-
International Journal of Nursing Studies May 2020Pressure injuries are frequently occurred adverse events in hospitals, affecting the well-being of patients and causing considerable financial burden to healthcare... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Pressure injuries are frequently occurred adverse events in hospitals, affecting the well-being of patients and causing considerable financial burden to healthcare systems. However, the estimates of prevalence, incidence and hospital-acquired rate of pressure injury in hospitalised patients vary considerably in relevant published studies.
OBJECTIVES
To systematically quantify the prevalence and incidence of pressure injuries and the hospital-acquired pressure injuries rate in hospitalised adult patients and identify the most frequently occurring pressure injury stage(s) and affected anatomical location(s).
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and ProQuest databases from January 2008 to December 2018.
REVIEW METHODS
We included studies with observational, cross-sectional or longitudinal designs, reporting pressure injury among hospitalised adults (≥16 years) and published in English. Outcomes were point prevalence, incidence of pressure injuries and the hospital-acquired pressure injuries rate reported as percentages. Two reviewers independently appraised the methodological quality of included studies. Heterogeneity was assessed by using the I² statistic and random effects models were employed. Sources of heterogeneity were investigated by subgroup analysis and meta-regression.
RESULTS
Of 7,489 studies identified, 42 were included in the systematic review and 39 of them were eligible for meta-analysis, with a total sample of 2,579,049 patients. The pooled prevalence of 1,366,848 patients was 12.8% (95% CI 11.8-13.9%); pooled incidence rate of 681,885 patients was 5.4 per 10,000 patient-days (95% CI 3.4-7.8) and pooled hospital-acquired pressure injuries rate of 1,893,593 was 8.4% (95% CI 7.6-9.3%). Stages were reported in 16 studies (132,530 patients with 12,041 pressure injuries). The most frequently occurred stages were Stage I (43.5%) and Stage II (28.0%). The most affected body sites were sacrum, heels and hip. Significant heterogeneity was noted across some geographic regions. Meta-regression showed that the year of data collection, mean age and gender were independent predictors, explaining 67% variability in the prevalence of pressure injuries. The year of data collection and age alone explained 93% of variability in hospital-acquired pressure injuries rate.
CONCLUSION
This study suggested that the burden of pressure injuries remains substantial with over one in ten adult patients admitted to hospitals affected. Superficial pressure injuries, such as Stage I and II, are most common stages and are preventable. Our results highlight healthcare institutions' focus on pressure injuries globally and supports the need to dedicate resources to prevention and treatment on pressure injuries. Registration number: PROSPERO CRD42019118774.
Topics: Global Health; Hospitalization; Humans; Incidence; Pressure Ulcer; Prevalence
PubMed: 32113142
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103546 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2021Pressure ulcers (also known as pressure injuries, pressure sores and bed sores) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both, caused by... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pressure ulcers (also known as pressure injuries, pressure sores and bed sores) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both, caused by unrelieved pressure, shear or friction. Specific kinds of beds, overlays and mattresses are widely used with the aim of preventing and treating pressure ulcers.
OBJECTIVES
To summarise evidence from Cochrane Reviews that assess the effects of beds, overlays and mattresses on reducing the incidence of pressure ulcers and on increasing pressure ulcer healing in any setting and population. To assess the relative effects of different types of beds, overlays and mattresses for reducing the incidence of pressure ulcers and increasing pressure ulcer healing in any setting and population. To cumulatively rank the different treatment options of beds, overlays and mattresses in order of their effectiveness in pressure ulcer prevention and treatment.
METHODS
In July 2020, we searched the Cochrane Library. Cochrane Reviews reporting the effectiveness of beds, mattresses or overlays for preventing or treating pressure ulcers were eligible for inclusion in this overview. Two review authors independently screened search results and undertook data extraction and risk of bias assessment using the ROBIS tool. We summarised the reported evidence in an overview of reviews. Where possible, we included the randomised controlled trials from each included review in network meta-analyses. We assessed the relative effectiveness of beds, overlays and mattresses for preventing or treating pressure ulcers and their probabilities of being, comparably, the most effective treatment. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We include six Cochrane Reviews in this overview of reviews, all at low or unclear risk of bias. Pressure ulcer prevention: four reviews (of 68 studies with 18,174 participants) report direct evidence for 27 pairwise comparisons between 12 types of support surface on the following outcomes: pressure ulcer incidence, time to pressure ulcer incidence, patient comfort response, adverse event rates, health-related quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. Here we focus on outcomes with some evidence at a minimum of low certainty. (1) Pressure ulcer incidence: our overview includes direct evidence for 27 comparisons that mostly (19/27) have very low-certainty evidence concerning reduction of pressure ulcer risk. We included 40 studies (12,517 participants; 1298 participants with new ulcers) in a network meta-analysis involving 13 types of intervention. Data informing the network are sparse and this, together with the high risk of bias in most studies informing the network, means most network contrasts (64/78) yield evidence of very low certainty. There is low-certainty evidence that, compared with foam surfaces (reference treatment), reactive air surfaces (e.g. static air overlays) (risk ratio (RR) 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.75), alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (e.g. alternating pressure air mattresses, large-celled ripple mattresses) (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.93), and reactive gel surfaces (e.g. gel pads used on operating tables) (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.01) may reduce pressure ulcer incidence. The ranking of treatments in terms of effectiveness is also of very low certainty for all interventions. It is unclear which treatment is best for preventing ulceration. (2) Time to pressure ulcer incidence: four reviews had direct evidence on this outcome for seven comparisons. We included 10 studies (7211 participants; 699 participants with new ulcers) evaluating six interventions in a network meta-analysis. Again, data from most network contrasts (13/15) are of very low certainty. There is low-certainty evidence that, compared with foam surfaces (reference treatment), reactive air surfaces may reduce the hazard of developing new pressure ulcers (hazard ratio (HR) 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.05). The ranking of all support surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers in terms of time to healing is uncertain. (3) Cost-effectiveness: this overview includes direct evidence for three comparisons. For preventing pressure ulcers, alternating pressure air surfaces are probably more cost-effective than foam surfaces (moderate-certainty evidence). Pressure ulcer treatment: two reviews (of 12 studies with 972 participants) report direct evidence for five comparisons on: complete pressure ulcer healing, time to complete pressure ulcer healing, patient comfort response, adverse event rates, and cost-effectiveness. Here we focus on outcomes with some evidence at a minimum of low certainty. (1) Complete pressure ulcer healing: our overview includes direct evidence for five comparisons. There is uncertainty about the relative effects of beds, overlays and mattresses on ulcer healing. The corresponding network meta-analysis (with four studies, 397 participants) had only three direct contrasts and a total of six network contrasts. Again, most network contrasts (5/6) have very low-certainty evidence. There was low-certainty evidence that more people with pressure ulcers may heal completely using reactive air surfaces than using foam surfaces (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.80). We are uncertain which surfaces have the highest probability of being the most effective (all very low-certainty evidence). (2) Time to complete pressure ulcer healing: this overview includes direct evidence for one comparison: people using reactive air surfaces may be more likely to have healed pressure ulcers compared with those using foam surfaces in long-term care settings (HR 2.66, 95% CI 1.34 to 5.17; low-certainty evidence). (3) Cost-effectiveness: this overview includes direct evidence for one comparison: compared with foam surfaces, reactive air surfaces may cost an extra 26 US dollars for every ulcer-free day in the first year of use in long-term care settings (low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Compared with foam surfaces, reactive air surfaces may reduce pressure ulcer risk and may increase complete ulcer healing. Compared with foam surfaces, alternating pressure air surfaces may reduce pressure ulcer risk and are probably more cost-effective in preventing pressure ulcers. Compared with foam surfaces, reactive gel surfaces may reduce pressure ulcer risk, particularly for people in operating rooms and long-term care settings. There are uncertainties for the relative effectiveness of other support surfaces for preventing and treating pressure ulcers, and their efficacy ranking. More high-quality research is required; for example, for the comparison of reactive air surfaces with alternating pressure air surfaces. Future studies should consider time-to-event outcomes and be designed to minimise any risk of bias.
Topics: Bedding and Linens; Beds; Humans; Incidence; Network Meta-Analysis; Pressure Ulcer; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34398473
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013761.pub2 -
Journal of Clinical Nursing Apr 2020Despite decades of research, pressure injuries continue to be a source of significant pain and delayed recovery for patients and substantial quality and cost issues for... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Despite decades of research, pressure injuries continue to be a source of significant pain and delayed recovery for patients and substantial quality and cost issues for hospitals. Consideration of the current thinking around pressure injury risk must be evaluated to improve risk assessments and subsequent nursing interventions aimed at reducing hospital-acquired pressure injuries.
DESIGN
This is a discursive paper using Walker and Avant's (2005) theory synthesis framework to examine the relevance of existing pressure injury models as they align with the current literature.
METHODS
PubMed and CINAHL indexes were searched, first for conceptual models and then for pressure injury research conducted on hospitalised patients for the years 2006-2016. A synthesis of the searches culminated into a new pressure injury risk model.
CONCLUSIONS
Gaps in previous models include lack of attention to the environment, contributing episode-of-care factors and the dynamic nature of injury risk for patients. Through theory synthesis, the need for a new model representing the full risk for pressure injury was identified. The Pressure Injury Predictive Model is a representation of the complex and dynamic nature of pressure injury risk that builds on previous models and addresses new patient, contextual and episode-of-care process influences. The Pressure Injury Predictive Model (PIPM) provides a more accurate picture of the complexity of contextual and process factors associated with pressure injury development.
RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE
Using the PIPM to determine risk can result in improved risk identification. This information can be used to implement targeted, evidence-based pressure injury prevention interventions specific to the patient risk profile, thus limiting unwarranted and unnecessary care.
Topics: Evidence-Based Nursing; Hospitalization; Humans; Nursing Theory; Pressure Ulcer; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 31889342
DOI: 10.1111/jocn.15171 -
International Journal of Environmental... Jan 2022Pressure injuries remain a serious health complication for patients and nursing staff. Evidence from the past decade has not been analysed through narrative synthesis... (Review)
Review
Pressure injuries remain a serious health complication for patients and nursing staff. Evidence from the past decade has not been analysed through narrative synthesis yet. PubMed, Embase, CINAHL Complete, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and other reviews/sources were screened. Risk of bias was evaluated using a slightly modified QUIPS tool. Risk factor domains were used to assign (non)statistically independent risk factors. Hence, 67 studies with 679,660 patients were included. In low to moderate risk of bias studies, non-blanchable erythema reliably predicted pressure injury stage 2. Factors influencing mechanical boundary conditions, e.g., higher interface pressure or BMI < 18.5, as well as factors affecting interindividual susceptibility (male sex, older age, anemia, hypoalbuminemia, diabetes, hypotension, low physical activity, existing pressure injuries) and treatment-related aspects, such as length of stay in intensive care units, were identified as possible risk factors for pressure injury development. Health care professionals' evidence-based knowledge of above-mentioned risk factors is vital to ensure optimal prevention and/or treatment. Openly accessible risk factors, e.g., sex, age, BMI, pre-existing diabetes, and non-blanchable erythema, can serve as yellow flags for pressure injury development. Close communication concerning further risk factors, e.g., anemia, hypoalbuminemia, or low physical activity, may optimize prevention and/or treatment. Further high-quality evidence is warranted.
Topics: Adult; Health Personnel; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Male; Pressure Ulcer; Risk Factors
PubMed: 35055583
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19020761 -
Journal of Wound Care Sep 2020The aim of this systematic review was to assess the effects of different repositioning regimens on pressure ulcer (PU) incidence in at-risk adult individuals without... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this systematic review was to assess the effects of different repositioning regimens on pressure ulcer (PU) incidence in at-risk adult individuals without existing PUs.
METHOD
Using systematic review methodology, randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster-RCTs, prospective non-RCTs, pre-post-studies and interrupted-time-series studies were considered. Specifically explored was the impact of the frequency of repositioning, use of repositioning systems and use of turning teams. The search was conducted in January 2019, using PubMed, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Cochrane and EMBASE databases. Data were extracted using a pre-designed extraction tool and analysis was undertaken using RevMan.
RESULTS
A total of 530 records were returned, of which 16 met the inclusion criteria. Half of studies were conducted in intensive care units (50%). The mean sample size was 629±604 participants. Frequency of repositioning was explored in nine studies. PU incidence was 8% (n=221/2834) for repositioning every 2-3 hours, versus 13% (n=398/3050) for repositioning every 4-6 hours. The odds ratio (OR) was 0.75 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.61-0.90, p=0.03), suggesting that there is a 25% reduction in the odds of PU development in favour of more frequent repositioning. Use of a repositioning system was explored in three studies. PU incidence was 2% (17/865) for the repositioning system, versus 5.5% (51/926) for care without using the repositioning system. The OR was 0.26 (95% CI: 0.05-1.29, p=0.10); this finding was not statistically significant. Use of a turning team was explored in two studies. PU incidence was 11% (n=22/200) with use of a turning team versus 20% (n=40/200) for usual care. The OR was 0.49 (95% CI: 0.27-0.86, p=0.01) suggesting that there is a 51% reduction in the odds of PU development in favour of use of a turning team. Using GRADE appraisal, the certainty of the evidence was assessed as low.
CONCLUSION
The results of this systematic review indicate that more frequent repositioning and use of a turning team reduce PU incidence. However, given the low certainty of evidence, results should be interpreted with caution.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Moving and Lifting Patients; Pressure Ulcer
PubMed: 32924821
DOI: 10.12968/jowc.2020.29.9.496 -
Critical Care Nursing Clinics of North... Dec 2020Pressure injuries are areas of damage to the skin and underlying tissue caused by pressure or pressure in combination with shear. Pressure injury prevention in the... (Review)
Review
Pressure injuries are areas of damage to the skin and underlying tissue caused by pressure or pressure in combination with shear. Pressure injury prevention in the critical care population necessitates risk assessment, selection of appropriate preventive interventions, and ongoing assessment to determine the adequacy of the preventive interventions. Best practices in preventive interventions among critical care patients, including skin and tissue assessment, skin care, repositioning, nutrition, support surfaces, and early mobilization, are described. Unique considerations in special populations including older adults and individuals with obesity are also addressed.
Topics: Age Factors; Critical Care; Humans; Patient Positioning; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Pressure Ulcer; Risk Assessment; Skin Care
PubMed: 33129409
DOI: 10.1016/j.cnc.2020.08.001 -
Critical Care Nursing Clinics of North... Dec 2020There are well-documented physiologic changes that occur in the human body during the aging process, such as decreased body fat, decreased muscle mass, cellular... (Review)
Review
There are well-documented physiologic changes that occur in the human body during the aging process, such as decreased body fat, decreased muscle mass, cellular senescence, changes in skin pH, decreased metabolism, decreased immune function, vascular changes, altered tissue perfusion, nutritional status changes, and poor hydration. These changes affect skin integrity and wound healing, and raise the risk of pressure-related skin injury. This article discusses aging as a risk factor for pressure injury (PrI). Topics include evidence for advancing age as a significant PrI risk factor, identifying pathophysiologic changes/mechanisms of aging, and specific PrI preventive interventions to consider in older adults.
Topics: Aged; Aging; Humans; Nutritional Status; Pressure Ulcer; Risk Factors; Skin Care; Wound Healing
PubMed: 33129417
DOI: 10.1016/j.cnc.2020.08.009 -
British Journal of Community Nursing Jan 2020Good skin integrity is vital to good health because the skin acts as a barrier to microbes and toxins, as well as physical stressors such as sunlight and radiation. It...
Good skin integrity is vital to good health because the skin acts as a barrier to microbes and toxins, as well as physical stressors such as sunlight and radiation. It is well known that the skin loses integrity with the ageing process, and this makes older adults susceptible to pressure injury. Additionally, older skin takes longer to heal where there are injuries or breaks. This article looks at what skin integrity is by briefly outlining the physiology of the skin. It discusses how skin integrity can be impaired, what can be done to maintain skin integrity and skin health, and why skin integrity is important for pressure ulcer prevention. Some of the factors that can make skin care difficult are discussed, in addition to the role of community nurses in helping patients engage in skin care. The article outlines how community nurses can identify when there is skin integrity risk or damage and support patients and carers or relatives, in maintaining skin integrity.
Topics: Aged; Aging; Community Health Nursing; Geriatric Nursing; Humans; Pressure Ulcer; Risk Factors; Self Care; Skin; Skin Care; Skin Physiological Phenomena
PubMed: 31874079
DOI: 10.12968/bjcn.2020.25.1.22 -
Journal of the American Geriatrics... Aug 2021Older adults are at high risk of developing chronic wounds due to numerous changes that occur with aging. It is reasonable to consider chronic wounds as a geriatric... (Review)
Review
Older adults are at high risk of developing chronic wounds due to numerous changes that occur with aging. It is reasonable to consider chronic wounds as a geriatric syndrome-highly prevalent, multifactorial, and associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Due to the morbidity and cost associated with chronic wounds, prevention, early diagnosis, and treatment are important. The most common chronic wounds presenting in older adults are pressure and vascular wounds, including those associated with diabetes. Atypical wounds are also common and should raise the suspicion for skin malignancy. Diagnosis is primarily clinical and assessment should include documentation of wound characteristics, such as location, size and depth, presence of slough, drainage, odor, and infection. The mainstay of treatment is based on the TIME principle: Tissue debridement, Infection control, Moisture balance, and optimal wound Edges. The use of protein supplements has been shown to improve wound healing in subsets of older adults. In addition to wound care and optimizing nutrition, disease-specific wound therapy forms an integral part of wound management. Pressure reduction for pressure injury, compression therapy for venous wounds, evaluation of arterial circulation with ABI or arterial Doppler and iCC for diabetic ulcers form the mainstays of therapy. Atypical wounds may present as chronic ulcers and should be biopsied. The goals of treatment should be realistic and for some older adults, palliative wound management may be more appropriate.
Topics: Aged; Chronic Disease; Debridement; Drainage; Humans; Hyperbaric Oxygenation; Pressure Ulcer; Wound Healing
PubMed: 34002364
DOI: 10.1111/jgs.17177 -
Advances in Skin & Wound Care Mar 2022Nutrition plays a vital role in promoting skin integrity and supporting tissue repair in the presence of chronic wounds such as pressure injuries (PIs). Individuals who... (Review)
Review
Nutrition plays a vital role in promoting skin integrity and supporting tissue repair in the presence of chronic wounds such as pressure injuries (PIs). Individuals who are malnourished are at greater risk of polymorbid conditions, adverse clinical outcomes, longer hospital lengths of stay, PI development, and mortality, and incur increased healthcare costs compared with patients who are adequately nourished. In addition, some patient populations tend to be more vulnerable to PI formation, such as neonates, patients with obesity, older adults, and individuals who are critically ill. Accordingly, this article aims to review the latest nutrition care recommendations for the prevention and treatment of PIs, including those recommendations tailored to special populations. A secondary objective is to translate nutrition recommendations into actionable steps for the healthcare professional to implement as part of a patient plan of care.Implementing an evidence-based plan of care built around individualized nutrition interventions is an essential step supporting skin integrity for these populations. The 2019 Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers/Injuries: Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) affirms that meeting nutrient requirements is essential for growth, development, maintenance, and repair of body tissues. Many macronutrients and micronutrients work synergistically to heal PIs. Registered dietitian nutritionists play an important role in helping patients identify the most nutrient dense foods, protein supplements, and oral nutrition supplements to meet their unique requirements.
Topics: Aged; Critical Illness; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Malnutrition; Micronutrients; Nutritional Status; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Pressure Ulcer
PubMed: 35188483
DOI: 10.1097/01.ASW.0000816332.60024.05