Device-related pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: An Australian and New Zealand point prevalence study

Development and validation of a nomogram for oral mucosal membrane pressure injuries in ICU patients: A prospective cohort study

AIMS

Establishing a nomogram to estimate the probability of oral mucosal membrane pressure injury of endotracheal tube-intubated hospitalized patients in intensive care unit.

DESIGN

Multicentre prospective cohort study.

METHODS

Using Lasso regression and COX regression, variable selection was performed on demographic, clinical and laboratory data of 1037 ICU endotracheal tube-intubated hospitalized patients from West China Hospital, to construct a nomogram. External validation was conducted on 484 ICU endotracheal tube-intubated patients from People's Hospital of Zhongjiang County.

RESULTS

Among 38 potential predictors, five variables emerged as independent predictors, integrated into the nomogram: administration of antibiotics, nutritional therapy duration, agitation, hypotension and albumin levels.

CONCLUSIONS

We established a nomogram based on the hospital characteristics of ICU endotracheal tube-intubated patients, aiding in the prediction of the occurrence of oral mucosal membrane pressure injury.

REPORTING METHOD

The study followed TRIPOD guidelines.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

The nomogram we developed can assist clinical worker in better identifying at-risk patients and risk factors. It enables the implementation of evidence-based nursing interventions in care to prevent the development of oral mucosal membrane pressure injury.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study has been registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (http://www.chictr.org.cn) under registration number ChiCTR2200056615.

Evaluation of the effectiveness of preventive nursing measures for pressure injuries in patients in the neurology intensive care unit

BACKGROUND

Patients in neurology intensive care units (ICU) are prone to pressure injuries (PU) due to factors such as severe illness, long-term bed rest, and physiological dysfunction. PU not only causes pain and complications to patients, but also increases medical burden, prolongs hospitalization time, and affects the recovery process.

AIM

To evaluate and optimize the effectiveness of pressure injury prevention nursing measures in neurology ICU patients.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted, and 60 patients who were admitted to the ICU of the Department of Neurology were selected and divided into an observation group and a control group according to the order of admission, with 30 people in each group. The observation group implemented pressure injury prevention and nursing measures, while the control group adopted routine care.

RESULTS

Comparison between observation and control groups following pressure injury prevention nursing intervention revealed significantly lower incidence rates in the observation group compared to the control group at 48 h (8.3% vs 26.7%), 7 d (16.7% vs 43.3%), and 14 d (20.0% vs 50.0%). This suggests a substantial reduction in pressure injury incidence in the observation group, with the gap widening over time. Additionally, patients in the observation group exhibited quicker recovery, with a shorter average time to get out of bed (48 h vs 72 h) and a shorter average length of stay (12 d vs 15 d) compared to the control group. Furthermore, post-intervention, patients in the observation group reported significantly improved quality of life scores, including higher scores in body satisfaction, feeling and function, and comfort (both psychological and physiological), indicating enhanced overall well-being and comfort following the implementation of pressure injury prevention nursing measures.

CONCLUSION

Implementing pressure injury preventive care measures for neurology ICU patients will have better results.

Medical Device-Related Pressure Injury Care and Prevention Training Program (DevICeU): Effects on intensive care nurses' knowledge, prevention performance and point prevalence

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of the training given to intensive care unit (ICU) nurses to prevent medical device-related pressure injuries (MDRPIs) on nurses' knowledge levels, their prevention performance, and the point prevalence (PP) of MDRPIs.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY/DESIGN

A pre-post test intervention study without a control group.

SETTING

The study was conducted between May and July 2023 with ICU nurses in three phases: pre-training phase (E0) (104 nurses, 116 patients), training implementation phase (E) and post-training phase (E1) (89 nurses, 120 patients).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The data were collected by using the Patient (E0, E1) and Nurse (E0) Characteristic Forms, MDRPI Follow-up and Prevalence Form (E0, E1), D.E.V.I.C.E Performance Observation Checklist (E0, E1), MDRPI Knowledge Assessment Questionnaire (E0, E1), Braden Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Scale (E0, E1), Pressure Injury Grading Form (E0, E1), and Feedback Form about the Training Process (E).

RESULTS

The mean MDRPI knowledge score of the nurses increased significantly from E0 to E1 (13.23 ± 1.43 vs. 20.02 ± 1.30, p = 0.001), with the highest improvement in the staging and prevention themes. Nurses' MDRPI prevention performance increased significantly from E0 to E1 (2.15 ± 1.01 vs. 11.17 ± 1.65, p = 0.001). There was a significant difference between the PP rate at E0 (61.2 %) and E1 (27.5 %) (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The study indicated that the training on MDRPIs given to ICU nurses increased their knowledge and prevention performance and decreased the prevalence of MDRPIs. However, further studies with a larger sample size are needed to confirm these findings.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE

Since MDRPIs have more complex staging and prevention practices than conventional PIs, they require the adoption of a training approach that includes visual materials and practical methods in addition to theoretical knowledge. Accurate definitions of medical device dimensions and fixation, skin assessment, and prevention practices will lead to the desired outcome of reducing MDRPIs in ICUs.

Mucosal membrane pressure injury in intensive care units: A scoping review

AIM

To describe published work on the current situation of mucosal membrane pressure injury of patients in the intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND

Device-related pressure injuries in critically ill patients are mostly focused on skin surface injuries, and less attention is paid to mucosal membrane pressure injury.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library from database construction until March 1, 2023. Two researchers independently screened and extracted data.

RESULTS

Eighteen articles met our criteria and were published in 2014-2023. The included studies showed that the incidence of mucosal membrane pressure injury in critically ill patients ranged from 0.83% to 88.2%, and the prevalence ranged from 0.16% to 55.6%. The most frequently reported site of mucosal injury is the oral mucosa, followed by the nasal mucosa. Ten studies used Braden to assess the risk of mucosal membrane pressure injury, and only six studies reported specific stages of mucosal membrane pressure injury. Thirteen studies described 30 risk factors for mucosal membrane pressure injury, with albumin being the most frequently reported risk factor, followed by the vasoconstrictive drugs use. Thirty risk factors were summarized in six aspects: medical device-related factors, disease-related factors, treatment- related factors, physiological and biochemical parameters, demographic-related factors, and microbial colonisation.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence or prevalence of mucosal membrane pressure injury varies widely, and specific risk assessment tools and standardized staging criteria need to be further determined. The risk factors of mucosal membrane pressure injury involve multiple aspects, and some risk factors have only been explored in few studies and need to be further verified, in order to detect the risk group of mucosal membrane pressure injury early and take targeted preventive measures.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE

We synthesized the current research status of mucosal membrane pressure injury in critically ill patients, which can provide a valuable reference for the clinical staff to develop preventive and management measures for such patients.

Incidence of medical device-related pressure injuries in the intensive care unit and related risk factors

AIM

At present, physicians employ medical devices extensively in the treatment of numerous diseases and in the care and follow-up of patients. However, these medical devices are a potential cause of pressure injuries.The study aimed to investigate the incidence and affecting risk factors of medical device-related pressure injuries (MDRPIs) in an adult intensive care unit.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a longitudinal descriptive/analytical and cross-sectional study. The researchers conducted this study with 213 intensive care patients between 15.06.2021 and 15.12.2021. The skin and mucosa under and around each medical device were observed once a day for MDRPIs during the stay of patients who had been hospitalized in the intensive care unit for at least 24 h. The data were collected using Patient Information Form developed by the researchers based on the literature, Medical Device-Related Pressure Injury Monitoring Form, the Jackson/Cubbin Pressure Area Risk Calculator (Jackson/Cubbin BARHATr)-Turkish Version, the National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel (NPIAP) Pressure Injury Staging System and the Glasgow Coma Scale.

RESULTS

The incidence of MDRPIs was 28.6% (61/213). The study revealed that 48.4% (46/95) of these injuries were caused by medical devices for respiratory system, 26.3% (25/95) by devices for gastrointestinal and genitourinary system. The study also revealed that 70.5% of MDRPIs occurred on the skin and 29.5% on the mucosal membrane, and that 82.1% of the MDRPIs occurring on the skin were at Stage 1. In terms of anatomical location, 21.1% of these injuries developed on the fingers and 13.7% on the mouth/lip. In multivariate analysis, parenteral + enteral (p = 0.006, OR = 0.083, 95%CI = [0.014-0.497]) and oral nutrition (p = 0.037, OR = 0.210, 95%CI = [0.049-0.908]), a higher number of devices (nine or more) (p = 0.002, OR = 5.387, 95%CI = [1.840-15.772]) and the duration of device wear (p < 0.05) were identified as independent risk factors for the occurrence of MDRPIs.

CONCLUSIONS

The study showed that the incidence of MDRPIs was relatively high and was associated with various factors. It is critical for intensive care nurses, who encounter MDRPIs more frequently, to consider these factors while caring for their patients and to take appropriate preventive measures to reduce the incidence of these injuries.

Medical Device Testing: Methods, Significance, and Clinical Applications

GENERAL PURPOSE

To present a study conducting objective biomechanical testing of medical devices known to cause medical device-related pressure injuries (MDRPIs) in critically ill adults and comparing those results with clinical outcomes associated with each device.

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 will:1. Explain the results of the study of the relationships between objective biomechanical tests of medical devices and clinical outcomes that help inform clinicians using these devices.2. Synthesize the background information that informed the study.

Incidence, prevalence and risk factors of device-related pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit: A meta-analysis of 10,084 patients from 11 countries

Device-related pressure injuries (DRPIs) prevail in the intensive care unit (ICU) and have much to do with medical devices and patients' conditions. This meta-analysis aims to systematically assess the incidence, prevalence and risk factors related to DRPIs among adults in ICU. Web of Science, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, PubMed and CINAHL were searched from inception to March 2023. Observational studies were included, and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) was used to assess literature quality. The primary outcomes were the incidence, prevalence and risk factors regarding DRPIs among adults in ICU. The 19 studies conformed to the criteria for inclusion in the review. The estimated pooled incidence of DRPIs was 14.7% (95% CI: 9.7%-19.6%) in 10 studies (4866 participants). The estimated pooled prevalence of DRPIs was 19.0% (95% CI: 13.6%-24.3%) in 9 studies (5218 participants). The most significant risk factor for DRPIs was using mechanical ventilation. The pooled analysis of the four studies showed that DRPIs were more likely to occur in patients who required mechanical ventilation compared with patients who did not use mechanical ventilation (OR: 9.67, 95% CI: 5.03-18.61, p < 0.001) and using vasopressors, age, length of ICU stays, APACHE II score, Braden score, fever, sex, oedema, diabetes and number of medical devices, SOFA score was also related to pressure injuries risk. The incidence and prevalence of DRPIs in adult ICU were high, and the most significant risk factor for DRPIs was using mechanical ventilation. It is imminent to identify patients of increased risk with DRPIs early.

Respiratory device-related pressure injuries in hospitalised adults: An integrative review

OBJECTIVE

To identify the main ventilatory support medical devices related to the occurrence of pressure injuries in hospitalised adults, as well as the most frequent anatomical localisations of these injuries.

METHODS

The Integrative review was registered at Open Science Framework as per DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/P3NTZ. Two independent reviewers, in May 2022, searched the databases: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, LILACS and CINAHL; no language or publication year restriction. The review question was: What are the ventilatory support medical devices that cause PIs in hospitalised adults more often? The terms for searching the database were: "adult," "noninvasive ventilation," "artificial respiration." and "pressure injury," and their synonyms. This review followed the PRISMA checklist.

RESULTS

The final sample was 21 articles. Oxygen nasal catheters caused up to 40.7% of the pressure injuries by ventilatory support devices identified, all in the ears. Noninvasive mechanical ventilation oronasal masks presented an incidence of pressure injuries of 63.3%. The nasal bridge was the site most affected by this mask. The Set of Holders for Insight® endotracheal tubes was the device that caused the most pressure injuries, with an incidence of 75%, affecting lip commissure. Tracheostomy cannula accounted for 18.2% of the pressure injuries related to ventilatory support devices; all lesions were in the neck.

CONCLUSION

The ventilatory support devices causing pressure injuries and the most affected sites were, respectively, nasal catheters, ears; masks, nasal bridge; endotracheal tubes, lip commissures; tracheostomy cannulas, neck.

RELEVANCE FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE

Knowing which respiratory devices cause pressure injuries more often in hospitalised adults and which anatomical localisations are more likely to be affected is fundamental for adopting preventive measures and reducing the occurrence of this problem.

NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

No patient or public contribution because of the review.

Incidence and characteristics of hospital-acquired mucous membrane pressure injury: A five-year analysis

BACKGROUND

Pressure injuries on mucous membranes are caused by pressure from medical devices at the site of injury and differ to those on the skin. Intensive care patients, who have multiple devices in situ, are particularly vulnerable. There is a significant knowledge gap regarding mucous membrane pressure injury (MMPI) incidence in acute hospital settings.

AIM

To analyse MMPI incidence and characteristics in a tertiary acute general hospital.

METHODS

A secondary data analysis of hospital clinical incident reports was conducted. The sample included all adults with MMPIs between 2015 and 2019. The STROBE reporting guideline was followed.

RESULTS

There were 414 reports of MMPI. Most (91.5%, n = 379) were hospital-acquired with the majority found in intensive care patients (74.4%, n = 282). Hospital-acquired MMPI incidence was 0.1% (11 MMPI per 10,000 hospital episodes). In intensive care, the incidence was 2.4% (235 MMPI per 10,000 intensive care episodes). The median time from device insertion until reporting of an MMPI was 3 days. The most common sites of mucosal injury were the lips (35.6%) and mouth (28.8%). In all cases except one, MMPI was associated with medical device use at the site of injury. Five device types were identified (oral endotracheal tube-related 70.3%; urinary catheter 15.5%; gastric tube 8.3%; nasal prongs 3.5%; tracheostomy tube 2.4%). In intensive care, oral endotracheal tube-related devices were most often associated with MMPI (84.8%), whereas in non-intensive care MMPI it was the urinary catheter (51.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

While hospital-acquired MMPI incidence is relatively low, it is considerably higher in intensive care patients compared to those in non-intensive care settings. The most common sites are the lips and mouth.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Mucous membrane pressure injuries represent a significant proportion of all hospital-acquired pressure injuries.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Neither patients nor the public were directly involved in this project.