-
International Wound Journal Jun 2019Our objective was to estimate the US national cost burden of hospital-acquired pressure injury (HAPI) using economic simulation methods. We created a Markov simulation...
Our objective was to estimate the US national cost burden of hospital-acquired pressure injury (HAPI) using economic simulation methods. We created a Markov simulation to estimate costs for staged pressure injuries acquired during hospitalisation from the hospital perspective. The model analysed outcomes of hospitalised adults with acute illness in 1-day cycles until all patients were terminated at the point of discharge or death. Simulations that developed a staged pressure injury after 4 days could advance from Stages 1 to 4 and accrue additional costs for Stages 3 and 4. We measured costs in 2016 US dollars representing the total cost of acute care attributable to HAPI incidence at the patient level and for the entire United States based on the previously reported epidemiology of pressure injury. US HAPI costs could exceed $26.8 billion. About 59% of these costs are disproportionately attributable to a small rate of Stages 3 and 4 full-thickness wounds, which occupy clinician time and hospital resources. HAPIs remain a concern with regard to hospital quality in addition to being a major source of economic burden on the US health care system. Hospitals should invest more in quality improvement of early detection and care for pressure injury to avoid higher costs.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Female; Health Care Costs; Humans; Iatrogenic Disease; Male; Middle Aged; Pressure Ulcer; United States
PubMed: 30693644
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.13071 -
Revista Latino-americana de Enfermagem Jan 2019to evaluate and classify patients according to the Risk Assessment Scale for Perioperative Pressure Injuries; verify the association between sociodemographic and... (Observational Study)
Observational Study
OBJECTIVES
to evaluate and classify patients according to the Risk Assessment Scale for Perioperative Pressure Injuries; verify the association between sociodemographic and clinical variables and the risk score; and identify the occurrence of pressure injuries due to surgical positioning.
METHOD
observational, longitudinal, prospective and quantitative study carried out in a teaching hospital with 278 patients submitted to elective surgeries. A sociodemographic and clinical characterization questionnaire and the Risk Assessment Scale for Perioperative Pressure Injuries were used. Descriptive, bivariate and logistic regression analyses were applied.
RESULTS
the majority of patients (56.5%) presented a high risk for perioperative pressure injury. Female sex, elderly group, and altered body mass index values were statistically significant (p < 0.05) for a higher risk of pressure injuries. In 77% of the patients, there were perioperative pressure injuries.
CONCLUSION
most of the participants presented a high risk for development of perioperative decubitus ulcers. The female sex, elderly group, and altered body mass index were significant factors for increased risk. The Risk Assessment Scale for Perioperative Pressure Injuries allows the early identification of risk of injury, subsidizing the adoption of preventive strategies to ensure the quality of perioperative care.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Patient Positioning; Perioperative Care; Perioperative Nursing; Postoperative Complications; Pressure Ulcer; Risk Assessment; Socioeconomic Factors; Young Adult
PubMed: 30698218
DOI: 10.1590/1518-8345.2677-3117 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2018Pressure ulcers, also known as bed sores or pressure sores, are localised areas of tissue damage arising due to excess pressure and shearing forces. Education of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pressure ulcers, also known as bed sores or pressure sores, are localised areas of tissue damage arising due to excess pressure and shearing forces. Education of healthcare staff has been recognised as an integral component of pressure ulcer prevention. These educational programmes are directed towards influencing behaviour change on the part of the healthcare professional, to encourage preventative practices with the aim of reducing the incidence of pressure ulcer development.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of educational interventions for healthcare professionals on pressure ulcer prevention.
SEARCH METHODS
In June 2017 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 clinical trials registries 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 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs, that evaluated the effect of any educational intervention delivered to healthcare staff in any setting to prevent pressure ulceration.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed titles and abstracts of the studies identified by the search strategy for eligibility. We obtained full versions of potentially relevant studies and two authors independently screened these against the inclusion criteria.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified five studies that met the inclusion criteria for this review: four RCTs and one cluster-RCT. The study characteristics differed in terms of healthcare settings, the nature of the interventions studied and outcome measures reported. The cluster-RCT, and two of the RCTs, explored the effectiveness of education delivered to healthcare staff within residential or nursing home settings, or nursing home and hospital wards, compared to no intervention, or usual practices. Educational intervention in one of these studies was embedded within a broader, quality improvement bundle. The other two individually randomised controlled trials explored the effectiveness of educational intervention, delivered in two formats, to nursing staff cohorts.Due to the heterogeneity of the studies identified, pooling was not appropriate and we have presented a narrative overview. We explored a number of comparisons (1) education versus no education (2) components of educational intervention in a number of combinations and (3) education delivered in different formats. There were three primary outcomes: change in healthcare professionals' knowledge, change in healthcare professionals' clinical behaviour and incidence of new pressure ulcers.We are uncertain whether there is a difference in health professionals' knowledge depending on whether they receive education or no education on pressure ulcer prevention (hospital group: mean difference (MD) 0.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.00 to 1.60; 10 participants; nursing home group: MD 0.30, 95% CI -0.77 to 1.37; 10 participants). This was based on very low-certainty evidence from one study, which we downgraded for serious study limitations, indirectness and imprecision.We are uncertain whether there is a difference in pressure ulcer incidence with the following comparisons: training, monitoring and observation, versus monitoring and observation (risk ratio (RR) 0.63, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.05; 345 participants); training, monitoring and observation, versus observation alone (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.43; 325 participants) or, monitoring and observation versus observation alone (RR 1.93, 95% CI 0.96 to 3.88; 232 participants). This was based on very low-certainty evidence from one study, which we downgraded for very serious study limitations and imprecision. We are uncertain whether multilevel intervention versus attention control makes any difference to pressure ulcer incidence. The report presented insufficient data to enable further interrogation of this outcome.We are uncertain whether education delivered in different formats such as didactic education versus video-based education (MD 4.60, 95% CI 3.08 to 6.12; 102 participants) or e-learning versus classroom education (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.07; 18 participants), makes any difference to health professionals' knowledge of pressure ulcer prevention. This was based on very low-certainty evidence from two studies, which we downgraded for serious study limitations and study imprecision.None of the included studies explored our other primary outcome: change in health professionals' clinical behaviour. Only one study explored the secondary outcomes of interest, namely, pressure ulcer severity and patient and carer reported outcomes (self-assessed quality of life and functional dependency level respectively). However, this study provided insufficient information to enable our independent assessment of these outcomes within the review.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We are uncertain whether educating healthcare professionals about pressure ulcer prevention makes any difference to pressure ulcer incidence, or to nurses' knowledge of pressure ulcer prevention. This is because the included studies provided very low-certainty evidence. Therefore, further information is required to clarify the impact of education of healthcare professionals on the prevention of pressure ulcers.
Topics: Health Personnel; Humans; Incidence; Pressure Ulcer; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29800486
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011620.pub2 -
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 -
Ontario Health Technology Assessment... 2014Pressure at the interface between bony prominences and support surfaces, sufficient to occlude or reduce blood flow, is thought to cause pressure ulcers (PrUs). Pressure... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
Pressure at the interface between bony prominences and support surfaces, sufficient to occlude or reduce blood flow, is thought to cause pressure ulcers (PrUs). Pressure ulcers are prevented by providing support surfaces that redistribute pressure and by turning residents to reduce length of exposure.
OBJECTIVE
We aim to determine optimal frequency of repositioning in long-term care (LTC) facilities of residents at risk for PrUs who are cared for on high-density foam mattresses.
METHODS
We recruited residents from 20 United States and 7 Canadian LTC facilities. Participants were randomly allocated to 1 of 3 turning schedules (2-, 3-, or 4-hour intervals). The study continued for 3 weeks with weekly risk and skin assessment completed by assessors blinded to group allocation. The primary outcome measure was PrU on the coccyx or sacrum, greater trochanter, or heels.
RESULTS
Participants were mostly female (731/942, 77.6%) and white (758/942, 80.5%), and had a mean age of 85.1 (standard deviation [SD] ± 7.66) years. The most common comorbidities were cardiovascular disease (713/942, 75.7%) and dementia (672/942, 71.3%). Nineteen of 942 (2.02%) participants developed one superficial Stage 1 (n = 1) or Stage 2 (n = 19) ulcer; no full-thickness ulcers developed. Overall, there was no significant difference in PrU incidence (P = 0.68) between groups (2-hour, 8/321 [2.49%] ulcers/group; 3-hour, 2/326 [0.61%]; 4-hour, 9/295 [3.05%]. Pressure ulcers among high-risk (6/325, 1.85%) versus moderate-risk (13/617, 2.11%) participants were not significantly different (P = 0.79), nor was there a difference between moderate-risk (P = 0.68) or high-risk allocation groups (P = 0.90).
CONCLUSIONS
Results support turning moderate- and high-risk residents at intervals of 2, 3, or 4 hours when they are cared for on high-density foam replacement mattresses. Turning at 3-hour and at 4-hour intervals is no worse than the current practice of turning every 2 hours. Less frequent turning might increase sleep, improve quality of life, reduce staff injury, and save time for such other activities as feeding, walking, and toileting.
Topics: Aged, 80 and over; Female; Humans; Incidence; Male; Nursing Homes; Patient Positioning; Pressure Ulcer; Risk Factors; Time Factors
PubMed: 26330893
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2021Pressure ulcers (also known as pressure injuries, pressure sores, decubitus ulcers and bed sores) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Pressure ulcers (also known as pressure injuries, pressure sores, decubitus ulcers and bed sores) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both, caused by unrelieved pressure, shear or friction. Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces are widely used with the aim of preventing pressure ulcers.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (beds, mattresses or overlays) compared with any support surface on the incidence of pressure ulcers in any population in any setting.
SEARCH METHODS
In November 2019, 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 clinical trials registries 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 randomised controlled trials that allocated participants of any age to alternating pressure (active) air beds, overlays or mattresses. Comparators were any beds, overlays or mattresses.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently assessed studies using predetermined inclusion criteria. We carried out data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and the certainty of the evidence assessment according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 32 studies (9058 participants) in the review. Most studies were small (median study sample size: 83 participants). The average age of participants ranged from 37.2 to 87.0 years (median: 69.1 years). Participants were largely from acute care settings (including accident and emergency departments). We synthesised data for six comparisons in the review: alternating pressure (active) air surfaces versus: foam surfaces, reactive air surfaces, reactive water surfaces, reactive fibre surfaces, reactive gel surfaces used in the operating room followed by foam surfaces used on the ward bed, and another type of alternating pressure air surface. Of the 32 included studies, 25 (78.1%) presented findings which were considered at high overall risk of bias.
PRIMARY OUTCOME
pressure ulcer incidence Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces may reduce the proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer compared with foam surfaces (risk ratio (RR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34 to 1.17; I = 63%; 4 studies, 2247 participants; low-certainty evidence). Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces applied on both operating tables and hospital beds may reduce the proportion of people developing a new pressure ulcer compared with reactive gel surfaces used on operating tables followed by foam surfaces applied on hospital beds (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.76; I = 0%; 2 studies, 415 participants; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether there is a difference in the proportion of people developing new pressure ulcers between alternating pressure (active) air surfaces and the following surfaces, as all these comparisons have very low-certainty evidence: (1) reactive water surfaces; (2) reactive fibre surfaces; and (3) reactive air surfaces. The comparisons between different types of alternating pressure air surfaces are presented narratively. Overall, all comparisons suggest little to no difference between these surfaces in pressure ulcer incidence (7 studies, 2833 participants; low-certainty evidence). Included studies have data on time to pressure ulcer incidence for three comparisons. When time to pressure ulcer development is considered using a hazard ratio (HR), it is uncertain whether there is a difference in the risk of developing new pressure ulcers, over 90 days' follow-up, between alternating pressure (active) air surfaces and foam surfaces (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.64; I = 86%; 2 studies, 2105 participants; very low-certainty evidence). For the comparison with reactive air surfaces, there is low-certainty evidence that people treated with alternating pressure (active) air surfaces may have a higher risk of developing an incident pressure ulcer than those treated with reactive air surfaces over 14 days' follow-up (HR 2.25, 95% CI 1.05 to 4.83; 1 study, 308 participants). Neither of the two studies with time to ulcer incidence data suggested a difference in the risk of developing an incident pressure ulcer over 60 days' follow-up between different types of alternating pressure air surfaces. Secondary outcomes The included studies have data on (1) support-surface-associated patient comfort for comparisons involving foam surfaces, reactive air surfaces, reactive fibre surfaces and alternating pressure (active) air surfaces; (2) adverse events for comparisons involving foam surfaces, reactive gel surfaces and alternating pressure (active) air surfaces; and (3) health-related quality of life outcomes for the comparison involving foam surfaces. However, all these outcomes and comparisons have low or very low-certainty evidence and it is uncertain whether there are any differences in these outcomes. Included studies have data on cost effectiveness for two comparisons. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that alternating pressure (active) air surfaces are probably more cost-effective than foam surfaces (1 study, 2029 participants) and that alternating pressure (active) air mattresses are probably more cost-effective than overlay versions of this technology for people in acute care settings (1 study, 1971 participants).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Current evidence is uncertain about the difference in pressure ulcer incidence between using alternating pressure (active) air surfaces and other surfaces (reactive water surfaces, reactive fibre surfaces and reactive air surfaces). Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces may reduce pressure ulcer risk compared with foam surfaces and reactive gel surfaces used on operating tables followed by foam surfaces applied on hospital beds. People using alternating pressure (active) air surfaces may be more likely to develop new pressure ulcers over 14 days' follow-up than those treated with reactive air surfaces in the nursing home setting; but as the result is sensitive to the choice of outcome measure it should be interpreted cautiously. Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces are probably more cost-effective than reactive foam surfaces in preventing new pressure ulcers. Future studies should include time-to-event outcomes and assessment of adverse events and trial-level cost-effectiveness. Further review using network meta-analysis will add to the findings reported here.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Air; Bedding and Linens; Beds; Bias; Elasticity; Humans; Incidence; Middle Aged; Pressure; Pressure Ulcer; Publication Bias; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 33969911
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013620.pub2 -
International Journal of Nursing Studies Jun 2018Pressure ulcers are areas of localised damage to the skin and underlying tissue; and can cause pain, immobility, and delay recovery, impacting on health-related quality...
BACKGROUND
Pressure ulcers are areas of localised damage to the skin and underlying tissue; and can cause pain, immobility, and delay recovery, impacting on health-related quality of life. The individuals who are most at risk of developing a pressure ulcer are those who are seriously ill, elderly, have impaired mobility and/or poor nutrition; thus, many nursing home residents are at risk.
OBJECTIVES
To understand the context of pressure ulcer prevention in nursing homes and to explore the potential barriers and facilitators to evidence-informed practices.
METHODS
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with nursing home nurses, healthcare assistants and managers, National Health Service community-based wound specialist nurses (known in the UK as tissue viability nurses) and a nurse manager in the North West of England. The interview guide was developed using the Theoretical Domains Framework to explore the barriers and facilitators to pressure ulcer prevention in nursing home residents. Data were analysed using a framework analysis and domains were identified as salient based on their frequency and the potential strength of their impact.
FINDINGS
25 participants (nursing home: 2 managers, 7 healthcare assistants, 11 qualified nurses; National Health Service community services: 4 tissue viability nurses, 1 manager) were interviewed. Depending upon the behaviours reported and the context, the same domain could be classified as both a barrier and a facilitator. We identified seven domains as relevant in the prevention of pressure ulcers in nursing home residents mapping to four "barrier" domains and six "facilitator" domains. The four "barrier" domains were knowledge, physical skills, social influences and environmental context and resources and the six "facilitator" domains were interpersonal skills, environmental context and resources, social influences, beliefs about capabilities, beliefs about consequences and social/professional role and identity). Knowledge and insight into these barriers and facilitators provide a theoretical understanding of the complexities in preventing pressure ulcers with reference to the staff capabilities, opportunities and motivation related to pressure ulcer prevention.
CONCLUSION
Pressure ulcer prevention in nursing home residents is complex and is influenced by several factors. The findings will inform a theory and evidence-based intervention to aid the prevention of pressure ulcers in nursing home settings.
Topics: Humans; Inpatients; Models, Theoretical; Nursing Homes; Pressure Ulcer; Qualitative Research; United Kingdom
PubMed: 29626701
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.12.015 -
International Wound Journal Jun 2015The prevention of hospital acquired pressure ulcers in critically ill patients remains a significant clinical challenge. The aim of this trial was to investigate the... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
A randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness of soft silicone multi-layered foam dressings in the prevention of sacral and heel pressure ulcers in trauma and critically ill patients: the border trial.
The prevention of hospital acquired pressure ulcers in critically ill patients remains a significant clinical challenge. The aim of this trial was to investigate the effectiveness of multi-layered soft silicone foam dressings in preventing intensive care unit (ICU) pressure ulcers when applied in the emergency department to 440 trauma and critically ill patients. Intervention group patients (n = 219) had Mepilex(®) Border Sacrum and Mepilex(®) Heel dressings applied in the emergency department and maintained throughout their ICU stay. Results revealed that there were significantly fewer patients with pressure ulcers in the intervention group compared to the control group (5 versus 20, P = 0·001). This represented a 10% difference in incidence between the groups (3·1% versus 13·1%) and a number needed to treat of ten patients to prevent one pressure ulcer. Overall there were fewer sacral (2 versus 8, P = 0·05) and heel pressure ulcers (5 versus 19, P = 0·002) and pressure injuries overall (7 versus 27, P = 0·002) in interventions than in controls. The time to injury survival analysis indicated that intervention group patients had a hazard ratio of 0·19 (P = 0·002) compared to control group patients. We conclude that multi-layered soft silicone foam dressings are effective in preventing pressure ulcers in critically ill patients when applied in the emergency department prior to ICU transfer.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Bandages; Critical Illness; Equipment Design; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Heel; Humans; Incidence; Intensive Care Units; Male; Middle Aged; Pressure Ulcer; Prospective Studies; Sacrum; Silicones; Treatment Outcome; Wound Closure Techniques; Wounds and Injuries
PubMed: 23711244
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.12101 -
International Wound Journal Oct 2022The most common pressure ulcer associated with medical devices in the ICU is pressure injury associated with the endotracheal tube. We aimed to scrutinise the effects of... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
The most common pressure ulcer associated with medical devices in the ICU is pressure injury associated with the endotracheal tube. We aimed to scrutinise the effects of two different techniques of endotracheal tube securement used in the ICU on the occurrence of pressure ulcers. This randomised clinical trial was conducted in 60 patients, 30 of which were intervention and 30 experimental, admittedin the ICU of a training and research hospitaldata were collected using the descriptive and clinical characteristics from the Braden Scale for predicting Pressure Sore Risk, the Pressure Ulcer Scale for healing, The International Staging System for Pressure Injuries and the Eilers Oral Assessment Guide. Based on the Braden Scale scores of the patients, we found that 98.3% of the cases were in the high-risk group before and after the intervention. We also found that the recovery was higher among patients in whom the bandage fixation method was applied compared to those in whom the fixation was done with an endotracheal tube holder.
Topics: Humans; Intensive Care Units; Intubation, Intratracheal; Pressure Ulcer; Risk Factors
PubMed: 35088531
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.13757