-
Journal of Tissue Viability May 2019The European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, the Pan Pacific Pressure Injury Alliance, and the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel are updating the 'Prevention and...
AIM
The European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, the Pan Pacific Pressure Injury Alliance, and the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel are updating the 'Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers: Clinical Practice Guideline' (CPG) in 2019. The aim of this contribution is to summarize and to discuss the guideline development protocol for the 2019 update.
METHODS
A guideline governance group determines and monitors all steps of the CPG development. An international survey of consumers will be undertaken to establish consumer needs and interests. Systematic evidence searches in relevant electronic databases cover the period from July 2013 through August 2018. Risk of bias of included studies will be assessed by two reviewers using established checklists and an overall strength of evidence assigned to the cumulative body of evidence. Small working groups review the evidence available for each topic, review and/or draft the guideline chapters and recommendations and/or good practice statements. Finally, strength of recommendation grades are assigned. The recommendations are rated based on their importance and their potential to improve individual patient outcomes using an international formal consensus process.
DISCUSSION
Major methodological advantages of the current revision are a clear distinction between evidence-based recommendations and good practice statements and strong consumer involvement.
CONCLUSION
The 2019 guideline update builds on the previous 2014 version to ensure consistency and comparability. Methodology changes will improve the guideline quality to increase clarity and to enhance implementation and compliance. The full guideline development protocol can be accessed from the guideline website (http://www.internationalguideline.com/).
Topics: Clinical Protocols; Congresses as Topic; Europe; Guidelines as Topic; Humans; Pressure Ulcer
PubMed: 30658878
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtv.2019.01.001 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2015Pressure ulcers (i.e. bedsores, pressure sores, pressure injuries, decubitus ulcers) are areas of localised damage to the skin and underlying tissue. They are common in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pressure ulcers (i.e. bedsores, pressure sores, pressure injuries, decubitus ulcers) are areas of localised damage to the skin and underlying tissue. They are common in the elderly and immobile, and costly in financial and human terms. Pressure-relieving support surfaces (i.e. beds, mattresses, seat cushions etc) are used to help prevent ulcer development.
OBJECTIVES
This systematic review seeks to establish:(1) the extent to which pressure-relieving support surfaces reduce the incidence of pressure ulcers compared with standard support surfaces, and,(2) their comparative effectiveness in ulcer prevention.
SEARCH METHODS
In April 2015, for this fourth update we searched The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 15 April 2015) which includes the results of regular searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 3).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials, published or unpublished, that assessed the effects of any support surface for prevention of pressure ulcers, in any patient group or setting which measured pressure ulcer incidence. Trials reporting only proxy outcomes (e.g. interface pressure) were excluded. Two review authors independently selected trials.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data were extracted by one review author and checked by another. Where appropriate, estimates from similar trials were pooled for meta-analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
For this fourth update six new trials were included, bringing the total of included trials to 59.Foam alternatives to standard hospital foam mattresses reduce the incidence of pressure ulcers in people at risk (RR 0.40 95% CI 0.21 to 0.74). The relative merits of alternating- and constant low-pressure devices are unclear. One high-quality trial suggested that alternating-pressure mattresses may be more cost effective than alternating-pressure overlays in a UK context.Pressure-relieving overlays on the operating table reduce postoperative pressure ulcer incidence, although two trials indicated that foam overlays caused adverse skin changes. Meta-analysis of three trials suggest that Australian standard medical sheepskins prevent pressure ulcers (RR 0.56 95% CI 0.32 to 0.97).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
People at high risk of developing pressure ulcers should use higher-specification foam mattresses rather than standard hospital foam mattresses. The relative merits of higher-specification constant low-pressure and alternating-pressure support surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers are unclear, but alternating-pressure mattresses may be more cost effective than alternating-pressure overlays in a UK context. Medical grade sheepskins are associated with a decrease in pressure ulcer development. Organisations might consider the use of some forms of pressure relief for high risk patients in the operating theatre.
Topics: Bedding and Linens; Beds; Humans; Pressure Ulcer; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26333288
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001735.pub5 -
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 -
Annals of Internal Medicine Jul 2013Pressure ulcers are associated with substantial health burdens but may be preventable. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pressure ulcers are associated with substantial health burdens but may be preventable.
PURPOSE
To review the clinical utility of pressure ulcer risk assessment instruments and the comparative effectiveness of preventive interventions in persons at higher risk.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE (1946 through November 2012), CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, grant databases, clinical trial registries, and reference lists.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized trials and observational studies on effects of using risk assessment on clinical outcomes and randomized trials of preventive interventions on clinical outcomes.
DATA EXTRACTION
Multiple investigators abstracted and checked study details and quality using predefined criteria.
DATA SYNTHESIS
One good-quality trial found no evidence that use of a pressure ulcer risk assessment instrument, with or without a protocolized intervention strategy based on assessed risk, reduces risk for incident pressure ulcers compared with less standardized risk assessment based on nurses' clinical judgment. In higher-risk populations, 1 good-quality and 4 fair-quality randomized trials found that more advanced static support surfaces were associated with lower risk for pressure ulcers compared with standard mattresses (relative risk range, 0.20 to 0.60). Evidence on the effectiveness of low-air-loss and alternating-air mattresses was limited, with some trials showing no clear differences from advanced static support surfaces. Evidence on the effectiveness of nutritional supplementation, repositioning, and skin care interventions versus usual care was limited and had methodological shortcomings, precluding strong conclusions.
LIMITATION
Only English-language articles were included, publication bias could not be formally assessed, and most studies had methodological shortcomings.
CONCLUSION
More advanced static support surfaces are more effective than standard mattresses for preventing ulcers in higher-risk populations. The effectiveness of formal risk assessment instruments and associated intervention protocols compared with less standardized assessment methods and the effectiveness of other preventive interventions compared with usual care have not been clearly established.
Topics: Bandages; Bedding and Linens; Beds; Comparative Effectiveness Research; Dietary Supplements; Humans; Nursing Diagnosis; Patient Positioning; Pressure Ulcer; Risk Assessment; Skin Cream
PubMed: 23817702
DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-159-1-201307020-00006 -
Medicina Intensiva 2017Pressure ulcers represent a significant problem for patients, professionals and health systems. Their reported incidence and prevalence are significant worldwide. Their... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Pressure ulcers represent a significant problem for patients, professionals and health systems. Their reported incidence and prevalence are significant worldwide. Their character iatrogenic states that its appearance is preventable and its incidence is an indicator of scientific and technical quality both in primary care and specialized care. The aim of this review was to identify risk factors associated with the occurrence of pressure ulcers in critically ill patients.
METHODOLOGY
The PRISMA Declaration recommendations have been followed and adapted to studies identifying risk factors. A qualitative systematic review of primary studies has been performed and a search was conducted of the PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Scopus and Web of Science databases. Methodological limitations in observational studies have been considered.
RESULTS
From 200 references, 17 fulfilled the eligibility criteria. These studies included 19,363 patients admitted to intensive care units. Six studies were classified as high quality and 11 were classified as moderate quality. Risk factors that emerged as predictive of pressure ulcers development more frequently included age, length of ICU stay, diabetes, time of MAP <60-70mmHg, mechanical ventilation, length of mechanical ventilation, intermittent haemodialysis or continuous veno-venous haemofiltration therapy, vasopressor support, sedation and turning.
CONCLUSIONS
There is no single factors which can explain the occurrence of pressure ulcers. Rather, it is an interplay of factors that increase the probability of its development.
Topics: Critical Illness; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Pressure Ulcer; Risk Factors
PubMed: 27780589
DOI: 10.1016/j.medin.2016.09.003 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2014Pressure ulcers affect approximately 10% of people in hospitals and older people are at highest risk. A correlation between inadequate nutritional intake and the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pressure ulcers affect approximately 10% of people in hospitals and older people are at highest risk. A correlation between inadequate nutritional intake and the development of pressure ulcers has been suggested by several studies, but the results have been inconsistent.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects of enteral and parenteral nutrition on the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers.
SEARCH METHODS
In March 2014, for this first update, we searched The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Trials Register, the Cochrane Central register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) (The Cochrane Library), the Health Technology Assessment Database (HTA) (The Cochrane Library), the Cochrane Methodology Register (The Cochrane Library), NHS Economic Evaluation Database (The Cochrane Library), Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL. No date, language or publication status limits were applied.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effects of enteral or parenteral nutrition on the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers, which measured the incidence of new ulcers, ulcer healing or changes in pressure ulcer severity. There were no restrictions on types of patient, setting, date, publication status or language.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened for inclusion, and disagreement was resolved by discussion. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed quality using the Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 23 RCTs, many were small (between 9 and 4023 participants, median 88) and at high risk of bias.Eleven trials compared a combination of nutritional supplements, consisting of a minimum of energy and protein in different dosages, for the prevention of pressure ulcers. A meta-analysis of eight trials (6062 participants) that compared the effects of mixed nutritional supplements with standard hospital diet found no clear evidence of an effect of supplementation on pressure ulcer development (pooled RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.00; P value 0.05; I(2) = 13%, random effects). This outcome is at unclear or high risk of bias.Fourteen trials evaluated the effects of nutritional supplements on the healing of existing pressure ulcers: seven trials examined mixed nutritional supplements, three the effects of proteins, two trials examined zinc, and two studies examined ascorbic acid. The included trials were heterogeneous with regard to participants, interventions, comparisons and outcomes and meta-analysis was not appropriate. There was no clear evidence of an improvement in pressure ulcer healing from the nutritional supplements evaluated in any of these individual studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is currently no clear evidence of a benefit associated with nutritional interventions for either the prevention or treatment of pressure ulcers. Further trials of high methodological quality are necessary.
Topics: Aged; Dietary Supplements; Enteral Nutrition; Humans; Parenteral Nutrition; Pressure Ulcer; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Wound Healing
PubMed: 24919719
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003216.pub2 -
Deutsches Arzteblatt International May 2010Pressure sores are a serious complication of multimorbidity and lack of mobility. Decubitus ulcers have become rarer among bed-ridden patients because of the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pressure sores are a serious complication of multimorbidity and lack of mobility. Decubitus ulcers have become rarer among bed-ridden patients because of the conscientious use of pressure-reducing measures and increased mobilization. Nonetheless, not all decubitus ulcers can be considered preventable or potentially curable, because poor circulation makes some patients more susceptible to them, and because cognitive impairment can make prophylactic measures difficult to apply.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed in 2004 and 2005 in the setting of a health technology assessment, and a selective literature search was performed in 2009 for papers on the prevention of decubitus ulcers.
RESULTS
Elderly, multimorbid patients with the immobility syndrome are at high risk for the development of decubitus ulcers, as are paraplegic patients. The most beneficial way to prevent decubitus ulcers, and to treat them once they are present, is to avoid excessive pressure by encouraging movement. At the same time, the risk factors that promote the development of decubitus ulcers should be minimized as far as possible.
CONCLUSIONS
Malnutrition, poor circulation (hypoperfusion), and underlying diseases that impair mobility should be recognized if present and then treated, and accompanying manifestations, such as pain, should be treated symptomatically. Over the patient's further course, the feasibility, implementation, and efficacy of ulcer-preventing measures should be repeatedly re-assessed and documented, so that any necessary changes can be made. Risk factors for the development of decubitus ulcers should be assessed at the time of the physician's first contact with an immobile patient, or as soon as the patient's condition deteriorates; this is a prerequisite for timely prevention. Once the risks have been assessed, therapeutic measures should be undertaken on the basis of the patient's individual risk profile, with an emphasis on active encouragement of movement and passive relief of pressure through frequent changes of position.
Topics: Aged; Comorbidity; Cooperative Behavior; Diagnosis, Differential; Evidence-Based Medicine; Germany; Humans; Interdisciplinary Communication; Ischemia; Mobility Limitation; Paraplegia; Patient Positioning; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Pressure Ulcer; Primary Prevention; Protein-Energy Malnutrition; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Skin; Technology Assessment, Biomedical
PubMed: 20539816
DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.2010.0371