-
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 -
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 -
Revista Latino-americana de Enfermagem Jan 2019to evaluate and classify patients according to the Risk Assessment Scale for Perioperative Pressure Injuries; verify the association between sociodemographic and... (Observational Study)
Observational Study
OBJECTIVES
to evaluate and classify patients according to the Risk Assessment Scale for Perioperative Pressure Injuries; verify the association between sociodemographic and clinical variables and the risk score; and identify the occurrence of pressure injuries due to surgical positioning.
METHOD
observational, longitudinal, prospective and quantitative study carried out in a teaching hospital with 278 patients submitted to elective surgeries. A sociodemographic and clinical characterization questionnaire and the Risk Assessment Scale for Perioperative Pressure Injuries were used. Descriptive, bivariate and logistic regression analyses were applied.
RESULTS
the majority of patients (56.5%) presented a high risk for perioperative pressure injury. Female sex, elderly group, and altered body mass index values were statistically significant (p < 0.05) for a higher risk of pressure injuries. In 77% of the patients, there were perioperative pressure injuries.
CONCLUSION
most of the participants presented a high risk for development of perioperative decubitus ulcers. The female sex, elderly group, and altered body mass index were significant factors for increased risk. The Risk Assessment Scale for Perioperative Pressure Injuries allows the early identification of risk of injury, subsidizing the adoption of preventive strategies to ensure the quality of perioperative care.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Patient Positioning; Perioperative Care; Perioperative Nursing; Postoperative Complications; Pressure Ulcer; Risk Assessment; Socioeconomic Factors; Young Adult
PubMed: 30698218
DOI: 10.1590/1518-8345.2677-3117 -
British Journal of Nursing (Mark Allen... Oct 2018Pressure ulcers (PUs) are caused by tissue damage when the blood supply to an area of skin is diminished as a result of pressure. Although most pressure ulcers are...
Pressure ulcers (PUs) are caused by tissue damage when the blood supply to an area of skin is diminished as a result of pressure. Although most pressure ulcers are preventable, all patients are at risk. Nurses have a central role in prevention and management of pressure areas. They should be able to assess patients' risk of developing PUs using evidence-based practice, recognised risk assessment tools and by completing a holistic assessment. Nurses must be able to identify the risk factors associated with developing PUs and implement appropriate measures to deliver harm-free care. Repositioning techniques, monitoring and ongoing care strategies are essential for pressure ulcer prevention in practice.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Pressure Ulcer; Skin Care
PubMed: 30281355
DOI: 10.12968/bjon.2018.27.18.1050 -
International Wound Journal Feb 2019The prevention and management of a pressure injury is a nurse-sensitive quality indicator in hospitals. Prevention and management of pressure injury practices have been...
The prevention and management of a pressure injury is a nurse-sensitive quality indicator in hospitals. Prevention and management of pressure injury practices have been found to be suboptimal despite the availability of interventions. Currently, there is a poor understanding of the mechanisms behind these interventions. The aim of the study was to explain a realistic portrayal of nurses' current practices to prevent and manage pressure injuries in one public hospital in Singapore. A realistic case study design was adopted. Twenty-four nurses were recruited. Audio-recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim to facilitate thematic analysis. Prevention and management was generally facilitated through the timely escalation of care, effective communication, support from the wound nurses, and bridging of the knowledge-practice gap. However, factors such as nurses' intrinsic characteristics and organisational support may affect the outcomes of these facilitators. Overall, nurses strive to achieve patient safety, where pressure injuries are prevented to the best of their abilities. This study provides causal links between contextual factors, mechanisms of the prevention and management, and the outcomes achieved. Further refinement and testing of the specific mechanisms are needed and will contribute to a better understanding of how nurses prevent and manage pressure injuries.
Topics: Adult; Female; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Nursing Care; Nursing Staff, Hospital; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Pressure Ulcer; Singapore
PubMed: 30273984
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.13006 -
Journal of Wound Care Feb 2020
Topics: Clinical Protocols; Equipment and Supplies; Humans; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Pressure Ulcer
PubMed: 32067552
DOI: 10.12968/jowc.2020.29.Sup2a.S1 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2018Pressure ulcers, also known as bed sores or pressure sores, are localised areas of tissue damage arising due to excess pressure and shearing forces. Education of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pressure ulcers, also known as bed sores or pressure sores, are localised areas of tissue damage arising due to excess pressure and shearing forces. Education of healthcare staff has been recognised as an integral component of pressure ulcer prevention. These educational programmes are directed towards influencing behaviour change on the part of the healthcare professional, to encourage preventative practices with the aim of reducing the incidence of pressure ulcer development.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of educational interventions for healthcare professionals on pressure ulcer prevention.
SEARCH METHODS
In June 2017 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant 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
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs, that evaluated the effect of any educational intervention delivered to healthcare staff in any setting to prevent pressure ulceration.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed titles and abstracts of the studies identified by the search strategy for eligibility. We obtained full versions of potentially relevant studies and two authors independently screened these against the inclusion criteria.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified five studies that met the inclusion criteria for this review: four RCTs and one cluster-RCT. The study characteristics differed in terms of healthcare settings, the nature of the interventions studied and outcome measures reported. The cluster-RCT, and two of the RCTs, explored the effectiveness of education delivered to healthcare staff within residential or nursing home settings, or nursing home and hospital wards, compared to no intervention, or usual practices. Educational intervention in one of these studies was embedded within a broader, quality improvement bundle. The other two individually randomised controlled trials explored the effectiveness of educational intervention, delivered in two formats, to nursing staff cohorts.Due to the heterogeneity of the studies identified, pooling was not appropriate and we have presented a narrative overview. We explored a number of comparisons (1) education versus no education (2) components of educational intervention in a number of combinations and (3) education delivered in different formats. There were three primary outcomes: change in healthcare professionals' knowledge, change in healthcare professionals' clinical behaviour and incidence of new pressure ulcers.We are uncertain whether there is a difference in health professionals' knowledge depending on whether they receive education or no education on pressure ulcer prevention (hospital group: mean difference (MD) 0.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.00 to 1.60; 10 participants; nursing home group: MD 0.30, 95% CI -0.77 to 1.37; 10 participants). This was based on very low-certainty evidence from one study, which we downgraded for serious study limitations, indirectness and imprecision.We are uncertain whether there is a difference in pressure ulcer incidence with the following comparisons: training, monitoring and observation, versus monitoring and observation (risk ratio (RR) 0.63, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.05; 345 participants); training, monitoring and observation, versus observation alone (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.43; 325 participants) or, monitoring and observation versus observation alone (RR 1.93, 95% CI 0.96 to 3.88; 232 participants). This was based on very low-certainty evidence from one study, which we downgraded for very serious study limitations and imprecision. We are uncertain whether multilevel intervention versus attention control makes any difference to pressure ulcer incidence. The report presented insufficient data to enable further interrogation of this outcome.We are uncertain whether education delivered in different formats such as didactic education versus video-based education (MD 4.60, 95% CI 3.08 to 6.12; 102 participants) or e-learning versus classroom education (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.07; 18 participants), makes any difference to health professionals' knowledge of pressure ulcer prevention. This was based on very low-certainty evidence from two studies, which we downgraded for serious study limitations and study imprecision.None of the included studies explored our other primary outcome: change in health professionals' clinical behaviour. Only one study explored the secondary outcomes of interest, namely, pressure ulcer severity and patient and carer reported outcomes (self-assessed quality of life and functional dependency level respectively). However, this study provided insufficient information to enable our independent assessment of these outcomes within the review.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We are uncertain whether educating healthcare professionals about pressure ulcer prevention makes any difference to pressure ulcer incidence, or to nurses' knowledge of pressure ulcer prevention. This is because the included studies provided very low-certainty evidence. Therefore, further information is required to clarify the impact of education of healthcare professionals on the prevention of pressure ulcers.
Topics: Health Personnel; Humans; Incidence; Pressure Ulcer; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29800486
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011620.pub2 -
International Wound Journal Aug 2023The aim of this study was to summarise the best evidence for the prevention and control of pressure ulcer at the support surface based on the site and stage of the...
The aim of this study was to summarise the best evidence for the prevention and control of pressure ulcer at the support surface based on the site and stage of the pressure ulcer in order to reduce the incidence of pressure ulcer and improve the quality of care. In accordance with the top-down principle of the 6 S model of evidence-based resources, evidence from domestic and international databases and websites on the prevention and control of pressure ulcer on support surfaces, including randomised controlled trials, systematic reviews, evidence-based guidelines, and evidence summaries, was systematically searched for the period from January 2000 to July 2022. Evidence grading based on the Joanna Briggs Institute Evidence-Based Health Care Centre Evidence Pre-grading System (2014 version), Australia. The outcomes mainly embraced 12 papers, including three randomised controlled trials, three systematic reviews, three evidence-based guidelines, and three evidence summaries. The best evidence summarised included a total of 19 recommendations in three areas: type of support surface selection assessment, use of support surfaces, and team management and quality control.
Topics: Humans; Pressure Ulcer; Beds; Incidence; Australia; Quality Control
PubMed: 36891753
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.14109 -
Value of hospital resources for effective pressure injury prevention: a cost-effectiveness analysis.BMJ Quality & Safety Feb 2019Hospital-acquired pressure injuries are localised skin injuries that cause significant mortality and are costly. Nursing best practices prevent pressure injuries,...
OBJECTIVE
Hospital-acquired pressure injuries are localised skin injuries that cause significant mortality and are costly. Nursing best practices prevent pressure injuries, including time-consuming, complex tasks that lack payment incentives. The Braden Scale is an evidence-based stratification tool nurses use daily to assess pressure-injury risk. Our objective was to analyse the cost-utility of performing repeated risk-assessment for pressure-injury prevention in all patients or high-risk groups.
DESIGN
Cost-utility analysis using Markov modelling from US societal and healthcare sector perspectives within a 1-year time horizon.
SETTING
Patient-level longitudinal data on 34 787 encounters from an academic hospital electronic health record (EHR) between 2011 and 2014, including daily Braden scores. Supervised machine learning simulated age-adjusted transition probabilities between risk levels and pressure injuries.
PARTICIPANTS
Hospitalised adults with Braden scores classified into five risk levels: very high risk (6-9), high risk (10-11), moderate risk (12-14), at-risk (15-18), minimal risk (19-23).
INTERVENTIONS
Standard care, repeated risk assessment in all risk levels or only repeated risk assessment in high-risk strata based on machine-learning simulations.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Costs (2016 $US) of pressure-injury treatment and prevention, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) related to pressure injuries were weighted by transition probabilities to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) at $100 000/QALY willingness-to-pay. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses tested model uncertainty.
RESULTS
Simulating prevention for all patients yielded greater QALYs at higher cost from societal and healthcare sector perspectives, equating to ICERs of $2000/QALY and $2142/QALY, respectively. Risk-stratified follow-up in patients with Braden scores <15 dominated standard care. Prevention for all patients was cost-effective in >99% of probabilistic simulations.
CONCLUSION
Our analysis using EHR data maintains that pressure-injury prevention for all inpatients is cost-effective. Hospitals should invest in nursing compliance with international prevention guidelines.
Topics: Cost of Illness; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Economics, Hospital; Guideline Adherence; Hospital Costs; Hospitals; Humans; Longitudinal Studies; Machine Learning; Markov Chains; Models, Economic; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Pressure Ulcer; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Risk Assessment; United States
PubMed: 30097490
DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs-2017-007505 -
Clinical Infectious Diseases : An... Jan 2019The treatment of osteomyelitis in patients with stage IV sacral pressure ulcers is controversial. We conducted a systematic literature review and did not find evidence...
The treatment of osteomyelitis in patients with stage IV sacral pressure ulcers is controversial. We conducted a systematic literature review and did not find evidence of benefit of antibacterial therapy in this setting without concomitant surgical debridement and wound coverage. Furthermore, many patients with chronically exposed bone do not have evidence of osteomyelitis when biopsied, and magnetic resonance imaging may not accurately distinguish osteomyelitis from bone remodeling. The goal of therapy should be local wound care and assessment for the potential of wound closure. If the wound can be closed and osteomyelitis is present on bone biopsy, appropriate antibiotic therapy is reasonable. We find no data to support antibiotic durations of >6 weeks in this setting, and some authors recommend 2 weeks of therapy if the osteomyelitis is limited to cortical bone. If the wound will not be closed, we find no clear evidence supporting a role for antibiotic therapy.
Topics: Aged; Humans; Male; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Osteomyelitis; Pressure Ulcer; Sacrum
PubMed: 29986022
DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciy559