-
Wound Management & Prevention Nov 2021Medical devices can cause pressure injuries.
BACKGROUND
Medical devices can cause pressure injuries.
PURPOSE
This study was conducted to determine the prevalence of and factors associated with medical device-related pressure injury (MDRPI) in an intensive care unit (ICU).
METHODS
A cross-sectional study was performed among adult patients (at least 18 years of age) admitted to an ICU in a referral hospital in Brazil between December 2019 and February 2020. The skin of patients who consented to participate was assessed for the presence of an MDRPI, and the use of all medical devices was noted. Other independent variables (sociodemographic variables, medical history, pressure injury risk factors, medications, and length of hospitalization) were abstracted from the medical records. Bivariate data analysis included Pearson's chi-square test or Fisher's exact test; odds ratio and a confidence interval of 95% also were established. Correlation among independent variables and MDRPI was determined using the ρ Spearman correlation test, and a hierarchical binary logistic regression analysis was performed using statistically significant variables from the bivariate analysis. P < .05 was considered statistically significant.
RESULTS
The 125 study participants ranged in age from 15 to 97 years (mean, 63.02 ± 19.2), 76 (60.8%) were men, and 76 (60.8%) were White. Of the 125 participants, 43 (34%) experienced MDRPI; the total number of MDRPIs was 58 (3 patients had 3 injuries, and 7 patients had 2 injuries). Of those 58 MDRPIs, 46 were stage 1, and 12 were stage 2. Polypharmacy (> 4 medications) was a significant risk factor for MDRPI. Use of a nasal catheter, cord for orotracheal tube fixation, oximeter, intra-abdominal pressure equipment, and indwelling urinary catheter was significantly associated with the presence of MDRPI. Renal and respiratory diseases and the presence of infection were positively related to the presence of MDRPI.
CONCLUSION
Medical device-related pressure injury was prevalent in this patient population. Most of these injuries were stage 1, which suggests that frequent monitoring and device repositioning (when possible) may help prevent more serious injuries. Additional research involving other hospitals in Brazil is needed to increase the understanding of the prevalence and risk factors of MDRPIs in patients in the ICU.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Cross-Sectional Studies; Crush Injuries; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Male; Middle Aged; Pressure Ulcer; Prevalence; Young Adult
PubMed: 35030095
DOI: No ID Found -
Advances in Wound Care Dec 2020To determine whether multilayer silicone foam dressings can prevent pressure ulcers arising in the sacrum and coccyx of patients with persistent severe diarrhea and/or... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
To determine whether multilayer silicone foam dressings can prevent pressure ulcers arising in the sacrum and coccyx of patients with persistent severe diarrhea and/or fragile skin. This randomized, 14-day controlled trial included 600 hospitalized patients with persistent severe diarrhea and/or fragile skin who were at high risk of developing pressure ulcers. All participants were enrolled from three Japanese institutions. Participants meeting all inclusion and exclusion criteria were randomized using the Excel program to receive standard care (control; = 300) recommended by Japanese guidelines or multilayer silicone foam dressings applied to the sacrum and coccyx (intervention; = 300). Significantly more participants in the control than the intervention group developed pressure ulcers (22 vs. 5, = 0.001). The incidence of pressure ulcers remains high in hospitalized patients at high risk of developing pressure ulcers. The present findings might contribute to novel preventive strategies for patients at high risk of developing pressure ulcers. Multilayer silicone foam dressings can prevent pressure ulcers of the sacrum and coccyx in patients with persistent severe diarrhea and/or fragile skin.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Bandages; Critical Care; Female; Heel; Humans; Japan; Male; Middle Aged; Pressure Ulcer; Sacrum; Silicones
PubMed: 33124968
DOI: 10.1089/wound.2019.1002 -
Ontario Health Technology Assessment... 2014Pressure at the interface between bony prominences and support surfaces, sufficient to occlude or reduce blood flow, is thought to cause pressure ulcers (PrUs). Pressure... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
Pressure at the interface between bony prominences and support surfaces, sufficient to occlude or reduce blood flow, is thought to cause pressure ulcers (PrUs). Pressure ulcers are prevented by providing support surfaces that redistribute pressure and by turning residents to reduce length of exposure.
OBJECTIVE
We aim to determine optimal frequency of repositioning in long-term care (LTC) facilities of residents at risk for PrUs who are cared for on high-density foam mattresses.
METHODS
We recruited residents from 20 United States and 7 Canadian LTC facilities. Participants were randomly allocated to 1 of 3 turning schedules (2-, 3-, or 4-hour intervals). The study continued for 3 weeks with weekly risk and skin assessment completed by assessors blinded to group allocation. The primary outcome measure was PrU on the coccyx or sacrum, greater trochanter, or heels.
RESULTS
Participants were mostly female (731/942, 77.6%) and white (758/942, 80.5%), and had a mean age of 85.1 (standard deviation [SD] ± 7.66) years. The most common comorbidities were cardiovascular disease (713/942, 75.7%) and dementia (672/942, 71.3%). Nineteen of 942 (2.02%) participants developed one superficial Stage 1 (n = 1) or Stage 2 (n = 19) ulcer; no full-thickness ulcers developed. Overall, there was no significant difference in PrU incidence (P = 0.68) between groups (2-hour, 8/321 [2.49%] ulcers/group; 3-hour, 2/326 [0.61%]; 4-hour, 9/295 [3.05%]. Pressure ulcers among high-risk (6/325, 1.85%) versus moderate-risk (13/617, 2.11%) participants were not significantly different (P = 0.79), nor was there a difference between moderate-risk (P = 0.68) or high-risk allocation groups (P = 0.90).
CONCLUSIONS
Results support turning moderate- and high-risk residents at intervals of 2, 3, or 4 hours when they are cared for on high-density foam replacement mattresses. Turning at 3-hour and at 4-hour intervals is no worse than the current practice of turning every 2 hours. Less frequent turning might increase sleep, improve quality of life, reduce staff injury, and save time for such other activities as feeding, walking, and toileting.
Topics: Aged, 80 and over; Female; Humans; Incidence; Male; Nursing Homes; Patient Positioning; Pressure Ulcer; Risk Factors; Time Factors
PubMed: 26330893
DOI: No ID Found -
International Journal of Nursing Studies Jun 2018Pressure ulcers are areas of localised damage to the skin and underlying tissue; and can cause pain, immobility, and delay recovery, impacting on health-related quality...
BACKGROUND
Pressure ulcers are areas of localised damage to the skin and underlying tissue; and can cause pain, immobility, and delay recovery, impacting on health-related quality of life. The individuals who are most at risk of developing a pressure ulcer are those who are seriously ill, elderly, have impaired mobility and/or poor nutrition; thus, many nursing home residents are at risk.
OBJECTIVES
To understand the context of pressure ulcer prevention in nursing homes and to explore the potential barriers and facilitators to evidence-informed practices.
METHODS
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with nursing home nurses, healthcare assistants and managers, National Health Service community-based wound specialist nurses (known in the UK as tissue viability nurses) and a nurse manager in the North West of England. The interview guide was developed using the Theoretical Domains Framework to explore the barriers and facilitators to pressure ulcer prevention in nursing home residents. Data were analysed using a framework analysis and domains were identified as salient based on their frequency and the potential strength of their impact.
FINDINGS
25 participants (nursing home: 2 managers, 7 healthcare assistants, 11 qualified nurses; National Health Service community services: 4 tissue viability nurses, 1 manager) were interviewed. Depending upon the behaviours reported and the context, the same domain could be classified as both a barrier and a facilitator. We identified seven domains as relevant in the prevention of pressure ulcers in nursing home residents mapping to four "barrier" domains and six "facilitator" domains. The four "barrier" domains were knowledge, physical skills, social influences and environmental context and resources and the six "facilitator" domains were interpersonal skills, environmental context and resources, social influences, beliefs about capabilities, beliefs about consequences and social/professional role and identity). Knowledge and insight into these barriers and facilitators provide a theoretical understanding of the complexities in preventing pressure ulcers with reference to the staff capabilities, opportunities and motivation related to pressure ulcer prevention.
CONCLUSION
Pressure ulcer prevention in nursing home residents is complex and is influenced by several factors. The findings will inform a theory and evidence-based intervention to aid the prevention of pressure ulcers in nursing home settings.
Topics: Humans; Inpatients; Models, Theoretical; Nursing Homes; Pressure Ulcer; Qualitative Research; United Kingdom
PubMed: 29626701
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.12.015 -
International Wound Journal Dec 2019This non-inferiority, multicentre, randomised, controlled, and double-blinded clinical trial compared the therapeutic effectiveness of the topical application of an... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
This non-inferiority, multicentre, randomised, controlled, and double-blinded clinical trial compared the therapeutic effectiveness of the topical application of an olive oil solution with that of a hyperoxygenated fatty acid compound for the prevention of pressure ulcers in at-risk nursing home residents. The study population comprised 571 residents of 23 nursing homes with pressure ulcer risk, randomly assigned to a hyperoxygenated fatty acid group (n = 288) or olive oil solution group (n = 283). Both solutions were applied on at-risk skin areas every 12 hours for 30 days or until pressure ulcer onset. The main outcome variable was the pressure ulcer incidence. The absolute risk difference was estimated (with 95% CI) using Kaplan-Meier survival and Cox regression curves. The groups did not significantly differ in any study variable at baseline. The pressure ulcer incidence was 4.18% in the olive oil group vs 6.57% in the control group, with an incidence difference of -2.39% (95% CI = -6.40 to 1.56%), which is within the pre-established non-inferiority margin of ±7%, thus supporting the study hypothesis. We present the first evidence of the effectiveness and safety of the topical application of olive oil to prevent pressure ulcers in the institutionalised elderly.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Aged, 80 and over; Double-Blind Method; Fatty Acids; Female; Humans; Incidence; Male; Nursing Homes; Olive Oil; Pressure Ulcer; Spain
PubMed: 31475465
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.13191 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2021Pressure ulcers (also known as pressure injuries, pressure sores, decubitus ulcers and bed sores) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Pressure ulcers (also known as pressure injuries, pressure sores, decubitus ulcers and bed sores) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both, caused by unrelieved pressure, shear or friction. Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces are widely used with the aim of preventing pressure ulcers.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (beds, mattresses or overlays) compared with any support surface on the incidence of pressure ulcers in any population in any setting.
SEARCH METHODS
In November 2019, 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 that allocated participants of any age to alternating pressure (active) air beds, overlays or mattresses. Comparators were any beds, overlays or mattresses.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently assessed studies using predetermined inclusion criteria. We carried out data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and the certainty of the evidence assessment according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 32 studies (9058 participants) in the review. Most studies were small (median study sample size: 83 participants). The average age of participants ranged from 37.2 to 87.0 years (median: 69.1 years). Participants were largely from acute care settings (including accident and emergency departments). We synthesised data for six comparisons in the review: alternating pressure (active) air surfaces versus: foam surfaces, reactive air surfaces, reactive water surfaces, reactive fibre surfaces, reactive gel surfaces used in the operating room followed by foam surfaces used on the ward bed, and another type of alternating pressure air surface. Of the 32 included studies, 25 (78.1%) presented findings which were considered at high overall risk of bias.
PRIMARY OUTCOME
pressure ulcer incidence Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces may reduce the proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer compared with foam surfaces (risk ratio (RR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34 to 1.17; I = 63%; 4 studies, 2247 participants; low-certainty evidence). Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces applied on both operating tables and hospital beds may reduce the proportion of people developing a new pressure ulcer compared with reactive gel surfaces used on operating tables followed by foam surfaces applied on hospital beds (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.76; I = 0%; 2 studies, 415 participants; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether there is a difference in the proportion of people developing new pressure ulcers between alternating pressure (active) air surfaces and the following surfaces, as all these comparisons have very low-certainty evidence: (1) reactive water surfaces; (2) reactive fibre surfaces; and (3) reactive air surfaces. The comparisons between different types of alternating pressure air surfaces are presented narratively. Overall, all comparisons suggest little to no difference between these surfaces in pressure ulcer incidence (7 studies, 2833 participants; low-certainty evidence). Included studies have data on time to pressure ulcer incidence for three comparisons. When time to pressure ulcer development is considered using a hazard ratio (HR), it is uncertain whether there is a difference in the risk of developing new pressure ulcers, over 90 days' follow-up, between alternating pressure (active) air surfaces and foam surfaces (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.64; I = 86%; 2 studies, 2105 participants; very low-certainty evidence). For the comparison with reactive air surfaces, there is low-certainty evidence that people treated with alternating pressure (active) air surfaces may have a higher risk of developing an incident pressure ulcer than those treated with reactive air surfaces over 14 days' follow-up (HR 2.25, 95% CI 1.05 to 4.83; 1 study, 308 participants). Neither of the two studies with time to ulcer incidence data suggested a difference in the risk of developing an incident pressure ulcer over 60 days' follow-up between different types of alternating pressure air surfaces. Secondary outcomes The included studies have data on (1) support-surface-associated patient comfort for comparisons involving foam surfaces, reactive air surfaces, reactive fibre surfaces and alternating pressure (active) air surfaces; (2) adverse events for comparisons involving foam surfaces, reactive gel surfaces and alternating pressure (active) air surfaces; and (3) health-related quality of life outcomes for the comparison involving foam surfaces. However, all these outcomes and comparisons have low or very low-certainty evidence and it is uncertain whether there are any differences in these outcomes. Included studies have data on cost effectiveness for two comparisons. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that alternating pressure (active) air surfaces are probably more cost-effective than foam surfaces (1 study, 2029 participants) and that alternating pressure (active) air mattresses are probably more cost-effective than overlay versions of this technology for people in acute care settings (1 study, 1971 participants).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Current evidence is uncertain about the difference in pressure ulcer incidence between using alternating pressure (active) air surfaces and other surfaces (reactive water surfaces, reactive fibre surfaces and reactive air surfaces). Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces may reduce pressure ulcer risk compared with foam surfaces and reactive gel surfaces used on operating tables followed by foam surfaces applied on hospital beds. People using alternating pressure (active) air surfaces may be more likely to develop new pressure ulcers over 14 days' follow-up than those treated with reactive air surfaces in the nursing home setting; but as the result is sensitive to the choice of outcome measure it should be interpreted cautiously. Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces are probably more cost-effective than reactive foam surfaces in preventing new pressure ulcers. Future studies should include time-to-event outcomes and assessment of adverse events and trial-level cost-effectiveness. Further review using network meta-analysis will add to the findings reported here.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Air; Bedding and Linens; Beds; Bias; Elasticity; Humans; Incidence; Middle Aged; Pressure; Pressure Ulcer; Publication Bias; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 33969911
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013620.pub2 -
International Wound Journal Jun 2015The prevention of hospital acquired pressure ulcers in critically ill patients remains a significant clinical challenge. The aim of this trial was to investigate the... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
A randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness of soft silicone multi-layered foam dressings in the prevention of sacral and heel pressure ulcers in trauma and critically ill patients: the border trial.
The prevention of hospital acquired pressure ulcers in critically ill patients remains a significant clinical challenge. The aim of this trial was to investigate the effectiveness of multi-layered soft silicone foam dressings in preventing intensive care unit (ICU) pressure ulcers when applied in the emergency department to 440 trauma and critically ill patients. Intervention group patients (n = 219) had Mepilex(®) Border Sacrum and Mepilex(®) Heel dressings applied in the emergency department and maintained throughout their ICU stay. Results revealed that there were significantly fewer patients with pressure ulcers in the intervention group compared to the control group (5 versus 20, P = 0·001). This represented a 10% difference in incidence between the groups (3·1% versus 13·1%) and a number needed to treat of ten patients to prevent one pressure ulcer. Overall there were fewer sacral (2 versus 8, P = 0·05) and heel pressure ulcers (5 versus 19, P = 0·002) and pressure injuries overall (7 versus 27, P = 0·002) in interventions than in controls. The time to injury survival analysis indicated that intervention group patients had a hazard ratio of 0·19 (P = 0·002) compared to control group patients. We conclude that multi-layered soft silicone foam dressings are effective in preventing pressure ulcers in critically ill patients when applied in the emergency department prior to ICU transfer.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Bandages; Critical Illness; Equipment Design; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Heel; Humans; Incidence; Intensive Care Units; Male; Middle Aged; Pressure Ulcer; Prospective Studies; Sacrum; Silicones; Treatment Outcome; Wound Closure Techniques; Wounds and Injuries
PubMed: 23711244
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.12101 -
International Wound Journal Oct 2022The most common pressure ulcer associated with medical devices in the ICU is pressure injury associated with the endotracheal tube. We aimed to scrutinise the effects of... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
The most common pressure ulcer associated with medical devices in the ICU is pressure injury associated with the endotracheal tube. We aimed to scrutinise the effects of two different techniques of endotracheal tube securement used in the ICU on the occurrence of pressure ulcers. This randomised clinical trial was conducted in 60 patients, 30 of which were intervention and 30 experimental, admittedin the ICU of a training and research hospitaldata were collected using the descriptive and clinical characteristics from the Braden Scale for predicting Pressure Sore Risk, the Pressure Ulcer Scale for healing, The International Staging System for Pressure Injuries and the Eilers Oral Assessment Guide. Based on the Braden Scale scores of the patients, we found that 98.3% of the cases were in the high-risk group before and after the intervention. We also found that the recovery was higher among patients in whom the bandage fixation method was applied compared to those in whom the fixation was done with an endotracheal tube holder.
Topics: Humans; Intensive Care Units; Intubation, Intratracheal; Pressure Ulcer; Risk Factors
PubMed: 35088531
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.13757 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2019Use of pressure ulcer risk assessment tools or scales is a component of the assessment process used to identify individuals at risk of developing a pressure ulcer. Use... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Use of pressure ulcer risk assessment tools or scales is a component of the assessment process used to identify individuals at risk of developing a pressure ulcer. Use of a risk assessment tool is recommended by many international pressure ulcer prevention guidelines, however it is not known whether using a risk assessment tool makes a difference to patient outcomes. We conducted a review to provide a summary of the evidence pertaining to pressure ulcer risk assessment in clinical practice, and this is the third update of this review.
OBJECTIVES
To assess whether using structured and systematic pressure ulcer risk assessment tools, in any healthcare setting, reduces the incidence of pressure ulcers.
SEARCH METHODS
In February 2018 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
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the use of structured and systematic pressure ulcer risk assessment tools with no structured pressure ulcer risk assessment, or with unaided clinical judgement, or RCTs comparing the use of different structured pressure ulcer risk assessment tools.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed study selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment and GRADE assessment of the certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included two studies in this review (1,487 participants). We identified no new trials for this latest update.Both studies were undertaken in acute-care hospitals. In one study, patients were eligible if they had a Braden score of 18 or less. In the second study all admitted patients were eligible for inclusion, once they were expected to have a hospital stay of more than three days and they had been in hospital for no more than 24 hours before baseline assessment took place. In the first study, most of the participants were medical patients; no information on age or gender distribution was provided. In the second study, 50.3% (619) of the participants were male, with a mean age of 62.6 years (standard deviation (SD): 19.3), and 15.4% (190) were admitted to oncology wards.The two included studies were three-armed studies. In the first study the three groups were: Braden risk assessment tool and training (n = 74), clinical judgement and training (n = 76) and clinical judgement alone (n = 106); follow-up was eight weeks. In the second study the three groups were: Waterlow risk assessment tool (n = 411), clinical judgement (n = 410) and Ramstadius risk assessment tool (n = 410); follow-up was four days. Both studies reported the primary outcome of pressure ulcer incidence and one study also reported the secondary outcome, severity of new pressure ulcers.We are uncertain whether use of the Braden risk assessment tool and training makes any difference to pressure ulcer incidence, compared to risk assessment using clinical judgement and training (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 1.77; 150 participants), or compared to risk assessment using clinical judgement alone (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.68; 180 participants). We assessed the certainty of the evidence as very low (downgraded twice for study limitations and twice for imprecision).Risk assessment using the Waterlow tool may make little or no difference to pressure ulcer incidence, or to pressure ulcer severity, when compared to risk assessment using clinical judgement (pressure ulcers of all stages: RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.81; 821 participants; stage 1 pressure ulcers: RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.90; 821 participants; stage 2 pressure ulcers: RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.50 to 3.13; 821 participants), or risk assessment using the Ramstadius tool (pressure ulcers of all stages: RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.83 to 2.39; 821 participants; stage 1 pressure ulcers: RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.15; 821 participants; stage 2 pressure ulcers: RR 2.49, 95% CI 0.79 to 7.89; 821 participants). Similarily, risk assessment using the Ramstadius tool may make little or no difference to pressure ulcer incidence, or to pressure ulcer severity, when compared to risk assessment using clinical judgement (pressure ulcers of all stages: RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.35; 820 participants; stage 1 pressure ulcers: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.68; 820 participants; stage 2 pressure ulcers: RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.65; 820 participants). We assessed the certainty of the evidence as low (downgraded once for study limitations and once for imprecision).The studies did not report the secondary outcomes of time to ulcer development, or pressure ulcer prevalence.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We identified two studies which evaluated the effect of risk assessment on pressure ulcer incidence. Based on evidence from one study, we are uncertain whether risk assessment using the Braden tool makes any difference to pressure ulcer incidence, compared with training and risk assessment using clinical judgement, or risk assessment using clinical judgement alone. Risk assessment using the Waterlow tool, or the Ramstadius tool may make little or no difference to pressure ulcer incidence, or severity, compared with clinical judgement. The low, or very low certainty of evidence available from the included studies is not reliable enough to suggest that the use of structured and systematic pressure ulcer risk assessment tools reduces the incidence, or severity of pressure ulcers.
Topics: Humans; Incidence; Pressure Ulcer; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 30702158
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006471.pub4 -
Wounds : a Compendium of Clinical... Aug 2019Pressure injury is one of the most prevalent skin injuries and a great challenge in the hospital environment. The implementation of preventive measures contributes to... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial
INTRODUCTION
Pressure injury is one of the most prevalent skin injuries and a great challenge in the hospital environment. The implementation of preventive measures contributes to reducing its occurrence.
OBJECTIVE
This study compares the protective effect of 2 adhesive dressings used in the prevention of pressure injuries in at-risk patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This case series was conducted at a university hospital in southeastern Brazil with 80 hospitalized adult patients at risk for pressure injuries, as per the Braden Scale for Predicting Pressure Sore Risk. Patients were randomized to preventive intervention with either hydrocellular foam (n = 40) or hydrocolloid plate (n = 40) dressing, which was applied to the intact skin over the sacrum and trochanters and changed weekly over 8 weeks.
RESULTS
Of the patients, 56.5% were women, 64.5% were 60 years of age or older, 58.1% were admitted to an intensive care unit, and 63.9% were at high risk for pressure injuries. None of the patients developed a pressure injury. However, the presence of blanchable erythema, desquamation, pruritus, discomfort during dressing removal, and skin damage caused by the strong adhesiveness of the dressings were observed in both groups. In the hydrocolloid plate group, patients reported significantly more discomfort during dressing removal due to its strong adhesion to the skin (P = .004) than those in the hydrocellular foam group.
CONCLUSIONS
Standard preventive measures combined with the use of either hydrocellular foam or hydrocolloid plate contributed to the prevention of pressure injuries in at-risk patients, with hydrocolloid plate being associated with significantly more discomfort during dressing removal.
Topics: Aged; Bandages; Bandages, Hydrocolloid; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Pressure Ulcer; Treatment Outcome; Wound Healing
PubMed: 31184996
DOI: No ID Found