P = .001) and hospital (WMD = -3.90 days, 95% CI: -5.94, -1.85; P < .001) stays, and improved the Medical Research Council score (WMD = 4.47, 95% CI: 1.43, 7.52; P = .004) and Barthel Index score at hospital discharge (WMD = 21.44, 95% CI: 10.97, 31.91; P < .001). Moreover, early mobilization also decreased complications such as deep vein thrombosis (RR = 0.16, 95% CI: 0.04, 0.59; P = .006), ventilator-associated pneumonia (RR = 0.26, 95% CI: 0.11, 0.63; P = .003), and pressure sores (RR = 0.14, 95% CI: 0.04, 0.44; P = .001). However, early mobilization did not reduce the ICU mortality rate (RR = 1.31, 95% CI: 0.97, 1.76; P = .074), improve the handgrip strength (WMD = 4.03 kg, 95% CI: -0.68, 8.74; P = .094), and shorten the duration of mechanical ventilation (WMD = 0.20 days, 95% CI: -0.10, 0.50; P = .194).
CONCLUSION
This study indicated that early mobilization was effective in preventing the occurrence of ICU-AW, shortening the length of ICU and hospital stay, and improving the functional mobility. However, it had no effect on the ICU mortality rate and ventilator-free days.
RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE
ICU-AW is a common neuromuscular complication of critical illness, and it is predictive of adverse outcomes. Early mobilization of critically ill patients is a candidate intervention to reduce the incidence and severity of ICU-AW. Some clinical studies have demonstrated this, whereas others found opposite results. The aim of our study is to assess if early mobilization and rehabilitation in the ICU could reduce the ICU-AW, improve functional recovery, improve muscle strength, shorten length of ICU and hospital stay, and reduce the mortality rate.
Topics: China; Critical Illness; Early Ambulation; Hospital Mortality; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Length of Stay; Patient Discharge; Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated; Pressure Ulcer; Respiration, Artificial
PubMed: 31219229
DOI: 10.1111/nicc.12455 -
Worldviews on Evidence-based Nursing Apr 2022Pressure injury (PI) is a significant health problem among inpatients that affects their health, quality of life, and expenses. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pressure injury (PI) is a significant health problem among inpatients that affects their health, quality of life, and expenses.
AIM
This systematic review aimed to compare effects of alternating pressure air mattresses (APMs) with other types of supporting surfaces as a tool for PI prevention.
METHODS
The literature published between 2009 and 2020 was searched using the databases PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses process was followed, including independent study selection and data extraction. Quality appraisal was conducted using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (RoB 2.0).
RESULTS
A total of six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were analyzed. The incidence of hospital-acquired PIs at stage 1 or higher was reported in the APM group from 0.3% to 25%. In one study, APMs were found to be less effective than static air mattresses (SAMs); in contrast, two studies found no difference. In one study, the APM was reported to be more effective than the viscoelastic foam mattress (VFM). On the contrary, in a more recent study, the APM was reported to be less effective than the VFM, and there was no difference compared with high-specification foam mattresses in another study. Using the RoB 2.0 tool, one study was evaluated at "low risk of bias," another as "some concern," and four as "high risk."
LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION
There is insufficient evidence to suggest that APM is more effective in preventing PIs than other supporting surfaces. Evidence to date suggests that APM can be used in patients at risk for PIs. It is important to change position regardless of the type of support surface used. Highly controlled RCTs with low risk of bias are needed to provide strong evidence for identifying the most effective PI prevention support surfaces.
Topics: Air; Beds; Humans; Incidence; Pressure Ulcer; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35229980
DOI: 10.1111/wvn.12570 -
International Journal of Nursing Studies Aug 2021A pressure injury is an area of localised damage to the skin and underlying tissues. Patient repositioning is an important prevention strategy, as those with limited... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
A pressure injury is an area of localised damage to the skin and underlying tissues. Patient repositioning is an important prevention strategy, as those with limited mobility are at increased risk of developing pressure injury.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of repositioning schedules on the prevention of pressure injury in adults.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
The Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE (Ovid); Embase (Ovid) and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature Plus (EBSCO) were searched in February 2019. No restrictions were applied to language or date of publication.
REVIEW METHODS
Studies were eligible if they were randomised controlled trials including cluster trials, published or unpublished, and undertaken in any healthcare setting that assessed the clinical and/or cost effectiveness of repositioning schedules for prevention of pressure injury in adults. Methodological quality of the studies was independently assessed by three authors. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed using the I statistic, and the pooled risk ratios along with their 95% confidence intervals were estimated using either fixed and random effects models, as indicated. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation was used to appraise the certainty of evidence.
RESULTS
Eight eligible trials involving 3,941 participants published between 2004 and 2018 were identified. Trials compared either different repositioning frequencies or positioning regimens. Three trials (1074 participants) compared 2-hourly with 4-hourly repositioning (risk ratio 1.06, 95% confidence interval 0.80 to 1.41; I = 45%). Two other trials (252 participants) compared a 30-degree tilt with a 90-degree tilt (risk ratio0.62, 95% confidence interval 0.10 to 3.97; I =69%). Only two trials included economic analyses, both amongst nursing home residents. One study estimated the costs of repositioning to be Canadian dollars $11.05 and Canadian dollars $16.74 less per resident per day for the 3-hourly or 4-hourly regimens, respectively, when compared to 2-hourly regimen. The second study reported 3-hourly repositioning using a 30-degree tilt to cost €46.50 (95% confidence interval €1.25 to €74.60) less per patient in nursing time compared with 6-hourly repositioning with a 90-degree lateral rotation.
CONCLUSION
It remains unclear which repositioning frequencies or positions are most effective in preventing pressure injury in adults. There is limited evidence to support the cost effectiveness of repositioning frequencies and positions. Registration: Cochrane protocol published in 2012.
Topics: Adult; Canada; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Humans; Patient Positioning; Pressure Ulcer; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34090235
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2021.103976 -
American Journal of Critical Care : An... Nov 2022In the critical care environment, individuals who undergo tracheostomy are highly susceptible to tracheostomy-related pressure injuries. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
In the critical care environment, individuals who undergo tracheostomy are highly susceptible to tracheostomy-related pressure injuries.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to reduce tracheostomy-related pressure injury in the critical care setting.
METHODS
MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies of pediatric or adult patients in intensive care units conducted to evaluate interventions to reduce tracheostomy-related pressure injury. Reviewers independently extracted data on study and patient characteristics, incidence of tracheostomy-related pressure injury, characteristics of the interventions, and outcomes. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk-of-bias criteria.
RESULTS
Ten studies (2 randomized clinical trials, 5 quasi-experimental, 3 observational) involving 2023 critically ill adult and pediatric patients met eligibility criteria. The incidence of tracheostomy-related pressure injury was 17.0% before intervention and 3.5% after intervention, a 79% decrease. Pressure injury most commonly involved skin in the peristomal area and under tracheostomy ties and flanges. Interventions to mitigate risk of tracheostomy-related pressure injury included modifications to tracheostomy flange securement with foam collars, hydrophilic dressings, and extended-length tracheostomy tubes. Interventions were often investigated as part of care bundles, and there was limited standardization of interventions between studies. Meta-analysis supported the benefit of hydrophilic dressings under tracheostomy flanges for decreasing tracheostomy-related pressure injury.
CONCLUSIONS
Use of hydrophilic dressings and foam collars decreases the incidence of tracheostomy-related pressure injury in critically ill patients. Evidence regarding individual interventions is limited by lack of sensitive measurement tools and by use of bundled interventions. Further research is necessary to delineate optimal interventions for preventing tracheostomy-related pressure injury.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Bandages; Critical Care; Critical Illness; Intensive Care Units; Tracheostomy; Pressure Ulcer
PubMed: 36316177
DOI: 10.4037/ajcc2022659 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2019Nurses comprise the largest component of the health workforce worldwide and numerous models of workforce allocation and profile have been implemented. These include... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Nurses comprise the largest component of the health workforce worldwide and numerous models of workforce allocation and profile have been implemented. These include changes in skill mix, grade mix or qualification mix, staff-allocation models, staffing levels, nursing shifts, or nurses' work patterns. This is the first update of our review published in 2011.
OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this review was to explore the effect of hospital nurse-staffing models on patient and staff-related outcomes in the hospital setting, specifically to identify which staffing model(s) are associated with: 1) better outcomes for patients, 2) better staff-related outcomes, and, 3) the impact of staffing model(s) on cost outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS
CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases and two trials registers were searched on 22 March 2018 together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted-time-series or repeated-measures studies of interventions relating to hospital nurse-staffing models. Participants were patients and nursing staff working in hospital settings. We included any objective reported measure of patient-, staff-related, or economic outcome. The most important outcomes included in this review were: nursing-staff turnover, patient mortality, patient readmissions, patient attendances at the emergency department (ED), length of stay, patients with pressure ulcers, and costs.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We worked independently in pairs to extract data from each potentially relevant study and to assess risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 19 studies, 17 of which were included in the analysis and eight of which we identified for this update. We identified four types of interventions relating to hospital nurse-staffing models:- introduction of advanced or specialist nurses to the nursing workforce;- introduction of nursing assistive personnel to the hospital workforce;- primary nursing; and- staffing models.The studies were conducted in the USA, the Netherlands, UK, Australia, and Canada and included patients with cancer, asthma, diabetes and chronic illness, on medical, acute care, intensive care and long-stay psychiatric units. The risk of bias across studies was high, with limitations mainly related to blinding of patients and personnel, allocation concealment, sequence generation, and blinding of outcome assessment.The addition of advanced or specialist nurses to hospital nurse staffing may lead to little or no difference in patient mortality (3 studies, 1358 participants). It is uncertain whether this intervention reduces patient readmissions (7 studies, 2995 participants), patient attendances at the ED (6 studies, 2274 participants), length of stay (3 studies, 907 participants), number of patients with pressure ulcers (1 study, 753 participants), or costs (3 studies, 617 participants), as we assessed the evidence for these outcomes as being of very low certainty. It is uncertain whether adding nursing assistive personnel to the hospital workforce reduces costs (1 study, 6769 participants), as we assessed the evidence for this outcome to be of very low certainty. It is uncertain whether primary nursing (3 studies, > 464 participants) or staffing models (1 study, 647 participants) reduces nursing-staff turnover, or if primary nursing (2 studies, > 138 participants) reduces costs, as we assessed the evidence for these outcomes to be of very low certainty.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The findings of this review should be treated with caution due to the limited amount and quality of the published research that was included. We have most confidence in our finding that the introduction of advanced or specialist nurses may lead to little or no difference in one patient outcome (i.e. mortality) with greater uncertainty about other patient outcomes (i.e. readmissions, ED attendance, length of stay and pressure ulcer rates). The evidence is of insufficient certainty to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of other types of interventions, including new nurse-staffing models and introduction of nursing assistive personnel, on patient, staff and cost outcomes. Although it has been seven years since the original review was published, the certainty of the evidence about hospital nurse staffing still remains very low.
Topics: Hospital Mortality; Humans; Models, Nursing; Nursing Staff, Hospital; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Patient Readmission; Personnel Staffing and Scheduling; Quality of Health Care; Specialties, Nursing; Workforce
PubMed: 31012954
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007019.pub3 -
Endocrinology, Diabetes & Metabolism Jan 2021The aim of this systematic review was to identify the best footwear and insole design features for offloading the plantar surface of the foot to prevent foot ulceration... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The aim of this systematic review was to identify the best footwear and insole design features for offloading the plantar surface of the foot to prevent foot ulceration in people with diabetic peripheral neuropathy. We searched multiple databases for published and unpublished studies reporting offloading footwear and insoles for people with diabetic neuropathy and nonulcerated feet. Primary outcome was foot ulcer incidence; other outcome measures considered were any standardized kinetic or kinematic measure indicating loading or offloading the plantar foot. Fifty-four studies, including randomized controlled studies, cohort studies, case-series, and a case-controlled and cross-sectional study were included. Three meta-analyses were conducted and random-effects modelling found peak plantar pressure reduction of arch profile (37 kPa (MD, -37.5; 95% CI, -72.29 to -3.61; < .03), metatarsal addition (35.96 kPa (MD, -35.96; 95% CI, -57.33 to -14.60; < .001) and pressure informed design 75.4 kPa (MD, -75.4 kPa; 95% CI, -127.4 to -23.44 kPa; < .004).The remaining data were presented in a narrative form due to heterogeneity. This review highlights the difficulty in differentiating the effect of different insole and footwear features in offloading the neuropathic diabetic foot. However, arch profiles, metatarsal additions and apertures are effective in reducing plantar pressure. The use of pressure analysis to enhance the effectiveness of the design of footwear and insoles, particularly through modification, is recommended.
Topics: Diabetic Foot; Diabetic Nephropathies; Equipment Design; Foot Orthoses; Humans; Shoes; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33532602
DOI: 10.1002/edm2.132 -
JMIR Medical Informatics Mar 2021Pressure injury (PI) is a common and preventable problem, yet it is a challenge for at least two reasons. First, the nurse shortage is a worldwide phenomenon. Second,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pressure injury (PI) is a common and preventable problem, yet it is a challenge for at least two reasons. First, the nurse shortage is a worldwide phenomenon. Second, the majority of nurses have insufficient PI-related knowledge. Machine learning (ML) technologies can contribute to lessening the burden on medical staff by improving the prognosis and diagnostic accuracy of PI. To the best of our knowledge, there is no existing systematic review that evaluates how the current ML technologies are being used in PI management.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this review was to synthesize and evaluate the literature regarding the use of ML technologies in PI management, and identify their strengths and weaknesses, as well as to identify improvement opportunities for future research and practice.
METHODS
We conducted an extensive search on PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), the Wanfang database, the VIP database, and the China Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) to identify relevant articles. Searches were performed in June 2020. Two independent investigators conducted study selection, data extraction, and quality appraisal. Risk of bias was assessed using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST).
RESULTS
A total of 32 articles met the inclusion criteria. Twelve of those articles (38%) reported using ML technologies to develop predictive models to identify risk factors, 11 (34%) reported using them in posture detection and recognition, and 9 (28%) reported using them in image analysis for tissue classification and measurement of PI wounds. These articles presented various algorithms and measured outcomes. The overall risk of bias was judged as high.
CONCLUSIONS
There is an array of emerging ML technologies being used in PI management, and their results in the laboratory show great promise. Future research should apply these technologies on a large scale with clinical data to further verify and improve their effectiveness, as well as to improve the methodological quality.
PubMed: 33688846
DOI: 10.2196/25704 -
Journal of Clinical Nursing Jul 2019To explore the effectiveness of interventions aimed at pressure ulcer (PU) prevention in long-term older people care facilities (LOPC).
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
To explore the effectiveness of interventions aimed at pressure ulcer (PU) prevention in long-term older people care facilities (LOPC).
BACKGROUND
Pressure ulcers cause suffering for patients and constitute a major financial burden. Although most PUs could be prevented, their number has remained high. To avoid unnecessary suffering and costs, PU prevention must be effective.
DESIGN
A systematic review.
METHODS
A systematic search was conducted in six electronic databases PubMed (MEDLINE), CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, Cochrane Wounds Group Specialized Register and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The inclusion criteria were: (a) study published in 2005-2017, (b) intervention with pre- and post-tests, focusing on PU prevention, (c) implemented in LOPC facilities, (d) persons >65 years as study population, and (e) outcomes reported as PU incidence or prevalence or healing time. The PRISMA guidelines were followed. The methodological quality of the studies was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute's MAStARI critical appraisal checklist. The data were analysed with narrative synthesis.
RESULTS
The review included eighteen studies. The study designs were RCTs (n = 10), comparable cohort or case-control studies (n = 3), and descriptive or case series (n = 5). PU incidence in LOPC facilities decreased by using computerised decision-making support systems, PU prevention programmes, repositioning or advanced cushions. PU prevalence decreased with PU prevention programmes, by using advanced mattresses and overlays, or by adding protein and energy supplements to diet.
CONCLUSIONS
There are many ways to prevent PUs in LOPC facilities; no single effective way can be identified. One-third of the preventive interventions in LOPC facilities were effective. However, systematic evidence from randomised trials on preventive interventions of PUs in LOPC settings is still lacking.
RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE
The findings can be used in practice for selecting and in research for developing effective preventive interventions of PUs in LOPC facilities.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Case-Control Studies; Cohort Studies; Decision Support Systems, Clinical; Homes for the Aged; Humans; Long-Term Care; Nursing Homes; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Pressure Ulcer
PubMed: 30589987
DOI: 10.1111/jocn.14767 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2020A pressure injury (PI), also referred to as a 'pressure ulcer', or 'bedsore', is an area of localised tissue damage caused by unrelieved pressure, friction, or shearing... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
A pressure injury (PI), also referred to as a 'pressure ulcer', or 'bedsore', is an area of localised tissue damage caused by unrelieved pressure, friction, or shearing on any part of the body. Immobility is a major risk factor and manual repositioning a common prevention strategy. This is an update of a review first published in 2014.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of repositioning regimens(i.e. repositioning schedules and patient positions) on the prevention of PI in adults regardless of risk in any setting.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and EBSCO CINAHL Plus on 12 February 2019. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned the reference lists of included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses, and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication, or study setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster-randomised trials (c-RCTs), published or unpublished, that assessed the effects of any repositioning schedule or different patient positions and measured PI incidence in adults in any setting.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and data extraction. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified five additional trials and one economic substudy in this update, resulting in the inclusion of a total of eight trials involving 3941 participants from acute and long-term care settings and two economic substudies in the review. Six studies reported the proportion of participants developing PI of any stage. Two of the eight trials reported within-trial cost evaluations. Follow-up periods were short (24 hours to 21 days). All studies were at high risk of bias. Funding sources were reported in five trials. Primary outcomes: proportion of new PI of any stage Repositioning frequencies: three trials compared different repositioning frequencies We pooled data from three trials (1074 participants) comparing 2-hourly with 4-hourly repositioning frequencies (fixed-effect; I² = 45%; pooled risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.41). It is uncertain whether 2-hourly repositioning compared with 4-hourly repositioning used in conjunction with any support surface increases or decreases the incidence of PI. The certainty of the evidence is very low due to high risk of bias, downgraded twice for risk of bias, and once for imprecision. One of these trials had three arms (967 participants) comparing 2-hourly, 3-hourly, and 4-hourly repositioning regimens on high-density mattresses; data for one comparison was included in the pooled analysis. Another comparison was based on 2-hourly versus 3-hourly repositioning. The RR for PI incidence was 4.06 (95% CI 0.87 to 18.98). The third study comparison was based on 3-hourly versus 4-hourly repositioning (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.92). The certainty of the evidence is low due to risk of bias and imprecision. In one c-RCT, 262 participants in 32 ward clusters were randomised between 2-hourly and 3-hourly repositioning on standard mattresses and 4-hourly and 6-hourly repositioning on viscoelastic mattresses. The RR for PI with 2-hourly repositioning compared with 3-hourly repositioning on standard mattress is imprecise (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.16; very low-certainty evidence). The CI for PI include both a large reduction and no difference for the comparison of 4-hourly and 6-hourly repositioning on viscoelastic foam (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.02). The certainty of the evidence is very low, downgraded twice due to high risk of bias, and once for imprecision. Positioning regimens: four trials compared different tilt positions We pooled data from two trials (252 participants) that compared a 30° tilt with a 90° tilt (random-effects; I² = 69%). There was no clear difference in the incidence of stage 1 or 2 PI. The effect of tilt is uncertain because the certainty of evidence is very low (pooled RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.10 to 3.97), downgraded due to serious design limitations and very serious imprecision. One trial involving 120 participants compared 30° tilt and 45° tilt with 'usual care' and reported no occurrence of PI events (low certainty evidence). Another trial involving 116 ICU patients compared prone with the usual supine positioning for PI. Reporting was incomplete and this is low certainty evidence. Secondary outcomes No studies reported health-related quality of life utility scores, procedural pain, or patient satisfaction. Cost analysis Two included trials also performed economic analyses. A cost-minimisation analysis compared the costs of 3-hourly and 4-hourly repositioning with 2-hourly repositioning schedule amongst nursing home residents. The cost of repositioning was estimated at CAD 11.05 and CAD 16.74 less per resident per day for the 3-hourly or 4-hourly regimen, respectively, compared with the 2-hourly regimen. The estimates of economic benefit were driven mostly by the value of freed nursing time. The analysis assumed that 2-, 3-, or 4-hourly repositioning is associated with a similar incidence of PI, as no difference in incidence was observed. A second study compared the nursing time cost of 3-hourly repositioning using a 30° tilt with standard care (6-hourly repositioning with a 90° lateral rotation) amongst nursing home residents. The intervention was reported to be cost-saving compared with standard care (nursing time cost per patient EUR 206.60 versus EUR 253.10, incremental difference EUR -46.50, 95% CI EUR -1.25 to EUR -74.60).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Despite the addition of five trials, the results of this update are consistent with our earlier review, with the evidence judged to be of low or very low certainty. There remains a lack of robust evaluations of repositioning frequency and positioning for PI prevention and uncertainty about their effectiveness. Since all comparisons were underpowered, there is a high level of uncertainty in the evidence base. Given the limited data from economic evaluations, it remains unclear whether repositioning every three hours using the 30° tilt versus "usual care" (90° tilt) or repositioning 3-to-4-hourly versus 2-hourly is less costly relative to nursing time.
Topics: Aged; Beds; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Humans; Middle Aged; Patient Positioning; Pressure Ulcer; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 32484259
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009958.pub3 -
International Journal of Nursing Studies Dec 2023Pressure injuries are a fundamental safety concern in older people living in nursing homes. Recent studies report a disparate body of evidence on pressure injury... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pressure injuries are a fundamental safety concern in older people living in nursing homes. Recent studies report a disparate body of evidence on pressure injury prevalence and incidence in this population.
OBJECTIVES
To systematically quantify the prevalence and incidence of pressure injuries among older people living in nursing homes, and to identify the most frequently occurring PI stage(s) and anatomical location(s).
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
SETTING(S)
Nursing homes, aged care, or long-term care facilities.
PARTICIPANTS
Older people, 60 years and older.
METHODS
Cross-sectional and cohort studies reporting on either prevalence or incidence of pressure injuries were included. Studies published in English from 2000 onwards were systematically searched in Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and ProQuest. Screening, data extraction and quality appraisal were undertaken independently by two or more authors and adjudicated by another. Outcomes included pressure injury point prevalence, cumulative incidence, and nursing home acquired pressure injury rate. In meta-analyses, Cochrane's Q test and the I statistic were used to explore heterogeneity. Random effects models were used in the presence of substantial heterogeneity. Sources of heterogeneity were investigated by subgroup analyses and meta-regression.
RESULTS
3384 abstracts were screened, and 47 full-text studies included. In 30 studies with 355,784 older people, the pooled pressure injury prevalence for any stage was 11.6 % (95 % CI 9.6-13.7 %). Fifteen studies with 5,421,798 older people reported the prevalence of pressure injury excluding stage I and the pooled estimate was 7.2 % (95 % CI 6.2-8.3 %). The pooled incidence for pressure injury of any stage in four studies with 10,645 older people was 14.3 % (95 % CI 5.5-26.2 %). Nursing home acquired pressure injury rate was reported in six studies with 79,998 older people and the pooled estimate was 8.5 % (95 % CI 4.4-13.5 %). Stage I and stage II pressure injuries were the most common stages reported. The heel (34.1 %), sacrum (27.2 %) and foot (18.4 %) were the three most reported locations of pressure injuries. Meta-regression results indicated a reduction in pressure injury prevalence over the years of data collection.
CONCLUSION
The burden of pressure injuries among older people in nursing homes is similar to hospitalised patients and requires a targeted approach to prevention as is undertaken in hospitals. Future studies using robust methodologies focusing on epidemiology of pressure injury development in older people are needed to conduct as the first step of preventing pressure injuries.
REGISTRATION NUMBER
PROSPERO CRD42022328367.
TWEETABLE ABSTRACT
Pressure injury rates in nursing homes are comparable to hospital rates indicating the need for targeted programmes similar to those in hospitals.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Pressure Ulcer; Incidence; Prevalence; Cross-Sectional Studies; Nursing Homes
PubMed: 37801939
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2023.104605