-
American Family Physician Feb 2020Chronic wounds are those that do not progress through a normal, orderly, and timely sequence of repair. They are common and are often incorrectly treated. The morbidity... (Review)
Review
Chronic wounds are those that do not progress through a normal, orderly, and timely sequence of repair. They are common and are often incorrectly treated. The morbidity and associated costs of chronic wounds highlight the need to implement wound prevention and treatment guidelines. Common lower extremity wounds include arterial, diabetic, pressure, and venous ulcers. Physical examination alone can often guide the diagnosis. All patients with a nonhealing lower extremity ulcer should have a vascular assessment, including documentation of wound location, size, depth, drainage, and tissue type; palpation of pedal pulses; and measurement of the ankle-brachial index. Atypical nonhealing wounds should be biopsied. The mainstay of treatment is the TIME principle: tissue debridement, infection control, moisture balance, and edges of the wound. After these general measures have been addressed, treatment is specific to the ulcer type. Patients with arterial ulcers should be immediately referred to a vascular surgeon for appropriate intervention. Treatment of venous ulcers involves compression and elevation of the lower extremities, plus exercise if tolerated. Diabetic foot ulcers are managed by offloading the foot and, if necessary, treating the underlying peripheral arterial disease. Pressure ulcers are managed by offloading the affected area.
Topics: Chronic Disease; Diabetic Foot; Humans; Pressure Ulcer; Varicose Ulcer; Wound Healing; Wounds and Injuries
PubMed: 32003952
DOI: No ID Found -
Revista Brasileira de Enfermagem 2020To analyze the applicability of the Braden Scale to individuals admitted to an Intensive Care Unit (ICU) with the nursing diagnosis Impaired Physical Mobility, in its...
OBJECTIVE
To analyze the applicability of the Braden Scale to individuals admitted to an Intensive Care Unit (ICU) with the nursing diagnosis Impaired Physical Mobility, in its prediction potential to develop pressure ulcer (PU).
METHODS
A cross-sectional, quantitative study that evaluated all patients hospitalized in an ICU between November 2016 and February 2017, with the Braden Scale.
RESULTS
The prevalence of PU was 35.8% (24/67), in male individuals 58.3% (14/24), diagnosed with ischemic CVA 51.9% (12/27), and with hemorrhagic CVA 7.4% (2/27). Among patients classified at severe risk of developing pressure ulcer, 83.3% (20/53) developed it, and 76.7% (33/53) did not develop it.
CONCLUSION
The performance of the Braden Scale showed a balance between sensitivity and specificity, confirming it as a better predictive risk assessment instrument in this group of patients.
Topics: Cross-Sectional Studies; Humans; Male; Nursing Assessment; Predictive Value of Tests; Pressure Ulcer; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors
PubMed: 32785503
DOI: 10.1590/0034-7167-2019-0413 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
Health Technology Assessment... Sep 2019Pressure ulcers (PUs) are a burden to patients, carers and health-care providers. Specialist mattresses minimise the intensity and duration of pressure on vulnerable... (Clinical Trial)
Clinical Trial Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
Pressure ulcers (PUs) are a burden to patients, carers and health-care providers. Specialist mattresses minimise the intensity and duration of pressure on vulnerable skin sites in at-risk patients.
PRIMARY OBJECTIVE
Time to developing a new PU of category ≥ 2 in patients using an alternating pressure mattress (APM) compared with a high-specification foam mattress (HSFM).
DESIGN
A multicentre, Phase III, open, prospective, planned as an adaptive double-triangular group sequential, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial with an a priori sample size of 2954 participants. Randomisation used minimisation (incorporating a random element).
SETTING
The trial was set in 42 secondary and community inpatient facilities in the UK.
PARTICIPANTS
Adult inpatients with evidence of acute illness and at a high risk of PU development.
INTERVENTIONS AND FOLLOW-UP
APM or HSFM - the treatment phase lasted a maximum of 60 days; the final 30 days were post-treatment follow-up.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Time to event.
RESULTS
From August 2013 to November 2016, 2029 participants were randomised to receive either APM ( = 1016) or HSFM ( = 1013). Primary end point - 30-day final follow-up: of the 2029 participants in the intention-to-treat population, 160 (7.9%) developed a new PU of category ≥ 2. There was insufficient evidence of a difference between groups for time to new PU of category ≥ 2 [Fine and Gray model HR 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 1.04; exact -value of 0.0890 and 2% absolute difference]. Treatment phase sensitivity analysis: 132 (6.5%) participants developed a new PU of category ≥ 2 between randomisation and end of treatment phase. There was a statistically significant difference in the treatment phase time-to-event sensitivity analysis (Fine and Gray model HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.93; = 0.0176 and 2.6% absolute difference). Secondary end points - 30-day final follow-up: new PUs of category ≥ 1 developed in 350 (17.2%) participants, with no evidence of a difference between mattress groups in time to PU development, (Fine and Gray model HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.02; -value = 0.0733 and absolute difference 3.1%). New PUs of category ≥ 3 developed in 32 (1.6%) participants with insufficient evidence of a difference between mattress groups in time to PU development (Fine and Gray model HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.62; = 0.5530 and absolute difference 0.4%). Of the 145 pre-existing PUs of category 2, 89 (61.4%) healed - there was insufficient evidence of a difference in time to healing (Fine and Gray model HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.68; = 0.6122 and absolute difference 2.9%). Health economics - the within-trial and long-term analysis showed APM to be cost-effective compared with HSFM; however, the difference in costs models are small and the quality-adjusted life-year gains are very small. There were no safety concerns. Blinded photography substudy - the reliability of central blinded review compared with clinical assessment for PUs of category ≥ 2 was 'very good' (kappa statistic 0.82, prevalence- and bias-adjusted kappa 0.82). Quality-of-life substudy - the Pressure Ulcer Quality of Life - Prevention (PU-QoL-P) instrument meets the established criteria for reliability, construct validity and responsiveness.
LIMITATIONS
A lower than anticipated event rate.
CONCLUSIONS
In acutely ill inpatients who are bedfast/chairfast and/or have a category 1 PU and/or localised skin pain, APMs confer a small treatment phase benefit that is diminished over time. Overall, the APM patient compliance, very low PU incidence rate observed and small differences between mattresses indicate the need for improved indicators for targeting of APMs and individualised decision-making. Decisions should take into account skin status, patient preferences (movement ability and rehabilitation needs) and the presence of factors that may be potentially modifiable through APM allocation, including being completely immobile, having nutritional deficits, lacking capacity and/or having altered skin/category 1 PU.
FUTURE WORK
Explore the relationship between mental capacity, levels of independent movement, repositioning and PU development. Explore 'what works for whom and in what circumstances'.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN01151335.
FUNDING
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in ; Vol. 23, No. 52. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Beds; Female; Humans; Inpatients; Male; Middle Aged; Pressure Ulcer; Prospective Studies; United Kingdom; Young Adult
PubMed: 31559948
DOI: 10.3310/hta23520 -
Frontiers in Public Health 2022Pressure ulcers (PUs) are an indicator of the quality of nursing care and nurses can prevent PUs well if they have sufficient knowledge. Numerous studies in this field... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Pressure ulcers (PUs) are an indicator of the quality of nursing care and nurses can prevent PUs well if they have sufficient knowledge. Numerous studies in this field have reported different results. The aim of this study was to estimate the pooled score of nurses' knowledge about PU prevention based on the Pressure Ulcer Knowledge Assessment Tool (PUKAT).
METHODS
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, databases including Web of Science, ScienceDirect, PubMed, and Scopus were searched. All studies published in English between 2011 and 2022 that reported the status of nurses' knowledge of PU prevention based on PUKAT were included in the analysis. Based on heterogeneity between the studies, the data were analyzed using a random effects model.
RESULTS
The pooled scores of PU prevention knowledge in nurses and nursing students were (51.5%; 95% CI: 45.8-57.2%) and (48.9%; 95% CI: 42.5-55.2%), respectively. As the age of the participants increased, the pooled score of pressure ulcer prevention knowledge increased significantly ( = 0.028). The publication bias was not significant. The highest and lowest knowledge scores in nurses and nursing students were related to the fourth dimension (nutrition) and the fifth dimension (preventive measures to reduce the amount of pressure/shear), respectively.
CONCLUSION
Knowledge of nurses and nursing students about PU prevention is insufficient. Providing regular training to nurses and including the principles of PU prevention in the curriculum of nursing students to improve their knowledge seems necessary.
Topics: Clinical Competence; Curriculum; Humans; Pressure Ulcer; Students, Nursing; Suppuration
PubMed: 36159260
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.964680 -
International Journal of Nursing Studies Sep 2019Pressure ulcers are a global issue and substantial concern for healthcare systems. Various types of support surfaces that prevent pressure ulcer are available. Data... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
A multicentre prospective randomised controlled clinical trial comparing the effectiveness and cost of a static air mattress and alternating air pressure mattress to prevent pressure ulcers in nursing home residents.
BACKGROUND
Pressure ulcers are a global issue and substantial concern for healthcare systems. Various types of support surfaces that prevent pressure ulcer are available. Data about the effectiveness and cost of static air support surfaces and alternating air pressure mattresses is lacking.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effectiveness and cost of static air support surfaces versus alternating air pressure support surfaces in a nursing home population at high risk for pressure ulcers.
DESIGN
Prospective, multicentre, randomised controlled clinical, non-inferiority trial.
SETTING
Twenty-six nursing homes in Flanders, Belgium.
PARTICIPANTS
A consecutive sample of 308 participants was selected based on the following eligibility criteria: high risk for pressure ulcer and/or with category 1 pressure ulcer, being bedbound and/or chair bound, aged > 65 years, and use of an alternating air pressure mattress.
METHODS
The participants were allocated to the intervention group (n = 154) using static air support surfaces and the control group (n = 154) using alternating air pressure support surfaces. The main outcome measures were cumulative incidence and incidence density of the participants developing a new category II-IV pressure ulcer within a 14-day observation period, time to develop a new pressure ulcer, and purchase costs of the support surfaces.
RESULTS
The intention-to-treat analysis revealed a significantly lower incidence of category II-IV pressure ulcer in the intervention group (n = 8/154, 5.2%) than in the control group (n = 18/154, 11.7%) (p = 0.04). The median time to develop a pressure ulcer was significantly longer in the intervention group (10.5 days, interquartile range [IQR]: 1-14) than in the control group (5.4 days, [IQR]: 1-12; p = 0.05). The probability to remain pressure ulcer free differed significantly between the two study groups (log-rank X² = 4.051, df = 1, p = 0.04). The overall cost of the mattress was lower in the intervention group than in the control group.
CONCLUSIONS
A static air mattress was significantly more effective than an alternating air pressure mattress in preventing pressure ulcer in a high-risk nursing home population. Considering multiple lifespans and purchase costs, static air mattresses were more cost-effective than alternating air pressure mattresses.
Topics: Aged; Beds; Female; Humans; Inpatients; Male; Nursing Homes; Pressure Ulcer; Prospective Studies
PubMed: 31234104
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2019.05.015 -
Journal of Wound, Ostomy, and...The purpose of this study was to evaluate the implementation of pressure injury (PI) prevention strategies in adult acute care settings in the United States using the... (Observational Study)
Observational Study
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the implementation of pressure injury (PI) prevention strategies in adult acute care settings in the United States using the data from the 2018/2019 International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence (IPUP) Survey.
DESIGN
Observational, cohort study with cross-sectional data collection and retrospective data analysis.
SUBJECTS AND SETTING
The sample comprised 296,014 patients hospitalized in 1801 acute care facilities in the United States that participated in the 2018 and/or 2019 IPUP Survey. Slightly less than half (49.4%, n = 146,231) were male, 50% (n = 148,997) were female, 0.6% (n = 17,760) were unknown. Their mean age was 64.29 (SD 17.2) years.
METHODS
Data from the 2018/2019 IPUP database were analyzed to evaluate the implementation of prevention strategies including repositioning, support surface use, head-of-bed (HOB) elevation, heel elevation, moisture management, minimizing linen layers, and nutritional support. Practices were analyzed for differences between patients without pressure injuries, and patients with Stage 1 and 2 hospital-acquired pressure injury (HAPI), and those with severe HAPIs (Stage 3, Stage 4, unstageable, and deep tissue pressure injury). Acute care unit types included critical or intensive care units, medical-surgical inpatient care units, and step-down units.
RESULTS
Compliance rates to PI prevention strategies varied among patients at risk for HAPIs (Braden Scale for Pressure Sore Risk score ≤18). Daily skin assessment was performed for 86% of patients with no HAPIs and 96.8% of patients with severe HAPIs. Pressure redistribution was used in 74.6% of all patients and in over 90% of patients with severe HAPIs; however, compliance to routine repositioning was reported at lower levels between 67% and 84%, respectively. Heel elevation was reported for over 60% of the patients with severe HAPIs while 31.9% did not receive heel elevation, though only 6% were reported as not needing elevation. The majority of patients had HOB greater than the 30° at the time of the data collection; compliance with minimizing linen layers (≤3) was reported in 76% or more. Moisture management strategies were reportedly used in more than 71% of all patients and 89% for patients with severe HAPIs. Nutrition support was used for 55% to 82% of the patients and only documented as contraindicated in fewer than 2% of all groups.
CONCLUSION
Study findings revealed substantial compliance rates to PI prevention strategies. Nevertheless, there is potential for improvement in the implementation of some of the most basic prevention strategies including repositioning, heel elevation, nutritional support, and moisture management.
Topics: Adult; Cohort Studies; Critical Care; Cross-Sectional Studies; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Pressure Ulcer; Prevalence; Retrospective Studies; United States
PubMed: 35523235
DOI: 10.1097/WON.0000000000000878 -
International Journal of Nursing Studies Dec 2023Pressure injuries are a fundamental safety concern in older people living in nursing homes. Recent studies report a disparate body of evidence on pressure injury... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pressure injuries are a fundamental safety concern in older people living in nursing homes. Recent studies report a disparate body of evidence on pressure injury prevalence and incidence in this population.
OBJECTIVES
To systematically quantify the prevalence and incidence of pressure injuries among older people living in nursing homes, and to identify the most frequently occurring PI stage(s) and anatomical location(s).
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
SETTING(S)
Nursing homes, aged care, or long-term care facilities.
PARTICIPANTS
Older people, 60 years and older.
METHODS
Cross-sectional and cohort studies reporting on either prevalence or incidence of pressure injuries were included. Studies published in English from 2000 onwards were systematically searched in Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and ProQuest. Screening, data extraction and quality appraisal were undertaken independently by two or more authors and adjudicated by another. Outcomes included pressure injury point prevalence, cumulative incidence, and nursing home acquired pressure injury rate. In meta-analyses, Cochrane's Q test and the I statistic were used to explore heterogeneity. Random effects models were used in the presence of substantial heterogeneity. Sources of heterogeneity were investigated by subgroup analyses and meta-regression.
RESULTS
3384 abstracts were screened, and 47 full-text studies included. In 30 studies with 355,784 older people, the pooled pressure injury prevalence for any stage was 11.6 % (95 % CI 9.6-13.7 %). Fifteen studies with 5,421,798 older people reported the prevalence of pressure injury excluding stage I and the pooled estimate was 7.2 % (95 % CI 6.2-8.3 %). The pooled incidence for pressure injury of any stage in four studies with 10,645 older people was 14.3 % (95 % CI 5.5-26.2 %). Nursing home acquired pressure injury rate was reported in six studies with 79,998 older people and the pooled estimate was 8.5 % (95 % CI 4.4-13.5 %). Stage I and stage II pressure injuries were the most common stages reported. The heel (34.1 %), sacrum (27.2 %) and foot (18.4 %) were the three most reported locations of pressure injuries. Meta-regression results indicated a reduction in pressure injury prevalence over the years of data collection.
CONCLUSION
The burden of pressure injuries among older people in nursing homes is similar to hospitalised patients and requires a targeted approach to prevention as is undertaken in hospitals. Future studies using robust methodologies focusing on epidemiology of pressure injury development in older people are needed to conduct as the first step of preventing pressure injuries.
REGISTRATION NUMBER
PROSPERO CRD42022328367.
TWEETABLE ABSTRACT
Pressure injury rates in nursing homes are comparable to hospital rates indicating the need for targeted programmes similar to those in hospitals.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Pressure Ulcer; Incidence; Prevalence; Cross-Sectional Studies; Nursing Homes
PubMed: 37801939
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2023.104605