-
Journal of Clinical Nursing Jul 2019To explore the effectiveness of interventions aimed at pressure ulcer (PU) prevention in long-term older people care facilities (LOPC).
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
To explore the effectiveness of interventions aimed at pressure ulcer (PU) prevention in long-term older people care facilities (LOPC).
BACKGROUND
Pressure ulcers cause suffering for patients and constitute a major financial burden. Although most PUs could be prevented, their number has remained high. To avoid unnecessary suffering and costs, PU prevention must be effective.
DESIGN
A systematic review.
METHODS
A systematic search was conducted in six electronic databases PubMed (MEDLINE), CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, Cochrane Wounds Group Specialized Register and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The inclusion criteria were: (a) study published in 2005-2017, (b) intervention with pre- and post-tests, focusing on PU prevention, (c) implemented in LOPC facilities, (d) persons >65 years as study population, and (e) outcomes reported as PU incidence or prevalence or healing time. The PRISMA guidelines were followed. The methodological quality of the studies was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute's MAStARI critical appraisal checklist. The data were analysed with narrative synthesis.
RESULTS
The review included eighteen studies. The study designs were RCTs (n = 10), comparable cohort or case-control studies (n = 3), and descriptive or case series (n = 5). PU incidence in LOPC facilities decreased by using computerised decision-making support systems, PU prevention programmes, repositioning or advanced cushions. PU prevalence decreased with PU prevention programmes, by using advanced mattresses and overlays, or by adding protein and energy supplements to diet.
CONCLUSIONS
There are many ways to prevent PUs in LOPC facilities; no single effective way can be identified. One-third of the preventive interventions in LOPC facilities were effective. However, systematic evidence from randomised trials on preventive interventions of PUs in LOPC settings is still lacking.
RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE
The findings can be used in practice for selecting and in research for developing effective preventive interventions of PUs in LOPC facilities.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Case-Control Studies; Cohort Studies; Decision Support Systems, Clinical; Homes for the Aged; Humans; Long-Term Care; Nursing Homes; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Pressure Ulcer
PubMed: 30589987
DOI: 10.1111/jocn.14767 -
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 -
Journal of Wound Care Feb 2020
Topics: Clinical Protocols; Equipment and Supplies; Humans; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Pressure Ulcer
PubMed: 32067552
DOI: 10.12968/jowc.2020.29.Sup2a.S1 -
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 -
Wound Management & Prevention Nov 2021Medical devices can cause pressure injuries.
BACKGROUND
Medical devices can cause pressure injuries.
PURPOSE
This study was conducted to determine the prevalence of and factors associated with medical device-related pressure injury (MDRPI) in an intensive care unit (ICU).
METHODS
A cross-sectional study was performed among adult patients (at least 18 years of age) admitted to an ICU in a referral hospital in Brazil between December 2019 and February 2020. The skin of patients who consented to participate was assessed for the presence of an MDRPI, and the use of all medical devices was noted. Other independent variables (sociodemographic variables, medical history, pressure injury risk factors, medications, and length of hospitalization) were abstracted from the medical records. Bivariate data analysis included Pearson's chi-square test or Fisher's exact test; odds ratio and a confidence interval of 95% also were established. Correlation among independent variables and MDRPI was determined using the ρ Spearman correlation test, and a hierarchical binary logistic regression analysis was performed using statistically significant variables from the bivariate analysis. P < .05 was considered statistically significant.
RESULTS
The 125 study participants ranged in age from 15 to 97 years (mean, 63.02 ± 19.2), 76 (60.8%) were men, and 76 (60.8%) were White. Of the 125 participants, 43 (34%) experienced MDRPI; the total number of MDRPIs was 58 (3 patients had 3 injuries, and 7 patients had 2 injuries). Of those 58 MDRPIs, 46 were stage 1, and 12 were stage 2. Polypharmacy (> 4 medications) was a significant risk factor for MDRPI. Use of a nasal catheter, cord for orotracheal tube fixation, oximeter, intra-abdominal pressure equipment, and indwelling urinary catheter was significantly associated with the presence of MDRPI. Renal and respiratory diseases and the presence of infection were positively related to the presence of MDRPI.
CONCLUSION
Medical device-related pressure injury was prevalent in this patient population. Most of these injuries were stage 1, which suggests that frequent monitoring and device repositioning (when possible) may help prevent more serious injuries. Additional research involving other hospitals in Brazil is needed to increase the understanding of the prevalence and risk factors of MDRPIs in patients in the ICU.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Cross-Sectional Studies; Crush Injuries; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Male; Middle Aged; Pressure Ulcer; Prevalence; Young Adult
PubMed: 35030095
DOI: No ID Found -
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 -
Journal of Wound, Ostomy, and...The purpose of this study was to examine clinical characteristics and risk factors for critically ill patients who develop pressure injuries and identify the proportion...
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study was to examine clinical characteristics and risk factors for critically ill patients who develop pressure injuries and identify the proportion of validated unavoidable pressure injuries associated with the proposed risk factors for acute skin failure (ASF).
DESIGN
Retrospective case-control comparative study.
SUBJECTS AND SETTING
The sample comprised adult critically ill participants hospitalized in critical care units such as surgical, trauma, cardiovascular surgical, cardiac, neuro, and medical intensive care and corresponding progressive care units in 5 acute care hospitals within a large Midwestern academic/teaching healthcare system. Participants who developed hospital-acquired pressure injuries (HAPIs) and patients without HAPIs (controls) were included.
METHODS
A secondary analysis of data from a previous study with HAPIs and matching data for the control sample without HAPIs were obtained from the electronic health record. Descriptive and multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted.
RESULTS
The sample comprised 475 participants; 165 experienced a HAPI and acted as cases, whereas the remaining 310 acted as controls. Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) mean score (23.8, 8.7%; P < .001), mortality (n = 45, 27.3%; P = .002), history of liver disease (n = 28, 17%; P < .001), and unintentional loss of 10 lb or more in 1 month (n = 20, 12%; P = .002) were higher in the HAPI group. Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified participants with respiratory failure (odds ratio [OR] = 3.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.27-7.08; P = .012), renal failure (OR = 7.48; 95% CI, 3.49-16.01; P < .001), cardiac failure (OR = 4.50; 95% CI, 1.76-11.51; P = .002), severe anemia (OR = 10.89; 95% CI, 3.59-33.00; P < .001), any type of sepsis (OR = 3.15; 95% CI, 1.44-6.90; P = .004), and moisture documentation (OR = 11.89; 95% CI, 5.27-26.81; P <.001) were more likely to develop a HAPI. No differences between unavoidable HAPI, avoidable HAPI, or the control group were identified based on the proposed ASF risk factors.
CONCLUSION
This study provides important information regarding avoidable and unavoidable HAPIs and ASF. Key clinical characteristics and risk factors, such as patient acuity, organ failure, tissue perfusion, sepsis, and history of prior pressure injury, are associated with avoidable and unavoidable HAPI development. In addition, we were unable to support a relationship between unavoidable HAPIs and the proposed risk factors for ASF. Unavoidability of HAPIs rests with the documentation of appropriate interventions and not necessarily with the identification of clinical risk factors.
Topics: Adult; Case-Control Studies; Critical Care; Critical Care Nursing; Critical Illness; Female; Hospitals; Humans; Iatrogenic Disease; Intensive Care Units; Male; Pressure Ulcer; Retrospective Studies; Risk Assessment; Skin Care
PubMed: 33427806
DOI: 10.1097/WON.0000000000000734 -
International Journal of Environmental... Aug 2022The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of microcurrent therapy for healing pressure ulcers in aged people. A multicentric, randomized clinical trial was... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of microcurrent therapy for healing pressure ulcers in aged people. A multicentric, randomized clinical trial was designed with a sham stimulation control. The experimental group received an intervention following a standardized protocol for curing ulcers combined with 10 h of microcurrent therapy daily for 25 days. The sham group received the same curing protocol plus a sham microcurrent stimulation. The studied healing-related variables were the Pressure Ulcer Scale for Healing (PUSH) and the surface, depth, grade, and number of ulcers that healed completely. Three evaluations were conducted: pre-intervention (T1), 14 days following the start of the intervention (T2), and 1 day after the intervention was completed (T3). In total, 30 participants met the inclusion criteria ( = 15 in each group). The improvement in the PUSH at T2 and T3 was 16.8% (CI95% 0.5-33.1) and 25.3% (CI95% 7.6-43.0) greater in the experimental group versus the sham control, respectively. The reduction in the wound area at T2 and T3 was 20.1% (CI95% 5.2-35.0) and 28.6% (CI95% 11.9-45.3) greater in the experimental group versus the control, respectively. Microcurrent therapy improves the healing of pressure ulcers in older adults, both quantitatively and qualitatively.
Topics: Aged; Double-Blind Method; Humans; Pressure Ulcer; Ulcer; Varicose Ulcer; Wound Healing
PubMed: 36011679
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191610045 -
Advances in Wound Care Dec 2020To determine whether multilayer silicone foam dressings can prevent pressure ulcers arising in the sacrum and coccyx of patients with persistent severe diarrhea and/or... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
To determine whether multilayer silicone foam dressings can prevent pressure ulcers arising in the sacrum and coccyx of patients with persistent severe diarrhea and/or fragile skin. This randomized, 14-day controlled trial included 600 hospitalized patients with persistent severe diarrhea and/or fragile skin who were at high risk of developing pressure ulcers. All participants were enrolled from three Japanese institutions. Participants meeting all inclusion and exclusion criteria were randomized using the Excel program to receive standard care (control; = 300) recommended by Japanese guidelines or multilayer silicone foam dressings applied to the sacrum and coccyx (intervention; = 300). Significantly more participants in the control than the intervention group developed pressure ulcers (22 vs. 5, = 0.001). The incidence of pressure ulcers remains high in hospitalized patients at high risk of developing pressure ulcers. The present findings might contribute to novel preventive strategies for patients at high risk of developing pressure ulcers. Multilayer silicone foam dressings can prevent pressure ulcers of the sacrum and coccyx in patients with persistent severe diarrhea and/or fragile skin.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Bandages; Critical Care; Female; Heel; Humans; Japan; Male; Middle Aged; Pressure Ulcer; Sacrum; Silicones
PubMed: 33124968
DOI: 10.1089/wound.2019.1002 -
International Wound Journal Dec 2019This non-inferiority, multicentre, randomised, controlled, and double-blinded clinical trial compared the therapeutic effectiveness of the topical application of an... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
This non-inferiority, multicentre, randomised, controlled, and double-blinded clinical trial compared the therapeutic effectiveness of the topical application of an olive oil solution with that of a hyperoxygenated fatty acid compound for the prevention of pressure ulcers in at-risk nursing home residents. The study population comprised 571 residents of 23 nursing homes with pressure ulcer risk, randomly assigned to a hyperoxygenated fatty acid group (n = 288) or olive oil solution group (n = 283). Both solutions were applied on at-risk skin areas every 12 hours for 30 days or until pressure ulcer onset. The main outcome variable was the pressure ulcer incidence. The absolute risk difference was estimated (with 95% CI) using Kaplan-Meier survival and Cox regression curves. The groups did not significantly differ in any study variable at baseline. The pressure ulcer incidence was 4.18% in the olive oil group vs 6.57% in the control group, with an incidence difference of -2.39% (95% CI = -6.40 to 1.56%), which is within the pre-established non-inferiority margin of ±7%, thus supporting the study hypothesis. We present the first evidence of the effectiveness and safety of the topical application of olive oil to prevent pressure ulcers in the institutionalised elderly.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Aged, 80 and over; Double-Blind Method; Fatty Acids; Female; Humans; Incidence; Male; Nursing Homes; Olive Oil; Pressure Ulcer; Spain
PubMed: 31475465
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.13191