-
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 We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned the reference lists of included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses, and health technology reports to identify additional studies.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Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster-randomised trials (c-RCTs), published or unpublished, that assessed the effects of any repositioning schedule or different patient positions and measured PI incidence in adults in any setting.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 -
American Journal of Critical Care : An... Sep 2022Hospital-acquired pressure injuries, including those related to airway devices, are a significant source of morbidity in critically ill patients. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Hospital-acquired pressure injuries, including those related to airway devices, are a significant source of morbidity in critically ill patients.
OBJECTIVE
To determine the incidence of endotracheal tube-related pressure injuries in critically ill patients and to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions designed to prevent injury.
METHODS
MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies of pediatric or adult patients in intensive care units that evaluated interventions to reduce endotracheal tube-related pressure injury. Reviewers extracted data on study and patient characteristics, incidence of pressure injury, type and duration of intervention, and outcomes. Risk of bias assessment followed the Cochrane Collaboration's criteria.
RESULTS
Twelve studies (5 randomized clinical trials, 3 quasi-experimental, 4 observational) representing 9611 adult and 152 pediatric patients met eligibility criteria. The incidence of pressure injury was 4.2% for orotracheal tubes and 21.1% for nasotracheal tubes. Interventions included anchor devices, serial endotracheal tube assessment or repositioning, and barrier dressings for nasotracheal tubes. Meta-analysis revealed that endotracheal tube stabilization was the most effective individual intervention for preventing pressure injury. Nasal alar barrier dressings decreased the incidence of skin or mucosal injury in patients undergoing nasotracheal intubation, and data on effectiveness of serial assessment and repositioning were inconclusive.
CONCLUSIONS
Airway device-related pressure injuries are common in critically ill patients, and patients with nasotracheal tubes are particularly susceptible to iatrogenic harm. Fastening devices and barrier dressings decrease the incidence of injury. Evidence regarding interventions is limited by lack of standardized assessments.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Critical Illness; Incidence; Intensive Care Units; Intubation, Intratracheal; Pressure Ulcer
PubMed: 36045034
DOI: 10.4037/ajcc2022644 -
International Journal of Nursing Studies Sep 2023Evidence-based pressure injury prevention and management is a global health service priority. Low uptake of pressure injury guidelines leads to compromised patient... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Evidence-based pressure injury prevention and management is a global health service priority. Low uptake of pressure injury guidelines leads to compromised patient outcomes. Understanding clinicians' and patients' views on the barriers and facilitators to implementing guidelines and mapping the identified barriers and facilitators to the Theoretical Domains Framework and behaviour change techniques will inform an end-user and theoretically informed intervention to improve guideline uptake in the acute care setting.
OBJECTIVES
To synthesise quantitative and qualitative evidence on i) hospital clinicians' and inpatients' perceptions and experiences of evidence-based pressure injury practices and ii) barriers and facilitators to implementing guidelines.
DESIGN
A convergent integrated mixed-methods systematic review was conducted using the JBI approach.
DATA SOURCE
English language peer-reviewed studies published from 2009 to August 2022 were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Cochrane Central Library.
REVIEW METHODS
Included studies reported: i) acute care hospital clinicians' and patients' perceptions and experiences of evidence-based pressure injury practices and ii) barriers and facilitators to implementing guidelines. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used for critical appraisal. Quantitative data was transformed into qualitised data, then thematically synthesised with qualitative data, comparing clinicians' and patients' views. Barriers and facilitators associated with each main theme were mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework and allocated to relevant behaviour change techniques.
RESULTS
Fifty-five out of 14,488 studies of variable quality (29 quantitative, 22 qualitative, 4 mixed-methods) met the inclusion criteria. Four main themes represent factors thought to influence the implementation of evidence-based guidelines: 1) nurse-led multidisciplinary care, 2) patient participation in care, 3) practicability of implementation and 4) attitudes towards pressure injury prevention and management. Most barriers identified by clinicians were related to the third theme, whilst for patients, there were multiple barriers under theme 2. Barriers were mainly mapped to the Knowledge domain and Environmental Context and Resources domain and were matched to the behaviour change techniques of "instruction on how to perform a behaviour" and "restructuring the physical environment". Most facilitators mentioned by clinicians and patients were related to themes 1 and 2, respectively, and mapped to the Environmental Context and Resources domain. All patient-related attitudes in theme 4 were facilitators.
CONCLUSIONS
These review findings highlight the most influential factors related to implementing evidence-based pressure injury care from clinicians' and patients' views and mapping these factors to the Theoretical Domains Framework and behaviour change techniques has contributed to developing a stakeholder-tailored implementation intervention in acute care settings.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION
CRD42021250885.
Topics: Humans; Pressure Ulcer; Inpatients
PubMed: 37453248
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2023.104557 -
Journal of Clinical Nursing Oct 2023Current evidence shows that medical device-related pressure injury (MDRPI) has a high prevalence (10%) and incidence (12%), and much research has been done to prevent... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Current evidence shows that medical device-related pressure injury (MDRPI) has a high prevalence (10%) and incidence (12%), and much research has been done to prevent MDRPI in recent years. However, to our knowledge, there is limited systematic review available on interventions and strategies to prevent MDRPI.
AIM
To synthesise research evidence on interventions and strategies used to prevent MDRPI.
METHODS
This systematic review adhered to the PRISMA Guidelines. We searched six databases including Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane library, Web of Science and ProQuest with no restriction to year of publication. Data were extracted and checked by two authors independently. A narrative summary technique was used to describe the findings. Implementation strategies were grouped into six classifications: dissemination/implementation process/integration/capacity building/sustainability/scale-up strategies.
RESULTS
Twenty-four peer-reviewed papers met the inclusion criteria, which comprised of 11 quality improvement projects and 13 original research. Types of devices included respiratory devices (non-invasive ventilation mask, CPAP/BiPAP mask, endotracheal tube), gastrointestinal/urinary devices and other devices. Interventions used included the use of dressing, hyperoxygenated fatty acids, full-face mask, training, and/or multidisciplinary education, use of special securement devices or tube holder, repositioning, application of stockinette, early removal and foam ring use. Common implementation strategies included ongoing staff education, audit and standardising documentation or guideline development.
CONCLUSION
Much work on MDRPI prevention strategies has been undertaken. There were a variety of devices reported, however, it is evident that higher quality research is needed.
RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE
Current evidence shows that interventions including use of dressing or special securement device, repositioning, and training/multidisciplinary education can be beneficial for MDRPI prevention. High-quality research, such as randomised controlled trials are needed to test the effectiveness of the interventions and their implementation strategies. No patient or public contribution.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Pressure Ulcer; Bandages
PubMed: 37300246
DOI: 10.1111/jocn.16790 -
Australian Critical Care : Official... Mar 2022The aim of the study was to investigate the effectiveness of interventions to prevent pressure injury in adults admitted to intensive care settings. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Effectiveness of interventions to prevent pressure injury in adults admitted to intensive care settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of the study was to investigate the effectiveness of interventions to prevent pressure injury in adults admitted to intensive care settings.
REVIEW METHOD USED
This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
DATA SOURCES
Five databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase) were searched in mid-2019. Searches were updated (in April 2020) to year end 2019.
REVIEW METHODS
From an overarching systematic review and meta-analysis examining the effectiveness of pressure injury preventative interventions in adults admitted to acute hospital settings, trials conducted in intensive care were separated for an intensive care-specific synthesis. Two reviewers, with a third as an arbitrator, undertook study selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment. Included trials were grouped by intervention type for narrative synthesis and for random-effects meta-analysis using intention-to-treat data where appropriate.
RESULTS
Overall, 26 trials were included. Ten intervention types were found (support surfaces, prophylactic dressings, positioning, topical preparations, continence management, endotracheal tube securement, heel protection devices, medication, noninvasive ventilation masks, and bundled interventions). All trials, except one, were at high or unclear risk of bias. Four intervention types (endotracheal tube securement, heel protection devices, medication, and noninvasive ventilation masks) comprised single trials. Support surface trials were limited to type (active, reactive, seating, other). Meta-analysis was undertaken for reactive surfaces, but the intervention effect was not significant (risk ratio = 0.24, p = 0.12, I = 51%). Meta-analyses demonstrated the effectiveness of sacral (risk ratio = 0.22, p < 0.001, I = 0%) and heel (risk ratio = 0.31, p = 0.02; I = 0%) prophylactic dressings for pressure injury prevention.
CONCLUSIONS
Only prophylactic sacral and heel dressings demonstrated effectiveness in preventing pressure injury in adults admitted to intensive care settings. Further intensive care-specific trials are required across all intervention types. To minimise bias, we recommend that all future trials are conducted and reported as per relevant guidelines and recommendations.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Bandages; Critical Care; Hospitalization; Noninvasive Ventilation; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Pressure Ulcer
PubMed: 34144865
DOI: 10.1016/j.aucc.2021.04.007 -
Nursing Open Nov 2022Pressure injuries (PIs) are one of the most common complications related to immobility, especially in hospitalized patients, which lead to increased morbidity, infection... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
Pressure injuries (PIs) are one of the most common complications related to immobility, especially in hospitalized patients, which lead to increased morbidity, infection and overall decreased quality of life. Arginine supplementation may prevent the development of PIs. This study has summarized the findings of studies on the effect of arginine supplementation on PI healing.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
This study was conducted on online electronic databases including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar and Embase to identify relevant clinical trial studies up to September 2020. The pooled effect size of arginine supplement effects on PI was evaluated with standard mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS
Eight studies met the inclusion criteria for this meta-analysis with 196 patients. PIs were significantly improved with Arginine supplementation (SMD: -0.6; CI 95%: -0.9 to -0.3, I : 72.5%, p = .001). Subgroup analysis showed that administering Arginine supplement more than 15 g/day had more beneficial effects on the healing of PIs (SMD: -2.8; CI 95%: -4.08 to -1.52, I : 54.7%, p = .138).
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings suggest that the administration of Arginine supplement in patients with PIs can accelerate the healing of this type of ulcer. Arginine is a supplement, and primary treatment is still needed to optimize PI healing. Therefore, arginine supplementation in addition to primary treatment seems to be an appropriate approach for the healing of PIs. Further well-designed studies are necessary to prevent the development of PIs compared to their primary treatment.
Topics: Humans; Arginine; Dietary Supplements; Enteral Nutrition; Quality of Life; Wound Healing; Pressure Ulcer
PubMed: 34170617
DOI: 10.1002/nop2.974 -
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 -
Impact of evidence-based bundles on ventilator-associated pneumonia prevention: A systematic review.Journal of Infection in Developing... Feb 2023This review aimed at investigating the impact of bundle components on the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in adults and the elderly.
INTRODUCTION
This review aimed at investigating the impact of bundle components on the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in adults and the elderly.
METHODOLOGY
The databases consulted were PubMed, EBSCO, and Scielo. The terms Bundle and Pneumonia were searched in combination. The original articles were selected in Spanish and English; published between January 2008 and December 2017. After eliminating the duplicate papers, an analysis of the titles and the abstracts was performed in order to select the assessed articles. A total of 18 articles were included in this review that were evaluated according to the following criteria: research reference, country of data collection, type of study, characteristics of the studied patients, analysis and intervention performed, bundle items investigated and their results, and research outcome.
RESULTS
Four bundle items were presented in all the investigated papers. 61% of those works were considered from seven to eight bundle items. Daily evaluation of sedation interruption and daily assessment for verifying extubation condition, head-of-bed elevation at 30 degrees, cuff pressure monitoring, coagulation prophylaxis, and oral hygiene were the most reported bundle items. One study described the increased mortality of patients under mechanical ventilation when omitted the bundle items of oral hygiene and stress ulcer prophylaxis. Head-of-bed elevation at 30 degrees was the item reported in 100% of the studied papers.
CONCLUSIONS
Existing research demonstrated that VAP reduction occurred when bundle items were performed for adults and the elderly. Four works showed the relevance of team education as a central approach to the event reduction related to the ventilator.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Aged; Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated; Intensive Care Units; Respiration, Artificial; Ventilators, Mechanical; Peptic Ulcer
PubMed: 36897895
DOI: 10.3855/jidc.12202 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2023Pressure ulcers, also known as bedsores, pressure sores, or pressure injuries, are localised damage to the skin and underlying soft tissue, usually caused by intense or... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pressure ulcers, also known as bedsores, pressure sores, or pressure injuries, are localised damage to the skin and underlying soft tissue, usually caused by intense or long-term pressure, shear, or friction. Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) has been widely used in the treatment of pressure ulcers, but its effect needs to be further clarified. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2015.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness of NPWT for treating adult with pressure ulcers in any care setting.
SEARCH METHODS
On 13 January 2022, 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 ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP Search Portal 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 published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of NPWT with alternative treatments or different types of NPWT in the treatment of adults with pressure ulcers (stage II or above).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently conducted study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and the certainty of the evidence assessment using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) methodology. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion with a third review author.
MAIN RESULTS
This review included eight RCTs with a total of 327 randomised participants. Six of the eight included studies were deemed to be at a high risk of bias in one or more risk of bias domains, and evidence for all outcomes of interest was deemed to be of very low certainty. Most studies had small sample sizes (range: 12 to 96, median: 37 participants). Five studies compared NPWT with dressings, but only one study reported usable primary outcome data (complete wound healing and adverse events). This study had only 12 participants and there were very few events; only one participant was healed in the study (risk ratio (RR) 3.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 61.74, very low-certainly evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in the number of participants with adverse events in the NPWT group and the dressing group, but the evidence for this outcome was also assessed as very low certainty (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.44, very low-certainty evidence). Changes in ulcer size, pressure ulcer severity, cost, and pressure ulcer scale for healing (PUSH) sores were also reported, but we were unable to draw conclusions due to the low certainly of the evidence. One study compared NPWT with a series of gel treatments, but this study provided no usable data. Another study compared NPWT with 'moist wound healing', which did not report primary outcome data. Changes in ulcer size and cost were reported in this study, but we assessed the evidence as being of very low certainty; One study compared NPWT combined with internet-plus home care with standard care, but no primary outcome data were reported. Changes in ulcer size, pain, and dressing change times were reported, but we also assessed the evidence as being of very low certainty. None of the included studies reported time to complete healing, health-related quality of life, wound infection, or wound recurrence.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The efficacy, safety, and acceptability of NPWT in treating pressure ulcers compared to usual care are uncertain due to the lack of key data on complete wound healing, adverse events, time to complete healing, and cost-effectiveness. Compared with usual care, using NPWT may speed up the reduction of pressure ulcer size and severity of pressure ulcer, reduce pain, and dressing change times. Still, trials were small, poorly described, had short follow-up times, and with a high risk of bias; any conclusions drawn from the current evidence should be interpreted with considerable caution. In the future, high-quality research with large sample sizes and low risk of bias is still needed to further verify the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of NPWT in the treatment of pressure ulcers. Future researchers need to recognise the importance of complete and accurate reporting of clinically important outcomes such as the complete healing rate, healing time, and adverse events.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Bandages; Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy; Pressure Ulcer; Surgical Wound Infection; Ulcer
PubMed: 37232410
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011334.pub3 -
International Wound Journal Nov 2023We aimed to review and synthesise the evidence of the interventions of patients' and informal caregivers' engagement in managing chronic wounds at home. The research... (Review)
Review
We aimed to review and synthesise the evidence of the interventions of patients' and informal caregivers' engagement in managing chronic wounds at home. The research team used a systematic review methodology based on an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (PRISMA) and recommendations from the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial of the Cochrane Library, Pubmed, Embase, CINAHL, Wanfang (Chinese), and CNKI database (Chinese) were searched from inception to May 2022. The following MESH terms were used: wound healing, pressure ulcer, leg ulcer, diabetic foot, skin ulcer, surgical wound, educational, patient education, counselling, self-care, self-management, social support, and family caregiver. Experimental studies involving participants with chronic wounds (not at risk of wounds) and their informal caregivers were screened. Data were extracted and the narrative was synthesised from the findings of included studies. By screening the above databases, 790 studies were retrieved, and 16 met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Studies were 6 RCTs and ten non-RCTs. Outcomes of chronic wound management included patient indicators, wound indicators, and family/caregiver indicators. Home-based interventions of patients or informal caregivers' engagement in managing chronic wounds at home may effectively improve patient outcomes and change wound care behaviour. What's more, educational/behavioural interventions were the primary type of intervention. Multiform integration of education and skills training on wound care and aetiology-based treatment was delivered to patients and caregivers. Besides, there are no studies entirely targeting elderly patients. Home-based chronic wound care training was important to patients with chronic wounds and their family caregivers, which may advance wound management outcomes. However, the findings of this systematic review were based on relatively small studies. We need more exploration of self and family-oriented interventions in the future, especially for older people affected by chronic wounds.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Caregivers; Social Support; Self Care; Pressure Ulcer; Skin Ulcer
PubMed: 37277908
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.14219