-
Journal of Wound Care Sep 2023Pressure ulcer/injury (PU) risk assessment is widely considered an essential component in clinical practice. It is a complex and broad concept that includes different...
Pressure ulcer/injury (PU) risk assessment is widely considered an essential component in clinical practice. It is a complex and broad concept that includes different approaches, such as clinical judgement, using standardised risk assessment instruments, skin assessments, or using devices to measure skin or tissue properties. A distinction between PU risk assessment and early detection is important. PU risk measures the individual's susceptibility to developing a PU under a specific exposure (primary prevention), and early detection includes the assessment of early (sub)clinical signs and symptoms to prevent progression and to support healing (secondary prevention). PU risk is measured using prognostic/risk factors or prognostic models. Every risk estimate is a probability statement containing varying degrees of uncertainty. It therefore follows that every clinical decision based on risk estimates also contains uncertainty. PU risk assessment and prevention is a complex intervention, where delivery contains several interacting components. There is a huge body of evidence indicating that risk assessment and its outcomes, the selection of preventive interventions and PU incidence are not well connected. Methods for prognostic model development and testing in PU risk research must be improved and follow state-of-the-art methodological standards. Despite these challenges, we do have substantial knowledge about PU risk factors that helps us to make better clinical decisions. An important next step in the development of PU risk prediction might be the combination of clinical and other predictors for more individualised care. Any prognostic test or procedure must lead to better prevention at an acceptable cost.
Topics: Humans; Pressure Ulcer; Risk Factors; Risk Assessment; Secondary Prevention; Skin
PubMed: 37682783
DOI: 10.12968/jowc.2023.32.9.560 -
International Wound Journal Aug 2023Pressure ulcers can develop in bedridden or immobile patients which physiotherapists frequently encounter. Although physiotherapists receive training for preventing...
Pressure ulcers can develop in bedridden or immobile patients which physiotherapists frequently encounter. Although physiotherapists receive training for preventing pressure ulcers, there is limited evidence of physiotherapists' knowledge level. Our study evaluated physiotherapists' pressure ulcer prevention knowledge. The level of knowledge for pressure ulcer prevention was inquired with the Turkish version of the Pressure Ulcer Prevention Knowledge Assessment Instrument (PUPKAI-T). Two hundred and sixty-five physiotherapists participated in our study. The median PUPKAI-T total score ranged from 8 to 21. Only two physiotherapists (0.8%) got good points from the questionnaire. The highest score was Nutrition (Theme 4; 59.2%), and the lowest score belonged to the contact preventive interventions that reduce pressure/shearing (Theme 5; 26.7%). The question with the lowest success rate was the positioning question of Theme 5 (Question 2; 12.5%). In our study, physiotherapists' pressure ulcer prevention knowledge was evaluated with a relatively high number of participants compared to the literature. These results brought to mind that training programs that specifically emphasise techniques to prevent pressure ulcers and positioning manoeuvres to be organised increase the knowledge level of physiotherapists.
Topics: Humans; Physical Therapists; Pressure Ulcer; Skin Care; Surveys and Questionnaires; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice
PubMed: 36535803
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.14049 -
International Journal of Nursing Studies Oct 2023Pressure ulcers are a major health concern. They have a significant impact on the healthcare system and individuals, reducing quality of life across several domains. In... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pressure ulcers are a major health concern. They have a significant impact on the healthcare system and individuals, reducing quality of life across several domains. In community settings, self-management behaviours are central to their prevention. However, adherence with pressure ulcer prevention guidelines remains low, with little evidence guiding the relationship between patients and healthcare professionals to establish a concordant partnership.
OBJECTIVE
To synthesise evidence on factors contributing to community-based pressure ulcer prevention using the Theoretical Domains Framework and the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, Behaviour (COM-B) model of behaviour.
DESIGN
Mixed methods systematic review and narrative synthesis.
METHOD
Systematic searches were conducted in the CINAHL, Cochrane, EMBASE, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases on 14th December 2022. Studies were eligible if they contained data on the factors associated with adherence and concordance with pressure ulcer prevention guidelines in the community for patients, caregivers, and healthcare professionals. Methodological quality was assessed using the Hawker tool. Findings were synthesised using the Theoretical Domains Framework. The resulting themes were mapped onto the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, Behaviour (COM-B) model.
RESULTS
Thirty studies were included in the review, including quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods research. The synthesis identified 12 of the 14 Theoretical Domains Framework domains, with knowledge, social influences, beliefs about consequences, and beliefs about capabilities the most prevalent. Although knowledge appears to be an important contributor to adherence with prevention guidelines, knowledge alone does not appear sufficient to achieve concordance. A concordant relationship was facilitated by healthcare professionals' knowledge, motivation to work alongside patients and their priorities, and interpersonal skills to build rapport and trust, whilst barriers included lack of healthcare professional skills to navigate sensitive issues, paternalistic views of patient compliance and organisational processes that impact building rapport.
CONCLUSIONS
Several psychosocial factors may affect the ability to achieve concordance between individuals, caregivers and healthcare professionals with pressure ulcer prevention guidelines in the community. However, data regarding the efficacy of behaviour change interventions targeting these constructs is limited, with further research required to guide intervention development in this area.
Topics: Humans; Pressure Ulcer; Quality of Life; Motivation; Health Personnel; Patient Compliance; Qualitative Research
PubMed: 37542960
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2023.104561 -
Journal of Wound Care Sep 2023
Topics: Humans; Pressure Ulcer; Curriculum
PubMed: 37682785
DOI: 10.12968/jowc.2023.32.9.598 -
International Journal of Nursing Studies Feb 2024
Topics: Humans; Pressure Ulcer; Risk Factors; Risk Assessment; Nursing Assessment
PubMed: 38096628
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2023.104646 -
British Journal of Community Nursing Jun 2024Pressure ulcers (PUs) represent a burden to the health economy and patients alike. Despite national and international guidelines regarding the management of risk, the... (Review)
Review
Pressure ulcers (PUs) represent a burden to the health economy and patients alike. Despite national and international guidelines regarding the management of risk, the incidence and prevalence across England remains high. Detecting early the risk of PUs is paramount, and requires using a valid risk assessment tool alongside clinical judgement and management of associated risk factors. There is a need to implement prevention strategies. Introducing care bundles for pressure ulcers, for example SKIN, SSKIN and most recently aSSKINg, is designed to guide clinicians and reduce variations in care. This article presents a review of the evidence on compliance with guidelines, frameworks, pathways or care bundles within primary and secondary care settings. This article focuses on the literature review that was conducted to inform a subsequent clinical audit of compliance with the aSSKINg framework in a Community NHS Foundation Trust in the South East of England.
Topics: Humans; Pressure Ulcer; England; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Guideline Adherence; Patient Care Bundles; State Medicine
PubMed: 38814848
DOI: 10.12968/bjcn.2024.29.Sup6.S16 -
International Wound Journal Sep 2023The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to provide an overview of the prevalence of pressure ulcers (PU) in orthopaedic wards. A comprehensive, systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to provide an overview of the prevalence of pressure ulcers (PU) in orthopaedic wards. A comprehensive, systematic search was conducted in different international electronic databases, such as Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, and Persian electronic databases such as Iranmedex, and Scientific Information Database (SID) using keywords extracted from Medical Subject Headings such as "Prevalence", "Pressure ulcer", "Pressure sore", and "Orthopaedics" from the earliest to February 1, 2023. The appraisal tool for cross-sectional studies (AXIS tool) evaluates the quality of the included studies. Finally, 11 studies were included in the final analysis. The results indicated that the prevalence of PU in orthopaedic departments was 18% (ES: 0.18, 95% CI: 0.10-0.26, Z = 4.53, I : 99.09%). Although the odds ratio of PU was lower in men than women, it was not statistically significant (OR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.74-1.11, Z = 0.95, I : 17.4%, P = .34). Also, results showed the prevalence of PU was higher among studies with a sample size of more than 200 (ES: 0.19, 95% CI: 0.10-0.28, Z = 4.07, I : 99.1%), Europe region (ES: 0.20, 95% CI: 0.14-0.26, Z = 6.7, I : 93.0%) and prospective design (ES: 0.23, 95% CI: 0.18-0.27, Z = 9.47, I : 83.3%) when compared with other sub-groups. In sum, considering the 18% prevalence of PU in the orthopaedic department, it is recommended to focus on detecting risk factors and design interventions to reduce PU in the patients admitted orthopaedic department.
Topics: Male; Humans; Female; Ulcer; Cross-Sectional Studies; Risk Factors; Hospitals; Europe; Pressure Ulcer
PubMed: 36960790
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.14156 -
Journal of Tissue Viability Aug 2023To systematically synthesize research evidence on barriers and facilitators to pressure injury prevention in hospital settings. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To systematically synthesize research evidence on barriers and facilitators to pressure injury prevention in hospital settings.
METHODS
A systematic literature review of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods research was undertaken using PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library. Studies that reported barriers or/and facilitators to pressure injury prevention in the acute care settings and published in English from 2008 to 2022 were included. Studies were excluded if they were conducted in residential care facilities and nursing homes, or other long-term community care settings. Two authors independently screened articles against the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Quality appraisal was conducted by two authors by using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Reported results were mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework to identify the barriers and facilitators to pressure injury prevention.
RESULTS
A total of 78 studies were included. There were 65 quantitative studies, 11 qualitative studies, and two mix-methods studies. The most salient Theoretical Domains Framework domains identified in this review were "Knowledge", "Skills", "Environmental Context and Resources", "Optimism", "Social/Professional Role and Identity", and "Social influences".
CONCLUSION
The barriers and facilitators to pressure injury prevention in hospital settings identified in this systematic review were diverse, and included issues at both individual and organizational level. Healthcare organizations can address the barriers and facilitators from the influential Theoretical Domains Framework domains. Future research is required to investigate the effectiveness of behaviour change interventions that specifically target these barriers and facilitators to pressure injury prevention.
Topics: Humans; Pressure Ulcer; Nursing Homes; Hospitals; Crush Injuries; Qualitative Research
PubMed: 37150650
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtv.2023.04.009 -
International Wound Journal Mar 2024This review aims to systematically evaluate the association between hypertension and pressure ulcer (PU). PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This review aims to systematically evaluate the association between hypertension and pressure ulcer (PU). PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched for studies from their inception until September 12, 2023. Literature search, data extraction, and quality assessment were conducted independently by two researchers. The random-effects model was used to calculate the combined odds ratio (OR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) of hypertension in patients with PU; subgroup analyses were performed to explore the source of between-study heterogeneity; sensitivity analysis was used to test the robust of the combined result; and funnel plot and Egger's test were used to assess the publication bias. Finally, a total of 19 studies with 564 716 subjects were included; the overall pooled result showed no significant association between hypertension and risk of developing PU (OR = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.90-1.47, p = 0.27); and the sensitivity analysis and publication bias analysis showed robust of the combined result. Subgroup analysis indicated a significant association between hypertension and PU when the primary disease was COVID-19 (OR = 1.73, 95% CI = 1.35-2.22, p < 0.0001). No association between hypertension and PU was seen in subgroup analysis on the patient source and study design. In sum, there is no significantly statistical association between hypertension and the occurrence of PU in most cases, while the risk of PU significantly elevates among COVID-19 patients combined with hypertension regardless of patient source and study design.
Topics: Humans; Pressure Ulcer; Hypertension; Research Design; COVID-19
PubMed: 38494175
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.14829 -
Nurse Education Today Sep 2023Morbidity and mortality among patients due to pressure injuries continue to rise. Nurses play a critical role in preventing pressure injuries. However, published results... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Morbidity and mortality among patients due to pressure injuries continue to rise. Nurses play a critical role in preventing pressure injuries. However, published results on nurses' knowledge and attitudes for pressure injury prevention are often contradictory.
OBJECTIVES
To conduct a meta-analysis of nurses' and nursing students' knowledge and attitudes toward pressure injury prevention.
DESIGN
A meta-analysis of cross-sectional studies.
DATA SOURCES
Ten databases were queried for the meta-analysis. The search period was from the time of the databases' establishment to February 2023.
REVIEW METHODS
This review followed the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. Statistical analysis was conducted with the Stata 15.0 software, and the quantitative data of knowledge and attitude toward preventing PI in all studies were summarized.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies from 9 countries were included. The meta-analysis showed that nurses and nursing students had low knowledge but positive attitudes toward pressure injury prevention. Subgroup analysis showed that the pooled proportion of both knowledge and attitudes was higher in Asia than in Europe. Nurses had higher knowledge than nursing students, however, the former had a more negative attitude than the latter. Sensitivity analyses were robust. Egger's test showed no significant publication bias.
CONCLUSION
The knowledge of nurses and nursing students about pressure injury prevention is not promising and there is an urgent need for continuous learning. Attitudes are more positive but there is room for improvement. The relevant departments should strengthen nurses' and nursing students' knowledge of pressure injury prevention and further improve their attitudes toward pressure injury prevention.
Topics: Humans; Pressure Ulcer; Clinical Competence; Students, Nursing; Cross-Sectional Studies; Nurses; Attitude of Health Personnel; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 37354659
DOI: 10.1016/j.nedt.2023.105885