Support surfaces for pressure ulcer prevention

The effect of support surface on the prevention of pressure injury in acute care settings: A multi-center prospective observational study

PURPOSE

This study aimed to analyze if a multi-foam core mattress with a laminated cover can reduce the incidence of pressure injuries, compared to an alternating air mattress overlay among critically ill patients in acute settings.

DESIGN

Prospective observational study.

PARTICIPANTS

and setting: Patients with a Braden scale score ≤16 on intensive care unit admission at five general hospitals in Korea were included in this study between February 2022 and March 2022.

METHODS

One hundred and twenty patients in acute settings were enrolled and categorized into two groups: a multi-form core mattress with a laminated cover group (n = 60) and an alternating air mattress overlay group (n = 60). Data were collected for 7 days by wound care nurses.

RESULTS

Pressure injury developed at a significantly lower rate in the multi-form core mattress with a laminated cover group (n = 4/60, 6.7 %) than in the alternating air mattress overlay group (n = 25/60, 25.0 %) (P = 0.011). Using a multi-foam core mattress with a laminated cover demonstrated a protective effect against pressure injuries (odds ratio 0.123, 95 % confidence interval 0.024-0.620, P = 0.011).

CONCLUSIONS

A multi-foam core mattress with a laminated cover was significantly more effective than an alternating air mattress overlay in preventing pressure injury in critically ill patients.

Moist dressings in the treatment of pressure injuries: A network meta-analysis

AIMS

The aim of this network meta-analysis is to analyze the difference in therapeutic effects between moist dressings and traditional dressings in the treatment of pressure injury (PI), explore the healing, healing time, direct cost, and number of dressing changes of different moist dressings for the management of pressure injuries.

BACKGROUND

The incidence of pressure injury is high and the burden of disease is high, but there is no consensus on how to choose moist dressing treatment.

DESIGN

A systematic review with network meta-analysis was performed.

DATA SOURCES

We searched the Chinese Biomedicine Literature Database and China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, VIP database, PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE.com, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and CINAHL to obtain randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the treatment of PI with moist dressings.

REVIEW METHODS

R studio software and Stata 16.0 software were used to compare different moist dressings and traditional dressings.

RESULTS

41 RCTs of moist dressings in the treatment of PI were included. A total of seven kinds of moist dressings, Vaseline gauze and traditional gauze dressing were involved. All RCTs were at a medium to high risk of bias. Overall, moist dressings had more advantages than traditional dressings in terms of various outcome indicators.

CONCLUSION

The effect of moist dressings in treating PI is more advantageous than traditional dressings. However, in terms of direct cost and the number of dressings changes, more research is needed to improve the credibility of the network meta-analysis. The results of the network meta-analysis show that the silver ion dressing and alginate dressing are the best choices in the treatment of PI.

NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This study is a network meta-analysis, which does not require the participation of patients and the public.

Closure of a Difficult-to-Manage Chronic Pressure Injury with the Use of Autologous Platelet-Rich Plasma (APRP)

Pressure injury (PI) corresponds to a skin damage of ischemic aetiology that affects the integrity of the skin and is produced by prolonged pressure or friction between a hard internal and external surface. Treatment can be challenging when there is no resolution with usual care. The use of autologous platelet-rich plasma (APRP) gel arises as a therapeutic possibility in the presence of chronic pressure injuries. The case of a patient with chronic PI who has been treated with APRP is presented, achieving resolution of the lesion.

Comparing alternating pressure mattresses and high-specification foam mattresses to prevent pressure ulcers in high-risk patients: the PRESSURE 2 RCT

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers (PUs) are a burden to patients, carers and health-care providers. Specialist mattresses minimise the intensity and duration of pressure on vulnerable skin sites in at-risk patients.

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE

Time to developing a new PU of category ≥ 2 in patients using an alternating pressure mattress (APM) compared with a high-specification foam mattress (HSFM).

DESIGN

A multicentre, Phase III, open, prospective, planned as an adaptive double-triangular group sequential, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial with an a priori sample size of 2954 participants. Randomisation used minimisation (incorporating a random element).

SETTING

The trial was set in 42 secondary and community inpatient facilities in the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult inpatients with evidence of acute illness and at a high risk of PU development.

INTERVENTIONS AND FOLLOW-UP

APM or HSFM - the treatment phase lasted a maximum of 60 days; the final 30 days were post-treatment follow-up.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Time to event.

RESULTS

From August 2013 to November 2016, 2029 participants were randomised to receive either APM (n = 1016) or HSFM (n = 1013). Primary end point - 30-day final follow-up: of the 2029 participants in the intention-to-treat population, 160 (7.9%) developed a new PU of category ≥ 2. There was insufficient evidence of a difference between groups for time to new PU of category ≥ 2 [Fine and Gray model HR 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 1.04; exact p-value of 0.0890 and 2% absolute difference]. Treatment phase sensitivity analysis: 132 (6.5%) participants developed a new PU of category ≥ 2 between randomisation and end of treatment phase. There was a statistically significant difference in the treatment phase time-to-event sensitivity analysis (Fine and Gray model HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.93; p = 0.0176 and 2.6% absolute difference). Secondary end points - 30-day final follow-up: new PUs of category ≥ 1 developed in 350 (17.2%) participants, with no evidence of a difference between mattress groups in time to PU development, (Fine and Gray model HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.02; p-value = 0.0733 and absolute difference 3.1%). New PUs of category ≥ 3 developed in 32 (1.6%) participants with insufficient evidence of a difference between mattress groups in time to PU development (Fine and Gray model HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.62; p = 0.5530 and absolute difference 0.4%). Of the 145 pre-existing PUs of category 2, 89 (61.4%) healed - there was insufficient evidence of a difference in time to healing (Fine and Gray model HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.68; p = 0.6122 and absolute difference 2.9%). Health economics - the within-trial and long-term analysis showed APM to be cost-effective compared with HSFM; however, the difference in costs models are small and the quality-adjusted life-year gains are very small. There were no safety concerns. Blinded photography substudy - the reliability of central blinded review compared with clinical assessment for PUs of category ≥ 2 was 'very good' (kappa statistic 0.82, prevalence- and bias-adjusted kappa 0.82). Quality-of-life substudy - the Pressure Ulcer Quality of Life - Prevention (PU-QoL-P) instrument meets the established criteria for reliability, construct validity and responsiveness.

LIMITATIONS

A lower than anticipated event rate.

CONCLUSIONS

In acutely ill inpatients who are bedfast/chairfast and/or have a category 1 PU and/or localised skin pain, APMs confer a small treatment phase benefit that is diminished over time. Overall, the APM patient compliance, very low PU incidence rate observed and small differences between mattresses indicate the need for improved indicators for targeting of APMs and individualised decision-making. Decisions should take into account skin status, patient preferences (movement ability and rehabilitation needs) and the presence of factors that may be potentially modifiable through APM allocation, including being completely immobile, having nutritional deficits, lacking capacity and/or having altered skin/category 1 PU.

FUTURE WORK

Explore the relationship between mental capacity, levels of independent movement, repositioning and PU development. Explore 'what works for whom and in what circumstances'.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN01151335.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 52. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Artificial Neural Network for in-Bed Posture Classification Using Bed-Sheet Pressure Sensors

Pressure ulcer prevention is a vital procedure for patients undergoing long-term hospitalization. A human body lying posture (HBLP) monitoring system is essential to reschedule posture change for patients. Video surveillance, the conventional method of HBLP monitoring, suffers from various limitations, such as subject's privacy, and field-of-view obstruction. We propose an autonomous method for classifying the four state-of-the-art HBLPs in healthy adults subjects: supine, prone, left and right lateral, with no sensors or cables attached on the body and no constraints imposed on the subject. Experiments have been conducted on 12 healthy adults (age 27.35 ± 5.39 years) using a collection of textile pressure sensors embedded in a cover placed under the bed sheet. Histogram of oriented gradients and local binary patterns were extracted and fed to a supervised artificial neural network classification model. The model was trained based on the scaled conjugate gradient backpropagation. A nested cross validation with an exhaustive outer validation loop was performed to validate the classification's generalization performance. A high testing prediction accuracy of 97.9% with a Cohen's Kappa coefficient of 97.2% has been interestingly obtained. Prone and supine postures were successfully separated in the classification, in contrast to the majority of previous similar works. We found that using the information of body weight distribution along with the shape and edges contributes to a better classification performance and the ability to separate supine and prone postures. The results are satisfactorily promising toward unobtrusively monitoring posture for ulcer prevention. The method can be used in sleep studies, post-surgical procedures, or applications requiring HBLP identification.

Organisation of health services for preventing and treating pressure ulcers

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers, which are a localised injury to the skin, or underlying tissue, or both, occur when people are unable to reposition themselves to relieve pressure on bony prominences. Pressure ulcers are often difficult to heal, painful, expensive to manage and have a negative impact on quality of life. While individual patient safety and quality care stem largely from direct healthcare practitioner-patient interactions, each practitioner-patient wound-care contact may be constrained or enhanced by healthcare organisation of services. Research is needed to demonstrate clearly the effect of different provider-orientated approaches to pressure ulcer prevention and treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different provider-orientated interventions targeted at the organisation of health services, on the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers.

SEARCH METHODS

In April 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 three 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), cluster-RCTs, non-RCTs, controlled before-and-after studies and interrupted time series, which enrolled people at risk of, or people with existing pressure ulcers, were eligible for inclusion in the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment, data extraction and GRADE assessment of the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

The search yielded a total of 3172 citations and, following screening and application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, we deemed four studies eligible for inclusion. These studies reported the primary outcome of pressure ulcer incidence or pressure ulcer healing, or both.One controlled before-and-after study explored the impact of transmural care (a care model that provided activities to support patients and their family/partners and activities to promote continuity of care), among 62 participants with spinal cord injury. It is unclear whether transmural care leads to a difference in pressure ulcer incidence compared with usual care (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 1.64; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very serious study limitations and twice for very serious imprecision).One RCT explored the impact of hospital-in-the-home care, among 100 older adults. It is unclear whether hospital-in-the-home care leads to a difference in pressure ulcer incidence risk compared with hospital admission (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.98; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very serious study limitations and twice for very serious imprecision).A third study (cluster-randomised stepped-wedge trial), explored the impact of being cared for by enhanced multidisciplinary teams (EMDT), among 161 long-term-care residents. The analyses of the primary outcome used measurements of 201 pressure ulcers from 119 residents. It is unclear if EMDT reduces the pressure ulcer incidence rate compared with usual care (hazard ratio (HR) 1.12, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.68; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very serious study limitations and twice for very serious imprecision). It is unclear whether there is a difference in the number of wounds healed (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.87; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very serious study limitations and twice for very serious imprecision). It is unclear whether there is a difference in the reduction in surface area, with and without EMDT, (healing rate 1.006; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.03; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very serious study limitations and twice for very serious imprecision). It is unclear if EMDT leads to a difference in time to complete healing (HR 1.48, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.78, very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very serious study limitations and twice for very serious imprecision).The final study (quasi-experimental cluster trial), explored the impact of multidisciplinary wound care among 176 nursing home residents. It is unclear whether there is a difference in the number of pressure ulcers healed between multidisciplinary care, or usual care (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.42; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very serious study limitations and twice for very serious imprecision). It is unclear if this type of care leads to a difference in time to complete healing compared with usual care (HR 1.73, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.50; very low-certainty evidence; downgraded twice for very serious study limitations and twice for very serious imprecision).In all studies the certainty of the evidence is very low due to high risk of bias and imprecision. We downgraded the evidence due to study limitations, which included selection and attrition bias, and sample size. Secondary outcomes, such as adverse events were not reported in all studies. Where they were reported it was unclear if there was a difference as the certainty of evidence was very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence for the impact of organisation of health services for preventing and treating pressure ulcers remains unclear. Overall, GRADE assessments of the evidence resulted in judgements of very low-certainty evidence. The studies were at high risk of bias, and outcome measures were imprecise due to wide confidence intervals and small sample sizes, meaning that additional research is required to confirm these results. The secondary outcomes reported varied across the studies and some were not reported. We judged the evidence from those that were reported (including adverse events), to be of very low certainty.

Dressings and topical agents for preventing pressure ulcers

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers, localised injuries to the skin or underlying tissue, or both, occur when people cannot reposition themselves to relieve pressure on bony prominences. These wounds are difficult to heal, painful, expensive to manage and have a negative impact on quality of life. Prevention strategies include nutritional support and pressure redistribution. Dressing and topical agents aimed at prevention are also widely used, however, it remains unclear which, if any, are most effective. This is the first update of this review, which was originally published in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of dressings and topical agents on pressure ulcer prevention, in people of any age, without existing pressure ulcers, but considered to be at risk of developing one, in any healthcare setting.

SEARCH METHODS

In March 2017 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Embase, and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We searched clinical trials registries for ongoing trials, and bibliographies of relevant publications to identify further eligible trials. There was no restriction on language, date of trial or setting. In May 2018 we updated this search; as a result several trials are awaiting classification.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that enrolled people at risk of pressure ulcers.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

The original search identified nine trials; the updated searches identified a further nine trials meeting our inclusion criteria. Of the 18 trials (3629 participants), nine involved dressings; eight involved topical agents; and one included dressings and topical agents. All trials reported the primary outcome of pressure ulcer incidence.Topical agentsThere were five trials comparing fatty acid interventions to different treatments. Two trials compared fatty acid to olive oil. Pooled evidence shows that there is no clear difference in pressure ulcer incidence between groups, fatty acid versus olive oil (2 trials, n=1060; RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.17; low-certainty evidence, downgraded for very serious imprecision; or fatty acid versus standard care (2 trials, n=187; RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.18; low-certainty evidence, downgraded for serious risk of bias and serious imprecision). Trials reported that pressure ulcer incidence was lower with fatty acid-containing-treatment compared with a control compound of trisostearin and perfume (1 trial, n=331; RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.80; low-certainty evidence, downgraded for serious risk of bias and serious imprecision). Pooled evidence shows that there is no clear difference in incidence of adverse events between fatty acids and olive oil (1 trial, n=831; RR 2.22 95% CI 0.20 to 24.37; low-certainty evidence, downgraded for very serious imprecision).Four trials compared further different topical agents with placebo. Dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) cream may increase the risk of pressure ulcer incidence compared with placebo (1 trial, n=61; RR 1.99, 95% CI 1.10 to 3.57; low-certainty evidence; downgraded for serious risk of bias and serious imprecision). The other three trials reported no clear difference in pressure ulcer incidence between active topical agents and control/placebo; active lotion (1 trial, n=167; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.19), Conotrane (1 trial, n=258; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.07), Prevasore (1 trial, n=120; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.11) (very low-certainty evidence, downgraded for very serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision). There was limited evidence from one trial to determine whether the application of a topical agent may delay or prevent the development of a pressure ulcer (Dermalex^TM 9.8 days vs placebo 8.7 days). Further, two out of 76 reactions occurred in the Dermalex^TM group compared with none out of 91 in the placebo group (RR 6.14, 95% CI 0.29 to 129.89; very low-certainty evidence; downgraded for very serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision).DressingsSix trials (n = 1247) compared a silicone dressing with no dressing. Silicone dressings may reduce pressure ulcer incidence (any stage) (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.41; low-certainty evidence; downgraded for very serious risk of bias). In the one trial (n=77) we rated as being at low risk of bias, there was no clear difference in pressure ulcer incidence between silicone dressing and placebo-treated groups (RR 1.95, 95% CI 0.18 to 20.61; low-certainty evidence, downgraded for very serious imprecision).One trial (n=74) reported no clear difference in pressure ulcer incidence when a thin polyurethane dressing was compared with no dressing (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.83 to 2.07). In the same trial pressure ulcer incidence was reported to be higher in an adhesive foam dressing compared with no dressing (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.48). We rated evidence from this trial as very low certainty (downgraded for very serious risk of bias and serious imprecision).Four trials compared other dressings with different controls. Trials reported that there was no clear difference in pressure ulcer incidence between the following comparisons: polyurethane film and hydrocolloid dressing (n=160, RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.41); Kang' huier versus routine care n=100; RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.05); 'pressure ulcer preventive dressing' (PPD) versus no dressing (n=74; RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.76) We rated the evidence as very low certainty (downgraded for very serious risk of bias and serious or very serious imprecision).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Most of the trials exploring the impact of topical applications on pressure ulcer incidence showed no clear benefit or harm. Use of fatty acid versus a control compound (a cream that does not include fatty acid) may reduce the incidence of pressure ulcers. Silicone dressings may reduce pressure ulcer incidence (any stage). However the low level of evidence certainty means that additional research is required to confirm these results.

Turning frequency in adult bedridden patients to prevent hospital-acquired pressure ulcer: A scoping review

The aim of this study was to identify current research on turning frequencies of adult bed-bound patients and inform future turning practices for hospitals based on evidence-based practice. We undertook a scoping review framework that provided a transparent and systematic methodology using 8 electronic databases (CINAHL, PubMed, Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, PsycINFO, Scopus, ProQuest, and Web of Science) to identify articles published from 2000 to 2016. Articles were included if they focused on the prevention of hospital-acquired pressure ulcers related to the frequency of turning or repositioning of bed-bound patients. Literature search and data extraction were performed independently by 3 authors. The study followed the PRISMA guidelines. In total, 911 articles were identified, of which 10 were eligible. Of the eligible articles, 8 studies could not reach a conclusion on the effective frequency of turning and duration for repositioning patients to prevent the development of pressure ulcers. Only 2 studies found significant differences among the intervention and control groups. Results regarding turning and repositioning schedules are inconclusive; however, the topic needs further exploration to improve the outdated guidelines surrounding pressure ulcer prevention. This may, in turn, make the work of nurses more efficient and make treatment cost-effective for both the patients and the hospitals.

Osteomyelitis of the Pelvic Bones: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Treatment

Background and Purpose: A case series review of chronic pelvic osteomyelitis treated with combined medical and surgical treatment by a multidisciplinary team. Methods: All patients treated with surgical excision of pelvic osteomyelitis at our tertiary referral centre between 2002 and 2014 were included. All received combined care from a clinical microbiologist, an orthopaedic surgeon and a plastic surgeon. The rate of recurrent infection, wound healing problems and post-operative mortality was determined in all. Treatment failure was defined as reoperation involving further bone debridement, a requirement for the use of long-term suppressive antibiotics or sinus recurrence. Results: Sixty-one adults (mean age 50.2 years, range 16.8-80.6) underwent surgery. According to the Cierny-Mader classification of osteomyelitis there were 19 type II, 35 type III and 7 type IV cases. The ischium was the most common site of infection. Osteomyelitis was usually the result of contiguous focus infection associated with decubitus ulcers, predominantly in patients with spinal or cerebral disorders. Most patients with positive microbiology had polymicrobial infection (52.5%). Thirty patients required soft tissue reconstruction with muscle or myocutaneous flaps. Twelve deaths occurred a mean of 2.8 years following surgery (range 7 days-7.4 years). Excluding these deaths the mean follow-up was 4.6 years (range 1.5-12.2 years). Recurrent infection occurred in seven (11.5%) a mean of 1.5 years post-operatively (92 days - 5.3 years). After further treatment 58 cases (95.1%) were infection free at final follow-up. Interpretation: Patients in this series have many comorbidities and risk factors for poor surgical outcome. Nevertheless, the multidisciplinary approach allows successful treatment in the majority of cases.

The contribution of a directional preference of stiffness to the efficacy of prophylactic sacral dressings in protecting healthy and diabetic tissues from pressure injury: computational modelling studies

The sacral region is the most common site for pressure injuries (PIs) associated with lying in bed, and such sacral PIs often commence as deep tissue injuries (DTIs) that later present as open wounds. In complex patients, diabetes is common. Because, among other factors, diabetes affects connective tissue stiffness properties, making these tissues less able to dissipate mechanical loads through physiological deformations, diabetes is an additional biomechanical risk factor for PIs and DTIs. A preventive measure with established successful clinical outcomes is the use of sacral prophylactic dressings. The objective of this study has been to expand our previous work regarding the modes of action and biomechanical efficacy of prophylactic dressings in protecting the soft tissues adjacent to the sacrum by specifically examining the role of a directional stiffness preference (anisotropy) of the dressing while further accounting for diabetic tissue conditions. Multiple three-dimensional anatomically detailed finite element (FE) model variants representing diabetic tissue conditions were used, and tissue loading state data were compared with healthy tissue simulations. We specifically compared soft tissue exposures to elevated internal shear stresses and strain energy densities (SED) near the sacrum during supine weight bearing on a standard (foam) hospital mattress without a dressing, with a prophylactic dressing lacking directional stiffness preferences and with an anisotropic dressing. Our results have clearly shown that an anisotropic dressing design reduces the peak tissue stresses and exposure to sustained tissue deformations in both healthy and diabetic cases. The present study provides additional important insights regarding the optimal structural and material design of prophylactic dressings, which in turn, informs clinicians and decision makers regarding beneficial features.

Economic Evaluations of Strategies to Prevent Hospital-Acquired Pressure Injuries

GENERAL PURPOSE

To provide information from a review of literature about economic evaluations of preventive strategies for pressure injuries (PIs).

TARGET AUDIENCE

This continuing education activity is intended for physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and nurses with an interest in skin and wound care.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES/OUTCOMES

After participating in this educational activity, the participant should be better able to:1. Identify the purpose and methods used for this study.2. Compare costs and effectiveness related to preventative strategies for PIs.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Pressure injuries (PIs) are a common and resource-intensive challenge for acute care hospitals worldwide. While a number of preventive strategies have the potential to reduce the cost of hospital-acquired PIs, it is unclear what approach is the most effective.

OBJECTIVE

The authors performed a narrative review of the literature on economic evaluations of preventive strategies to survey current findings and identify important factors in economic assessments.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid, MEDLINE, NHS Economic Evaluation Databases, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsSELECTION CRITERIA: Potentially relevant original research articles and systematic reviews were considered.

DATA EXTRACTION

Selection criteria included articles that were written in English, provided data on cost or economic evaluations of preventive strategies of PIs in acute care, and published between January 2004 and September 2015. Data were abstracted from the articles using a standardized approach to evaluate how the items on the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist were addressed.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The searches identified 192 references. Thirty-three original articles were chosen for full-text reviews. Nineteen of these articles provided clear descriptions of interventions, study methods, and outcomes considered.

CONCLUSIONS

Limitations in the available literature prevent firm conclusions from being reached about the relative economic merits of the various approaches to the prevention of PIs. The authors' review revealed a need for additional high-quality studies that adhere to commonly used standards of both currently utilized and emerging ways to prevent hospital-acquired PIs.

Pressure RElieving Support SUrfaces: a Randomised Evaluation 2 (PRESSURE 2): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers represent a major burden to patients, carers and the healthcare system, affecting approximately 1 in 17 hospital and 1 in 20 community patients. They impact greatly on an individual's functional status and health-related quality of life. The mainstay of pressure ulcer prevention practice is the provision of pressure redistribution support surfaces and patient repositioning. The aim of the PRESSURE 2 study is to compare the two main mattress types utilised within the NHS: high-specification foam and alternating pressure mattresses, in the prevention of pressure ulcers.

METHODS/DESIGN

PRESSURE 2 is a multicentre, open-label, randomised, double triangular, group sequential, parallel group trial. A maximum of 2954 'high-risk' patients with evidence of acute illness will be randomised on a 1:1 basis to receive either a high-specification foam mattress or alternating-pressure mattress in conjunction with an electric profiling bed frame. The primary objective of the trial is to compare mattresses in terms of the time to developing a new Category 2 or above pressure ulcer by 30 days post end of treatment phase. Secondary endpoints include time to developing new Category 1 and 3 or above pressure ulcers, time to healing of pre-existing Category 2 pressure ulcers, health-related quality of life, cost-effectiveness, incidence of mattress change and safety. Validation objectives are to determine the responsiveness of the Pressure Ulcer Quality of Life-Prevention instrument and the feasibility of having a blinded endpoint assessment using photography. The trial will have a maximum of three planned analyses with unequally spaced reviews at event-driven coherent cut-points. The futility boundaries are constructed as non-binding to allow a decision for stopping early to be overruled by the Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee.

DISCUSSION

The double triangular, group sequential design of the PRESSURE 2 trial will provide an efficient design through the possibility of early stopping for demonstrating either superiority, inferiority of mattresses or futility of the trial. The trial optimises the potential for producing robust clinical evidence on the effectiveness of two commonly used mattresses in clinical practice earlier than in a conventional design.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN01151335 . Registered on 14 May 2013. Protocol version: 5.0, dated 25 September 2015 Trial sponsor: Clare Skinner, Faculty Head of Research Support, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT; 0113 343 4897; C.E.Skinner@leeds.ac.uk.

Neonatal Pressure Ulcer Prevention

The incidence of pressure ulcers in acutely ill infants and children ranges up to 27 percent in intensive care units, with a range of 16-19 percent in NICUs. Anatomic, physiologic, and developmental factors place ill and preterm newborns at risk for skin breakdown. Two case studies illustrate these factors, and best practices for pressure ulcer prevention are described.

Nursing documentation of pressure ulcers in nursing homes: comparison of record content and patient examinations

Aim

The aim of this study was to describe the accuracy and quality of nursing documentation of the prevalence, risk factors and prevention of pressure ulcers, and compare retrospective audits of nursing documentation with patient examinations conducted in nursing homes.

Design

This study used a cross‐sectional descriptive design.

Method

A retrospective audit of 155 patients' records and patient examinations using the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel form and the Braden scale, conducted in January and February 2013.

Results

The prevalence of pressure ulcers was 38 (26%) in the audit of the patient records and 33 (22%) in patient examinations. A total of 17 (45%) of the documented pressure ulcers were not graded. When comparing the patient examinations with the patient record contents, the patient records lacked information about pressure ulcers and preventive interventions.

Wounds research for patient benefit: a 5-year programme of research

Background

Complex wounds are those that heal by secondary intention and include lower-limb ulcers, pressure ulcers and some surgical wounds. The care of people with complex wounds is costly, with care mainly being delivered by community nurses. There is a lack of current, high-quality data regarding the numbers and types of people affected, care received and outcomes achieved.

Objectives

To (1) assess how high-quality data about complex wounds can be captured effectively for use in both service planning and research while ensuring integration with current clinical data collection systems and minimal impact on staff time; (2) investigate whether or not a clinical register of people with complex wounds could give valid estimates of treatment effects, thus reducing dependence on large-scale randomised controlled trials (RCTs); (3) identify the most important research questions and outcomes for people with complex wounds from the perspectives of patients, carers and health-care professionals; (4) evaluate the potential contributions to decision-making of individual patient data meta-analysis and mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis; and (5) complete and update systematic reviews in topic areas of high priority.

Methods

To meet objectives 1 and 2 we conducted a prevalence survey and developed and piloted a longitudinal disease register. A consultative, deliberative method and in-depth interviews were undertaken to address objective 3. To address objectives 4 and 5 we conducted systematic reviews including mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis.

Results

From the prevalence survey we estimated the point prevalence of all complex wounds to be 1.47 per 1000 people (95% confidence interval 1.38 to 1.56 per 1000 people). Pressure ulcers and venous leg ulcers were the most common type of complex wound. A total of 195 people with a complex wound were recruited to a complex wounds register pilot. We established the feasibility of correctly identifying, extracting and transferring routine NHS data into the register; however, participant recruitment, data collection and tracking individual wounds in people with multiple wounds were challenging. Most patients and health professionals regarded healing of the wound as the primary treatment goal. Patients were greatly troubled by the social consequences of having a complex wound. Complex wounds are frequently a consequence of, and are themselves, a long-term condition but treatment is usually focused on healing the wound. Consultative, deliberative research agenda setting on pressure ulcer prevention and treatment with patients, carers and clinicians yielded 960 treatment uncertainties and a top 12 list of research priorities. Of 167 RCTs of complex wound treatments in a systematic review of study quality, 41% did not specify a primary outcome and the overall quality of the conduct and reporting of the research was poor. Mixed-treatment comparison meta-analysis in areas of high priority identified that matrix hydrocolloid dressings had the highest probability (70%) of being the most effective dressing for diabetic foot ulcers, whereas a hyaluronan fleece dressing had the highest probability (35%) of being the most effective dressing for venous ulcers; however, the quality of this evidence was low and uncertainty is high.

Conclusions

Complex wounds are common and costly with a poor evidence base for many frequent clinical decisions. There is little routine clinical data collection in community nursing. A prospective complex wounds register has the potential to both assist clinical decision-making and provide important research evidence but would be challenging to implement without investment in information technology in NHS community services. Future work should focus on developing insights into typical wound healing trajectories, identifying factors that are prognostic for healing and assessing the cost-effectiveness of selected wound treatments.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme.

Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Chronic Wounds: The Spectrum from Basic to Advanced Therapy

Significance: Almost 7 million Americans have chronic cutaneous wounds and billions of dollars are spent on their treatment. The number of patients with nonhealing wounds keeps increasing worldwide due to an ever-aging population, increasing number of obese and diabetic patients, and cardiovascular disease. Recent Advances: Advanced treatments for difficult wounds are needed. Therapy with mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) is attractive due to their differentiating potential, their immunomodulating properties, and their paracrine effects. Critical Issues: New technologies (including growth factors and skin substitutes) are now widely used for stimulating wound healing. However, in spite of these advances, the percentage of complete wound closure in most clinical situations is around 50-60%. Moreover, there is a high rate of wound recurrence. Future Directions: Recently, it has been demonstrated that MSCs speed up wound healing by decreasing inflammation, by promoting angiogenesis, and by decreasing scarring. However, there are some potential limitations to successful MSC therapy. These limitations include the need to improve cell delivery methods, cell viability, heterogeneity in MSC preparations, and suboptimal wound bed preparation. Further large, controlled clinical trials are needed to establish the safety of MSCs before widespread clinical application.

Pressure Mapping Comparison of Four OR Surfaces

Mortality and health care costs associated with hospital-acquired pressure ulcers (HAPUs) increase yearly. After four hours of surgery, the risk of developing a pressure ulcer increases by 33% for every 30 minutes of surgery. Prolonged immobility, lower blood pressures, and increased surface interface pressure may hinder the blood supply delivered to the skin, eventually leading to pressure ulcers. We measured and compared four different OR surfaces to identify the most effective pressure redistribution surface for prolonged OR procedures. The best surface attributes that provide efficient pressure redistribution should have the following properties: the lowest average interface pressure, the lowest peak interface pressure, and the highest skin contact area. Although all surfaces had similar average interface pressures, the air-inflated static seat cushion had the best pressure redistribution properties in the sacral region compared with the other surfaces tested.

Effects of different heel angles in sleep mode on heel interface pressure in the elderly

BACKGROUND

The heels are one of the most common sites of pressure ulcers, and the incidence rate in the elderly aged 70 years or older is high. Although there is literature on heel interface pressure, the heel interface pressure of the elderly in different postures has not yet been explored, which will be investigated in this study, as well as the effects of different foot positions. Their skin conditions will also be examined.

METHODS

Twenty-five females and twenty-six males, 70 years old or older, are evaluated while lying down, with only their naked foot in its natural position on a mattress, as well as placed on a standard or pressure-relieving mattress in different positions. The moisture, sebum content, and elasticity of the skin of the heel are tested.

FINDINGS

The heel of most of the participants is positioned at a 60°-69° or 90°-99° angle to the support surface. The heel interface pressure is the greatest when the foot is upright. The age, weight, and body mass index have no significant impacts. The moisture and sebum content are extremely low while elasticity is normal.

INTERPRETATION

The relaxed position of the foot is in neutral external rotation and upright positions. A greater amount of pressure is experienced when the foot is upright. The pressure-relieving mattress is more effective for reducing heel pressure but may not apply to all cases. Finally, the skin of the heel is dry and lacks sebum, which implies greater risk of developing heel sores.

Support surfaces for pressure ulcer prevention

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.

Repositioning for treating pressure ulcers

BACKGROUND

Pressure, from lying or sitting on a particular part of the body results in reduced oxygen and nutrient supply, impaired drainage of waste products and damage to cells. If a patient with an existing pressure ulcer continues to lie or bear weight on the affected area, the tissues become depleted of blood flow and there is no oxygen or nutrient supply to the wound, and no removal of waste products from the wound, all of which are necessary for healing. Patients who cannot reposition themselves require assistance. International best practice advocates the use of repositioning as an integral component of a pressure ulcer management strategy. This review has been conducted to clarify the role of repositioning in the management of patients with pressure ulcers.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of repositioning patients on the healing rates of pressure ulcers.

SEARCH METHODS

For this third update we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 28 August 2014); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 7); Ovid MEDLINE (2013 to August Week 3 2014); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations 29 August, 2014); Ovid EMBASE (2012 to 29 August, 2014); and EBSCO CINAHL (2012 to 27 August 2014).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing repositioning with no repositioning, or RCTs comparing different repositioning techniques, or RCTs comparing different repositioning frequencies for the review. Controlled clinical trials (CCTs) were only to be considered in the absence of RCTs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed titles and, where available, abstracts of the studies identified by the search strategy for their eligibility. We obtained full versions of potentially relevant studies and two authors independently screened these against the inclusion criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified no studies that met the inclusion criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite the widespread use of repositioning as a component of the management plan for individuals with existing pressure ulcers, no randomised trials exist that assess the effects of repositioning patients on the healing rates of pressure ulcers. Therefore, we cannot conclude whether repositioning patients improves the healing rates of pressure ulcers. The effect of repositioning on pressure ulcer healing needs to be evaluated.

Identifying the right surface for the right patient at the right time: generation and content validation of an algorithm for support surface selection

Support surfaces are an integral component of pressure ulcer prevention and treatment, but there is insufficient evidence to guide clinical decision making in this area. In an effort to provide clinical guidance for selecting support surfaces based on individual patient needs, the Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nurses Society (WOCN®) set out to develop an evidence- and consensus-based algorithm. A Task Force of clinical experts was identified who: 1) reviewed the literature and identified evidence for support surface use in the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers; 2) developed supporting statements for essential components for the algorithm, 3) developed a draft algorithm for support surface selection; and 4) determined its face validity. A consensus panel of 20 key opinion leaders was then convened that: 1.) reviewed the draft algorithm and supporting statements, 2.) reached consensus on statements lacking robust supporting evidence, 3.) modified the draft algorithm and evaluated its content validity. The Content Validity Index (CVI) for the algorithm was strong (0.95 out of 1.0) with an overall mean score of 3.72 (out of 1 to 4), suggesting that the steps were appropriate to the purpose of the algorithm. To our knowledge, this is the first evidence and consensus based algorithm for support surface selection that has undergone content validation.

Reduced pressure for fewer pressure ulcers: can real-time feedback of interface pressure optimise repositioning in bed?

The aim of this study was to (i) describe registered nurses' and assistant nurses' repositioning skills with regard to their existing attitudes to and theoretical knowledge of pressure ulcer (PU) prevention, and (ii) evaluate if the continuous bedside pressure mapping (CBPM) system provides staff with a pedagogic tool to optimise repositioning. A quantitative study was performed using a descriptive, comparative design. Registered nurses (n = 19) and assistant nurses (n = 33) worked in pairs, and were instructed to place two volunteers (aged over 70 years) in the best pressure-reducing position (lateral and supine), first without viewing the CBPM monitor and then again after feedback. In total, 240 positionings were conducted. The results show that for the same person with the same available pressure-reducing equipment, the peak pressure varied considerably between nursing pairs. Reducing pressure in the lateral position appeared to be the most challenging. Peak pressures were significantly reduced, based on visual feedback from the CBPM monitor. The number of preventive interventions also increased, as well as patients' comfort. For the nurses as a group, the knowledge score was 59·7% and the attitude score was 88·8%. Real-time visual feedback of pressure points appears to provide another dimension to complement decision making with respect to PU prevention.

Development of a modularized seating system to actively manage interface pressure

Pressure ulcers can be a fatal complication. Many immobile wheelchair users face this threat. Current passive and active cushions do reduce the incidence of pressure ulcers and they have different merits. We proposed an active approach to combine their advantages which is based on the concept that the interface pressure can be changed with different supporting shapes. The purpose of this paper is to verify the proposed approach. With practical applications in mind, we have developed a modular system whose support surface is composed by height-adjustable support elements. Each four-element module was self-contained and composed of force sensors, position sensors, linear actuators, signal conditioners, driving circuits, and signal processors. The modules could be chained and assembled together easily to form different-sized support surfaces. Each support element took up a 3 cm × 3 cm supporting area. The displacement resolution was less than 0.1 mm and the force sensor error was less than 1% in the 2000 g range. Each support element of the system could provide 49 N pushing force (408 mmHg over the 3 cm × 3 cm area) at a speed of 2.36 mm/s. Several verification tests were performed to assess the whole system's feasibility. Further improvements and clinical applications were discussed. In conclusion, this modularized system is capable of actively managing interface pressure in real time.

Repositioning for pressure ulcer prevention in adults

BACKGROUND

A pressure ulcer (PU), also referred to as a 'pressure injury', 'pressure sore', or 'bedsore' is defined as an area of localised tissue damage that is caused by unrelieved pressure, friction or shearing forces on any part of the body. PUs commonly occur in patients who are elderly and less mobile, and carry significant human and economic impacts. Immobility and physical inactivity are considered to be major risk factors for PU development and the manual repositioning of patients in hospital or long-term care is a common pressure ulcer prevention strategy.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this review were to:1) assess the effects of repositioning on the prevention of PUs in adults, regardless of risk or in-patient setting;2) ascertain the most effective repositioning schedules for preventing PUs in adults; and3) ascertain the incremental resource consequences and costs associated with implementing different repositioning regimens compared with alternate schedules or standard practice.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases to identify reports of the relevant randomised controlled trials: the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 06 September 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 8); Ovid MEDLINE (1948 to August, Week 4, 2013); Ovid EMBASE (1974 to 2013, Week 35); EBESCO CINAHL (1982 to 30 August 2013); and the reference sections of studies that were included in the review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), published or unpublished, that assessed the effects of any repositioning schedule or different patient positions and measured PU incidence in adults in any setting.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three RCTs and one economic study representing a total of 502 randomised participants from acute and long-term care settings. Two trials compared the 30º and 90º tilt positions using similar repositioning frequencies (there was a small difference in frequency of overnight repositioning in the 90º tilt groups between the trials). The third RCT compared alternative repositioning frequencies.All three studies reported the proportion of patients developing PU of any grade, stage or category. None of the trials reported on pain, or quality of life, and only one reported on cost. All three trials were at high risk of bias.The two trials of 30º tilt vs. 90º were pooled using a random effects model (I² = 69%) (252 participants). The risk ratio for developing a PU in the 30º tilt and the standard 90º position was very imprecise (pooled RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.10 to 3.97, P=0.62, very low quality evidence). This comparison is underpowered and at risk of a Type 2 error (only 21 events).In the third study, a cluster randomised trial, participants were randomised between 2-hourly and 3-hourly repositioning on standard hospital mattresses and 4 hourly and 6 hourly repositioning on viscoelastic foam mattresses. This study was also underpowered and at high risk of bias. The risk ratio for pressure ulcers (any category) with 2-hourly repositioning compared with 3-hourly repositioning on a standard mattress was imprecise (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.16, very low quality evidence). The risk ratio for pressure ulcers (any category) was compatible with a large reduction and no difference between 4-hourly repositioning and 6-hourly repositioning on viscoelastic foam (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.02, very low quality evidence).A cost-effectiveness analysis based on data derived from one of the included parallel RCTs compared 3-hourly repositioning using the 30º tilt overnight with standard care consisting of 6-hourly repositioning using the 90º lateral rotation overnight. In this evaluation the only included cost was nursing time. The intervention was reported to be cost saving compared with standard care (nurse time cost per patient €206.6 vs €253.1, incremental difference €-46.5; 95%CI: €-1.25 to €-74.60).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Repositioning is an integral component of pressure ulcer prevention and treatment; it has a sound theoretical rationale, and is widely recommended and used in practice. The lack of robust evaluations of repositioning frequency and position for pressure ulcer prevention mean that great uncertainty remains but it does not mean these interventions are ineffective since all comparisons are grossly underpowered. Current evidence is small in volume and at risk of bias and there is currently no strong evidence of a reduction in pressure ulcers with the 30° tilt compared with the standard 90º position or good evidence of an effect of repositioning frequency. There is a clear need for high-quality, adequately-powered trials to assess the effects of position and optimal frequency of repositioning on pressure ulcer incidence.The limited data derived from one economic evaluation means it remains unclear whether repositioning every 3 hours using the 30º tilt is less costly in terms of nursing time and more effective than standard care involving repositioning every 6 hours using a 90º tilt.

Pressure-relieving devices for treating heel pressure ulcers

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers are areas of localised damage to the skin and underlying tissue caused by pressure or shear. Pressure redistribution devices are used as part of the treatment to reduce the pressure on the ulcer. The anatomy of the heel and the susceptibility of the foot to vascular disease mean that pressure ulcers located there require a particular approach to pressure relief.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of pressure-relieving interventions for treating pressure ulcers on the heel.

SEARCH METHODS

In May 2013, for this first update, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid EMBASE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); and EBSCO CINAHL. No language or publication date restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the effects of pressure-relieving devices on the healing of pressure ulcers of the heel. Participants were treated in any care setting. Interventions were any pressure-relieving devices including mattresses and specific heel devices.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Both review authors independently reviewed titles and abstracts and selected studies for inclusion. Both review authors independently extracted data and assessed studies for risk of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

In our original review, only one study met the inclusion criteria. This study (141 participants) compared two mattress systems; however, losses to follow up were too great to permit reliable conclusions. We did not find any further relevant studies during this first update.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review identified one small study at moderate to high risk of bias which provided no evidence to inform practice. More research is needed.

The impact of patient positioning on pressure ulcers in patients with severe ARDS: results from a multicentre randomised controlled trial on prone positioning

PURPOSE

Placing patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in the prone position has been shown to improve survival as compared to the supine position. However, a higher frequency of pressure ulcers has been reported in patients in the prone position. The objective of this study was to verify the impact of prone positioning on pressure ulcers in patients with severe ARDS.

METHODS

This was an ancillary study of a prospective multicentre randomised controlled trial in patients with severe ARDS in which the early application of long prone-positioning sessions was compared to supine positioning in terms of mortality. Pressure ulcers were assessed at the time of randomisation, 7 days later and on discharge from the intensive care unit (ICU), using the four-stage Pressure Ulcers Advisory Panel system. The primary end-point was the incidence (with reference to 1,000 days of invasive mechanical ventilation or 1,000 days of ICU stay) of new patients with pressure ulcers at stage 2 or higher from randomisation to ICU discharge.

RESULTS

At randomisation, of the 229 patients allocated to the supine position and the 237 patients allocated to the prone position, the number of patients with pressure ulcers was not significantly different between groups. The incidence of new patients with pressure ulcers from randomisation to ICU discharge was 20.80 and 14.26/1,000 days of invasive mechanical ventilation (P = 0.061) and 13.92 and 7.72/1,000 of ICU days (P = 0.002) in the prone and supine groups, respectively. Position group [odds ratio (OR) 1.5408, P = 0.0653], age >60 years (OR 1.5340, P = 0.0019), female gender (OR 0.5075, P = 0.019), body mass index of >28.4 kg/m(2) (OR 1.9804, P = 0.0037), and a Simplified Acute Physiology Score II at inclusion of >46 (OR 1.2765, P = 0.3158) were the covariates independently associated to the acquisition of pressure ulcers.

CONCLUSION

In patients with severe ARDS, prone positioning was associated with a higher frequency of pressure ulcers than the supine position. Prone positioning improves survival in patients with severe ARDS and, therefore, survivors who received this intervention had a greater likelihood of having pressure ulcers documented as part of their follow-up. There are risk groups for the development of pressure ulcers in severe ARDS, and these patients need surveillance and active prevention.

Comprehensive management of pressure ulcers in spinal cord injury: current concepts and future trends

Pressure ulcers in spinal cord injury represent a challenging problem for patients, their caregivers, and their physicians. They often lead to recurrent hospitalizations, multiple surgeries, and potentially devastating complications. They present a significant cost to the healthcare system, they require a multidisciplinary team approach to manage well, and outcomes directly depend on patients' education, prevention, and compliance with conservative and surgical protocols. With so many factors involved in the successful treatment of pressure ulcers, an update on their comprehensive management in spinal cord injury is warranted. Current concepts of local wound care, surgical options, as well as future trends from the latest wound healing research are reviewed to aid medical professionals in treating patients with this difficult problem.

Application of the sheepskin mattress in clinical care for pressure relieving: a quantitative experimental evaluation

This study aimed at quantitatively evaluating the effectiveness of sheepskin mattress (SSM) in pressure relieving, and then variables of peak pressure (mmHg) (PP), average pressure (AP) and contact area (cm(2)) (CA) at the total, back, sacrum and heel regions of 18 students supinely lying in a control mattress (CM), standard hospital mattress (SHM), SHM+SSM, SSM+CM and AM+CM were measured and contrasted. Paired-T test with a significant level of .05 shows that: the intervention of SSM significantly increased the total CA of SHM by 395.6 cm(2) and lowered its PP and AP by 8.8 and 2.0 mmHg respectively; further, the pressure distribution of SSM+CM was superior to that of AM+CM. The reliability of this study, with exception of the heel area, was proven to be good. Overall, the sheepskin mattress is an effective product in pressure reliving.

Dressings and topical agents for preventing pressure ulcers

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers, which are localised injury to the skin, or underlying tissue or both, occur when people are unable to reposition themselves to relieve pressure on bony prominences. Pressure ulcers are often difficult to heal, painful and impact negatively on the individual's quality of life. The cost implications of pressure ulcer treatment are considerable, compounding the challenges in providing cost effective, efficient health services. Efforts to prevent the development of pressure ulcers have focused on nutritional support, pressure redistributing devices, turning regimes and the application of various topical agents and dressings designed to maintain healthy skin, relieve pressure and prevent shearing forces. Although products aimed at preventing pressure ulcers are widely used, it remains unclear which, if any, of these approaches are effective in preventing the development of pressure ulcers.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of dressings and topical agents on the prevention of pressure ulcers, in people of any age without existing pressure ulcers, but considered to be at risk of developing a pressure ulcer, in any healthcare setting.

SEARCH METHODS

In February 2013 we searched the following electronic databases to identify reports of relevant randomised clinical trials (RCTs): the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs evaluating the use of dressings, topical agents, or topical agents with dressings, compared with a different dressing, topical agent, or combined topical agent and dressing, or no intervention or standard care, with the aim of preventing the development of a pressure ulcer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed trials for their appropriateness for inclusion and for their risk of bias. This was done by two review authors working independently, using pre-determined inclusion and quality criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

Five trials (940 participants) of unclear or high risk of bias compared a topical agent with a placebo. Four of these trials randomised by individual and one by cluster. When results from the five trials were combined, the risk ratio (RR) was 0.78 (95% CI 0.47 to 1.31; P value 0.35) indicating no overall beneficial effect of the topical agents. When the cluster randomised trial was omitted from the analysis, use of topical agents reduced the pressure ulcer incidence by 36%; RR 0.64 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.83; P value 0.0008).Four trials (561 participants), all of which were of high or unclear risk of bias, showed that dressings applied over bony prominences reduced pressure ulcer incidence; RR 0.21 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.51; P value 0.0006).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence from RCTs to support or refute the use of topical agents applied over bony prominences to prevent pressure ulcers. Although the incidence of pressure ulcers was reduced when dressings were used to protect the skin, results were compromised by the low quality of the included trials. These trials contained substantial risk of bias and clinical heterogeneity (variations in populations and interventions); consequently, results should be interpreted as inconclusive. Further well designed trials addressing important clinical, quality of life and economic outcomes are justified, based on the incidence of the problem and the high costs associated with pressure ulcer management.

Support surfaces for treating pressure injury: a Cochrane systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects on healing of pressure relieving support surfaces in the treatment of pressure injury.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

Cochrane Wound Group Specialised Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE and EBSCO CINAHL. The reference sections of included trials were searched for further trials.

REVIEW METHODS

Randomised controlled trials, published or unpublished, assessing the effect of support surfaces in treating all pressure injuries were sought. All included studies had to have reported objective measures of pressure injury healing. Where possible, findings from individual trials were calculated using risk ratio estimates or mean difference with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Eighteen eligible trials involving 1309 participants were identified. There was no statistically significant effect on pressure injury size with low air loss devices compared with foam alternatives. One small trial at high risk of bias found that sheepskin positioned under the legs significantly reduced redness and a very small subgroup analysis favoured a profiling bed when compared with a standard bed in terms of the healing of grade 1 pressure injuries.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, there was an absence of good evidence to support the superiority of any pressure relieving device in the treatment of pressure injuries. This review highlights that the current evidence base requires improving by undertaking robust trials to ascertain which support surfaces are most effective for the treatment of pressure injuries.

Peri-operative nurses' knowledge and reported practice of pressure injury risk assessment and prevention: A before-after intervention study

BACKGROUND

Patients are at risk of developing pressure injuries in the peri-operative setting. Studies evaluating the impact of educational interventions on peri-operative nurses' knowledge and reported practice are scarce. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of a multifaceted intervention on peri-operative nurses' (a) knowledge of pressure injury risks, risk assessment and prevention strategies for patients in the operating suite; and (b) reported practice relating to risk assessment practices and implementation of prevention strategies for patients in the operating suite.

METHODS

A before-after research design was used. A convenience sample of all registered and enrolled nurses employed in two hospitals' operating suites was recruited. A multifaceted intervention was delivered which comprised a short presentation, educational materials and reminder posters. A 48-item survey tool was completed pre-and post-intervention to measure self-reported knowledge and practice.

RESULTS

70 eligible peri-operative nurses completed both surveys. Post-intervention, statistically significant improvements were seen in knowledge of correct descriptions of pressure injury stages (p=0.001); appropriate reassessment for patients with a new pressure injury (p=0.05); appropriate actions for patients with an existing stage 1 (p=0.02) and stage 2 pressure injury (p=0.04). Statistical improvements were also seen in reported practice relating to an increase in the use of a risk assessment tool in conjunction with clinical judgement (p=0.0008); verbal handover of patients' pressure injury risk status from the operating room nurse to the recovery room (p=0.023) and from the recovery room nurse to the postoperative ward nurse (p=0.045). The number of participants reporting use of non-recommended and recommended pressure-relieving strategies was unchanged.

CONCLUSION

A multi-faceted educational intervention can improve some aspects of perioperative nurses' knowledge and reported practice such as risk assessment practices but not others such as use of recommended pressure-relieving devices. Further research is required to ascertain effective interventions which improve all areas of practice and knowledge, particularly in the use of appropriate pressure-relieving devices in order to prevent pressure injuries in surgical patients.

Support surfaces for treating pressure ulcers

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers are treated by reducing pressure on the areas of damaged skin. Special support surfaces (including beds, mattresses and cushions) designed to redistribute pressure, are widely used as treatments. The relative effects of different support surfaces are unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of pressure-relieving support surfaces in the treatment of pressure ulcers.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched: The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 15 July 2011); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 3); Ovid MEDLINE (2007 to July Week 1 2011); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, July 14, 2011); Ovid EMBASE (2007 to 2011 Week 27); EBSCO CINAHL (2007 to 14 July 2011). The reference sections of included studies were also searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs), that assessed the effects of support surfaces for treating pressure ulcers, in any patient group or setting, that reported an objective measure of wound healing.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data extraction and assessment of risk of bias were performed independently by two review authors. Trials with similar patients, comparisons and outcomes were considered for pooled analysis. Where pooling was inappropriate the results of the trials were reported narratively. Where possible, the risk ratio or mean difference was calculated for the results of individual studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 18 trials of support surfaces for pressure ulcer treatment, involving 1309 participants with samples sizes that ranged from 14 to 160. Of three trials comparing air-fluidized devices with conventional therapy, two reported significant reductions in pressure ulcer size associated with air-fluidized devices. Due to lack of reported variance data we could not replicate the analyses. In relation to three of the trials that reported significant reductions in pressure ulcer size favouring low air loss devices compared with foam alternatives, we found no significant differences. A small trial found that sheepskin placed under the legs significantly reduced redness and similarly a small subgroup analysis favoured a profiling bed compared with a standard bed in terms of the healing of existing grade 1 pressure ulcers. Poor reporting, clinical heterogeneity, lack of variance data and methodological limitations in the eligible trials meant that no pooled comparisons were undertaken.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no conclusive evidence about the superiority of any support surface for the treatment of existing pressure ulcers. Methodological issues included variations in outcomes measured, sample sizes and comparison groups. Many studies had small sample sizes and often there was inadequate description of the intervention, standard care and co-interventions. Individual study results were often inadequately reported, with failure to report variance data common, thus hindering the calculation of mean differences. Some studies did not report P values when reporting on differences in outcomes. In addition, the age of some trials (some being 20 years old), means that other technologies may have superseded those investigated.Further and rigorous studies are required to address these concerns and to improve the evidence base before firm conclusions can be drawn about the most effective support surfaces to treat pressure ulcers.