-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2019Use of pressure ulcer risk assessment tools or scales is a component of the assessment process used to identify individuals at risk of developing a pressure ulcer. Use... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Use of pressure ulcer risk assessment tools or scales is a component of the assessment process used to identify individuals at risk of developing a pressure ulcer. Use of a risk assessment tool is recommended by many international pressure ulcer prevention guidelines, however it is not known whether using a risk assessment tool makes a difference to patient outcomes. We conducted a review to provide a summary of the evidence pertaining to pressure ulcer risk assessment in clinical practice, and this is the third update of this review.
OBJECTIVES
To assess whether using structured and systematic pressure ulcer risk assessment tools, in any healthcare setting, reduces the incidence of pressure ulcers.
SEARCH METHODS
In February 2018 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 We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional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
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the use of structured and systematic pressure ulcer risk assessment tools with no structured pressure ulcer risk assessment, or with unaided clinical judgement, or RCTs comparing the use of different structured pressure ulcer risk assessment tools.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed study selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment and GRADE assessment of the certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included two studies in this review (1,487 participants). We identified no new trials for this latest update.Both studies were undertaken in acute-care hospitals. In one study, patients were eligible if they had a Braden score of 18 or less. In the second study all admitted patients were eligible for inclusion, once they were expected to have a hospital stay of more than three days and they had been in hospital for no more than 24 hours before baseline assessment took place. In the first study, most of the participants were medical patients; no information on age or gender distribution was provided. In the second study, 50.3% (619) of the participants were male, with a mean age of 62.6 years (standard deviation (SD): 19.3), and 15.4% (190) were admitted to oncology wards.The two included studies were three-armed studies. In the first study the three groups were: Braden risk assessment tool and training (n = 74), clinical judgement and training (n = 76) and clinical judgement alone (n = 106); follow-up was eight weeks. In the second study the three groups were: Waterlow risk assessment tool (n = 411), clinical judgement (n = 410) and Ramstadius risk assessment tool (n = 410); follow-up was four days. Both studies reported the primary outcome of pressure ulcer incidence and one study also reported the secondary outcome, severity of new pressure ulcers.We are uncertain whether use of the Braden risk assessment tool and training makes any difference to pressure ulcer incidence, compared to risk assessment using clinical judgement and training (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 1.77; 150 participants), or compared to risk assessment using clinical judgement alone (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.68; 180 participants). We assessed the certainty of the evidence as very low (downgraded twice for study limitations and twice for imprecision).Risk assessment using the Waterlow tool may make little or no difference to pressure ulcer incidence, or to pressure ulcer severity, when compared to risk assessment using clinical judgement (pressure ulcers of all stages: RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.81; 821 participants; stage 1 pressure ulcers: RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.90; 821 participants; stage 2 pressure ulcers: RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.50 to 3.13; 821 participants), or risk assessment using the Ramstadius tool (pressure ulcers of all stages: RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.83 to 2.39; 821 participants; stage 1 pressure ulcers: RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.15; 821 participants; stage 2 pressure ulcers: RR 2.49, 95% CI 0.79 to 7.89; 821 participants). Similarily, risk assessment using the Ramstadius tool may make little or no difference to pressure ulcer incidence, or to pressure ulcer severity, when compared to risk assessment using clinical judgement (pressure ulcers of all stages: RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.35; 820 participants; stage 1 pressure ulcers: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.68; 820 participants; stage 2 pressure ulcers: RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.65; 820 participants). We assessed the certainty of the evidence as low (downgraded once for study limitations and once for imprecision).The studies did not report the secondary outcomes of time to ulcer development, or pressure ulcer prevalence.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We identified two studies which evaluated the effect of risk assessment on pressure ulcer incidence. Based on evidence from one study, we are uncertain whether risk assessment using the Braden tool makes any difference to pressure ulcer incidence, compared with training and risk assessment using clinical judgement, or risk assessment using clinical judgement alone. Risk assessment using the Waterlow tool, or the Ramstadius tool may make little or no difference to pressure ulcer incidence, or severity, compared with clinical judgement. The low, or very low certainty of evidence available from the included studies is not reliable enough to suggest that the use of structured and systematic pressure ulcer risk assessment tools reduces the incidence, or severity of pressure ulcers.
Topics: Humans; Incidence; Pressure Ulcer; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 30702158
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006471.pub4 -
Wounds : a Compendium of Clinical... Aug 2019Pressure injury is one of the most prevalent skin injuries and a great challenge in the hospital environment. The implementation of preventive measures contributes to... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial
INTRODUCTION
Pressure injury is one of the most prevalent skin injuries and a great challenge in the hospital environment. The implementation of preventive measures contributes to reducing its occurrence.
OBJECTIVE
This study compares the protective effect of 2 adhesive dressings used in the prevention of pressure injuries in at-risk patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This case series was conducted at a university hospital in southeastern Brazil with 80 hospitalized adult patients at risk for pressure injuries, as per the Braden Scale for Predicting Pressure Sore Risk. Patients were randomized to preventive intervention with either hydrocellular foam (n = 40) or hydrocolloid plate (n = 40) dressing, which was applied to the intact skin over the sacrum and trochanters and changed weekly over 8 weeks.
RESULTS
Of the patients, 56.5% were women, 64.5% were 60 years of age or older, 58.1% were admitted to an intensive care unit, and 63.9% were at high risk for pressure injuries. None of the patients developed a pressure injury. However, the presence of blanchable erythema, desquamation, pruritus, discomfort during dressing removal, and skin damage caused by the strong adhesiveness of the dressings were observed in both groups. In the hydrocolloid plate group, patients reported significantly more discomfort during dressing removal due to its strong adhesion to the skin (P = .004) than those in the hydrocellular foam group.
CONCLUSIONS
Standard preventive measures combined with the use of either hydrocellular foam or hydrocolloid plate contributed to the prevention of pressure injuries in at-risk patients, with hydrocolloid plate being associated with significantly more discomfort during dressing removal.
Topics: Aged; Bandages; Bandages, Hydrocolloid; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Pressure Ulcer; Treatment Outcome; Wound Healing
PubMed: 31184996
DOI: No ID Found -
International Wound Journal Nov 2022The aim of this study was to describe pressure ulcer prevalence and prevention interventions in hospital care in Sweden based on nationwide surveys conducted over a...
The aim of this study was to describe pressure ulcer prevalence and prevention interventions in hospital care in Sweden based on nationwide surveys conducted over a 10-year period. All Swedish hospitals were invited to participate in annual pressure ulcer prevalence surveys during the period 2011-2020. The data collection protocols included gender, age, skin assessment, risk assessment, and preventive interventions. In total, more than 130,000 patients were included in the ten prevalence surveys. The prevalence of pressure ulcers in Swedish hospital patients decreased significantly from 17.0 %to 11.4% between 2011 and 2020 and hospital-acquired pressure ulcers decreased from 8.1% to 6.4% between 2018 and 2020. There was no significant decline in medicaldevice-related pressure ulcers during the same period. The proportion of patients who were risk and skin assessed increased, as did the use of pressure-reducing mattresses, sliding sheets, heel protection, and nrepositioning plans. This study shows that the implementation of a national patient safety program has had an impact on the nationwide prevalence of pressure ulcers in hospital care and the occurrence of prevention strategies. However, one in ten patients in Swedish hospitals still suffers from pressure ulcers. Further improvements can be made.
Topics: Humans; Pressure Ulcer; Prevalence; Sweden; Risk Factors; Skin Care
PubMed: 35224868
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.13779 -
International Wound Journal Sep 2023The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to provide an overview of the prevalence of pressure ulcers (PU) in orthopaedic wards. A comprehensive, systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to provide an overview of the prevalence of pressure ulcers (PU) in orthopaedic wards. A comprehensive, systematic search was conducted in different international electronic databases, such as Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, and Persian electronic databases such as Iranmedex, and Scientific Information Database (SID) using keywords extracted from Medical Subject Headings such as "Prevalence", "Pressure ulcer", "Pressure sore", and "Orthopaedics" from the earliest to February 1, 2023. The appraisal tool for cross-sectional studies (AXIS tool) evaluates the quality of the included studies. Finally, 11 studies were included in the final analysis. The results indicated that the prevalence of PU in orthopaedic departments was 18% (ES: 0.18, 95% CI: 0.10-0.26, Z = 4.53, I : 99.09%). Although the odds ratio of PU was lower in men than women, it was not statistically significant (OR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.74-1.11, Z = 0.95, I : 17.4%, P = .34). Also, results showed the prevalence of PU was higher among studies with a sample size of more than 200 (ES: 0.19, 95% CI: 0.10-0.28, Z = 4.07, I : 99.1%), Europe region (ES: 0.20, 95% CI: 0.14-0.26, Z = 6.7, I : 93.0%) and prospective design (ES: 0.23, 95% CI: 0.18-0.27, Z = 9.47, I : 83.3%) when compared with other sub-groups. In sum, considering the 18% prevalence of PU in the orthopaedic department, it is recommended to focus on detecting risk factors and design interventions to reduce PU in the patients admitted orthopaedic department.
Topics: Male; Humans; Female; Ulcer; Cross-Sectional Studies; Risk Factors; Hospitals; Europe; Pressure Ulcer
PubMed: 36960790
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.14156 -
International Wound Journal Aug 2023This study evaluates the effect of nursing staff's renewed consistent pressure ulcer (PU) prevention practice on PU prevalence and the PU prevention implemented for... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
This study evaluates the effect of nursing staff's renewed consistent pressure ulcer (PU) prevention practice on PU prevalence and the PU prevention implemented for residents. A quasi-experimental intervention study was conducted. The data were collected from 232 residents (n = 115 in intervention and 117 in comparison group) in two public long-term older people care (LOPC) facilities in Finland using the Pressure Ulcer Patient instrument (PUP-Instrument). The facilities were chosen with convenience sampling, after which they were randomly allocated as either intervention or comparison facility. Based on international guidelines for PU prevention, the renewed, consistent PU prevention practice with six areas was developed and implemented using the operational model for evidence-based practices (OMEBP). After the intervention, a significant difference between the intervention and the comparison facility was seen in the prevalence of PUs and in the residents' highest stage of PUs in the sacrum, buttock and hip areas, and heels. Between the facilities, a significant difference was seen in the use of PU and nutrition risk assessment instruments and nutritional supplements, time used for repositioning in the daytime and at night-time, lifting belt use, and avoiding shearing or stretching residents' skin. The successful intervention improved skin integrity in LOPC facilities.
Topics: Aged; Humans; Long-Term Care; Pressure Ulcer; Prevalence; Skin Care; Suppuration
PubMed: 36584884
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.14067 -
International Wound Journal Mar 2024This review aims to systematically evaluate the association between hypertension and pressure ulcer (PU). PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This review aims to systematically evaluate the association between hypertension and pressure ulcer (PU). PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched for studies from their inception until September 12, 2023. Literature search, data extraction, and quality assessment were conducted independently by two researchers. The random-effects model was used to calculate the combined odds ratio (OR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) of hypertension in patients with PU; subgroup analyses were performed to explore the source of between-study heterogeneity; sensitivity analysis was used to test the robust of the combined result; and funnel plot and Egger's test were used to assess the publication bias. Finally, a total of 19 studies with 564 716 subjects were included; the overall pooled result showed no significant association between hypertension and risk of developing PU (OR = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.90-1.47, p = 0.27); and the sensitivity analysis and publication bias analysis showed robust of the combined result. Subgroup analysis indicated a significant association between hypertension and PU when the primary disease was COVID-19 (OR = 1.73, 95% CI = 1.35-2.22, p < 0.0001). No association between hypertension and PU was seen in subgroup analysis on the patient source and study design. In sum, there is no significantly statistical association between hypertension and the occurrence of PU in most cases, while the risk of PU significantly elevates among COVID-19 patients combined with hypertension regardless of patient source and study design.
Topics: Humans; Pressure Ulcer; Hypertension; Research Design; COVID-19
PubMed: 38494175
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.14829 -
Dilemmas in measuring and using pressure ulcer prevalence and incidence: an international consensus.International Wound Journal Apr 2009Pressure ulcer prevalence and incidence data are increasingly being used as indicators of quality of care and the efficacy of pressure ulcer prevention protocols. In...
Pressure ulcer prevalence and incidence data are increasingly being used as indicators of quality of care and the efficacy of pressure ulcer prevention protocols. In some health care systems, the occurrence of pressure ulcers is also being linked to reimbursement. The wider use of these epidemiological analyses necessitates that all those involved in pressure ulcer care and prevention have a clear understanding of the definitions and implications of prevalence and incidence rates. In addition, an appreciation of the potential difficulties in conducting prevalence and incidence studies and the possible explanations for differences between studies are important. An international group of experts has worked to produce a consensus document that aims to delineate and discuss the important issues involved, and to provide guidance on approaches to conducting and interpreting pressure ulcer prevalence and incidence studies. The group's main findings are summarised in this paper.
Topics: Humans; Incidence; Pressure Ulcer; Prevalence; Quality Indicators, Health Care
PubMed: 19432659
DOI: 10.1111/j.1742-481X.2009.00593.x -
International Journal of Molecular... Dec 2020Pressure ulcers are preventable, yet highly prevalent, chronic wounds that have significant patient morbidity and high healthcare costs. Like other chronic wounds, they... (Review)
Review
Pressure ulcers are preventable, yet highly prevalent, chronic wounds that have significant patient morbidity and high healthcare costs. Like other chronic wounds, they are characterized by impaired wound healing due to dysregulated immune processes. This review will highlight key biochemical pathways in the pathogenesis of pressure injury and how this signaling leads to impaired wound healing. This review is the first to comprehensively describe the current literature on microRNA (miRNA, miR) regulation of pressure ulcer pathophysiology.
Topics: Animals; Apoptosis; Disease Management; Disease Susceptibility; Extracellular Matrix; Gene Expression Regulation; Gene Regulatory Networks; Humans; Immunity; MicroRNAs; Oxidative Stress; Pressure Ulcer; RNA Interference; Reperfusion Injury; Signal Transduction; Wound Healing
PubMed: 33374656
DOI: 10.3390/ijms22010064 -
Ostomy/wound Management Feb 2009Pain is an ever-present problem in patients with pressure ulcers. As an advocate for persons with pressure ulcers, the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (NPUAP) is... (Review)
Review
Pain is an ever-present problem in patients with pressure ulcers. As an advocate for persons with pressure ulcers, the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (NPUAP) is concerned about pain. To synthesize available pressure ulcer pain literature, a systematic review was performed of English language literature, specific to human research, 1992 to April 2008, using PubMed and the Cumulative Index in Nursing and Allied Health Literature. Fifteen relevant papers were found; they examined pain assessment tools, topical analgesia for pain management, and/or descriptions of persons with pressure ulcer pain. Studies had small sample sizes and included only adults. The literature established that 1) pressure ulcers cause pain; 2) pain assessment was typically found to be self-reported using different versions of the McGill Pain Questionnaire, Faces Rating Scale, or Visual Analog Scale; 3) pain assessment instruments should be appropriate to patient cognitive level and medical challenges; 4) in some cases, topical medications can ease pain and although information on systemic medication is limited, pain medications have been found to negatively affect appetite; and 5) wound treatment is painful, particularly dressing changes. Research gaps include the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcer pain, the impact of pain on nutrition, and pressure ulcer pain considerations for special groups (eg, children, end-of-life patients, and bariatric patients). The NPUAP presents this white paper as the current scientific know-ledge base on the topic. Research regarding the multidimensional aspects of pressure ulcer pain is strongly recommended.
Topics: Humans; Pain; Pain Measurement; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Pressure Ulcer
PubMed: 19246782
DOI: No ID Found -
Journal of Wound Care Feb 2020
Topics: Consensus Development Conferences as Topic; Equipment and Supplies; Humans; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Pressure Ulcer
PubMed: 32058852
DOI: 10.12968/jowc.2020.29.2.77