Risk Factors for Pressure Injury Development Among Critical Care Patients

Relationship between nutritional goals and pressure injuries in critical care patients receiving enteral nutrition

OBJECTIVE

To examine the relationship between pressure injury (PI) development and achievement of nutritional goals (protein and caloric), as well as consider the clinical conditions, hospitalisation factors, and risk assessment for PI development in patients who are critically ill and receiving enteral nutrition (EN) in the intensive care unit (ICU).

METHOD

An observational cohort study was conducted in the ICU of the University Hospital in São Paulo, Brazil. Inclusion criteria were as follows: age ≥18 years; length of ICU stay ≥24 hours; without PI at ICU admission; and receiving EN exclusively during ICU stay. The development of PI was considered the dependent variable. The Chi-squared test was applied to compare categorical variables, and the Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare continuous variables between groups of patients with and without a PI. The analysis of the achievement of nutritional goals was performed using Fisher's exact test. A significance level of 5% (p-value<0.05) and a confidence interval (CI) of 95% was adopted in all statistical tests.

RESULTS

A total of 181 patients met the inclusion criteria, of whom 102 (56.4%) were male and 79 (43.6%) were female. Mean age was 55.1 years, and mean length of ICU stay was 17.5 days. PI development was associated with not achieving nutritional goals. There was a higher percentage (65.3%) of patients without a PI when both protein and caloric goals were achieved. In contrast, 45.6% of patients developed a PI when the goals were not achieved. The mean days for sedation, vasoactive drugs and mechanical ventilation were all significantly higher in patients who developed a PI (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

There was a significant association between patients developing a PI and deficits in caloric and protein intake. Patients who did not develop PIs had a greater calorie and protein intake compared with those who developed a PI.

Data-driven approach to predicting the risk of pressure injury: A retrospective analysis based on changes in patient conditions

AIMS

To determine the risk of pressure injury development in the intensive care unit based on changes in patient conditions.

DESIGN

This retrospective study was based on secondary data analysis.

METHODS

Patient data from electronic health records were retrospectively obtained and we included 438 and 1752 patients with and without pressure injury, respectively, among those admitted to the medical and surgical intensive care units (ICUs) from January 2017-February 2020. Changes in patient conditions were analysed based on the first and last objective data values from the day of ICU admission to the day before the onset of pressure injury and categorised as follows: improved, maintained normal, exacerbated and unchanged. Logistic regression was performed to identify the significant predictors of pressure injury development based on 11 variables.

RESULTS

The 11 selected variables were age, body mass index, activity, acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II score, nursing severity level, pulse and albumin, haematocrit, C-reactive protein, total bilirubin and blood urea nitrogen levels. The risk for a pressure injury was high with exacerbation of or persistently abnormal levels of nursing severity, albumin, haematocrit, C-reactive protein, blood urea nitrogen and pulse >100 beat/min.

CONCLUSION

Periodic monitoring of haematological variables is important for preventing pressure injury in the intensive care unit.

REPORTING METHOD

The study followed STROBE guidelines.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This study contributes to the utilisation of patient data from electronic health records.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

In addition to other pressure injury risk assessment tools, ICU nurses can help prevent pressure injuries by assessing patients' blood test results, thereby promoting patient safety and enhancing the efficacy of nursing practice.

Pressure injury prevention in adult critically ill patients: best practice implementation project

OBJECTIVE

This study assessed compliance with the best practices for pressure injury prevention among ICU patients at a tertiary hospital in São Paulo, Brazil.

INTRODUCTION

Intensive care patients are at high risk of developing a pressure injury; preventing this requires a best practice protocol.

METHOD

This best practice implementation project was conducted in a Brazilian tertiary hospital in three phases following the JBI Model of Evidence-based Healthcare. Ten criteria derived from the best available evidence were audited and monitored before and after best practice implementation.

RESULTS

The baseline and follow-up audits evaluated 28 patients at each step. A total of 448 h of care were analyzed using a monitoring camera and medical records. Compliance with all 10 audited criteria increased, with a 50% reduction in the prevalence of pressure injuries in intensive care. Of the 223 employees, 71% claimed to have some knowledge of pressure injury prevention, and 66% reported adequate adherence to prevention protocols.

CONCLUSION

The audit and feedback strategy improved compliance with the criteria. Future audits are needed to promote the sustainability of evidence-based practice.

Prevalence of skin pressure injury in critical care patients in the UK: results of a single-day point prevalence evaluation in adult critically ill patients

OBJECTIVES

Hospital-acquired pressure injuries (PIs) are a source of morbidity and mortality, and many are potentially preventable.

DESIGN

This study prospectively evaluated the prevalence and the associated factors of PIs in adult critical care patients admitted to intensive care units (ICU) in the UK.

SETTING

This service evaluation was part of a larger, international, single-day point prevalence study of PIs in adult ICU patients. Training was provided to healthcare givers using an electronic platform to ensure standardised recognition and staging of PIs across all sites.

PARTICIPANTS

The characteristics of the ICUs were recorded before the survey; deidentified patient data were collected using a case report form and uploaded onto a secure online platform.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Factors associated with ICU-acquired PIs in the UK were analysed descriptively and using mixed multiple logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Data from 1312 adult patients admitted to 94 UK ICUs were collected. The proportion of individuals with at least one PI was 16% (211 out of 1312 patients), of whom 8.8% (n=115/1312) acquired one or more PIs in the ICU and 7.3% (n=96/1312) prior to ICU admission. The total number of PIs was 311, of which 148 (47.6%) were acquired in the ICU. The location of majority of these PIs was the sacral area, followed by the heels. Braden score and prior length of ICU stay were associated with PI development.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence and the stage of severity of PIs were generally low in adult critically ill patients admitted to participating UK ICUs during the study period. However, PIs are a problem in an important minority of patients. Lower Braden score and longer length of ICU stay were associated with the development of injuries; most ICUs assess risk using tools which do not account for this.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03270345.

Critical Care Nurses’ Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Regarding Pressure Injury Treatment: A Nationwide Cross-Sectional Survey

Background

Pressure injury is a common problem in intensive care units. Critical care nurses play an important role in multidisciplinary teams performing pressure injury treatment. Identifying the clinical status of pressure injury treatment may contribute to improving care quality.

Aim

To identify the knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding pressure injury treatment in critical care nurses.

Design

A cross-sectional survey.

Methods

Secondary data were extracted from a multicenter clinical trial. Knowledge and attitudes toward pressure injury treatment were assessed through a self-administered eight-item questionnaire. The observed practices were recorded using a case report form. The report was in accordance with the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement.

Results

A total of 950 critical care nurses in 15 hospitals from six provinces/municipalities of China were investigated. The mean knowledge score was 2.89 ± 1.16 (95% confidence interval: 2.82–2.97) out of a possible total of 5 points. The correct rates of selecting wound dressings and pain management were 34.4% and 45.6%, respectively. The mean attitude score was 9.07 ± 1.09 (95% confidence interval: 9.00–9.13) out of a possible total of 12 points. A total of 2092 patient days of pressure injury treatment practices were observed and recorded. Repositioning was the most commonly employed treatment measure (98.8%). Foam dressing was the common dressing for stage I (53.6%), stage II (47.5%), and more severe pressure injury (67.9%), including stage III, IV, unstageable, and suspected deep tissue injury.

Conclusion

Critical care nurses exhibited a generally low level of knowledge and moderate attitudes regarding pressure injury treatment. Practices of pressure injury treatment were generally acceptable.

Critical care nurses' knowledge, attitudes, and practices of pressure injury prevention in China: A multicentric cross-sectional survey

Pressure injury is a serious and preventable problem in intensive care units. Translating guidelines into clinical practice can reduce the incidence of pressure injury. Identifying clinical status, barriers and facilitators contribute to guideline implementation. To identify the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of pressure injury prevention in Chinese critical care nurses. Secondary data were extracted from a multicentric clinical trial. Knowledge and attitudes toward pressure injury prevention were assessed by a fourteen-item questionnaire. The observed practices were recorded using a case report form. The report complies with the STROBE statement. A total of 950 critical care nurses in 15 hospitals from six provinces of China were investigated. A total of 53.1% of nurses received a median score of 6 points or less. Knowledge regarding the repositioning procedure, risk assessment, and heel pressure injury prevention was insufficient. Over 99% of nurses strongly or somewhat agreed that pressure injury prevention was very important and that they were willing to take measures to prevent pressure injury. A total of 27 781 patient days of pressure injury prevention practice were recorded. Repositioning was the most commonly used prevention measure, followed by support surfaces and prophylactic dressings. A combination of repositioning, support surface, and prophylactic dressing was lacking. Chinese critical nurses showed a low level of knowledge and a positive attitude toward pressure injury prevention. Practices of pressure injury prevention were unsatisfactory. There is a clear gap between the guidelines and clinical practices. The barrier (low-level knowledge) and facilitator (positive attitude) were identified in this study. According to these findings, strategies need to be developed to promote guideline implementation.

Factors associated with the incidence of pressure wounds in critical patients: a cohort study

OBJECTIVES

to identify the incidence of pressure wound in critical patients and its associated factors.

METHODS

retrospective cohort study, based on the analysis of 369 critical patients' records. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used, as well as logistic regression.

RESULTS

the incidence of pressure wounds was 11.4%. Patients who had been hospitalized for four days or more (OR 2.99; CI95% 1.15-7.78), used nasoenteric tubes (OR: 3.81; CI95%: 1.4010.38), vesical drainage catheters (OR: 4.78; CI95%: 1.31-17.38) and tracheostomy (OR: 3.64; CI95%: 1.48-8.97) had a higher chance of developing pressure wounds. The mean score of the Braden scale among participants who developed (14.2 points) pressure wounds was statistically different (p<0.001) than that of those who did not (12.3 points).

CONCLUSIONS

the incidence of pressure wounds was associated with a higher time in the unit, the use of nasoenteric tubes, vesical drainage catheters, and tracheostomies were associated with a higher time of hospitalization in the unit.

Pressure Injury Risk Assessment and Prevention in Patients With COVID-19 in the Intensive Care Unit

BACKGROUND

Patients critically ill with COVID-19 are at risk for hospital-acquired pressure injury, including device-related pressure injury.

METHODS

Braden Scale predictive validity was compared between patients with and without COVID-19, and a logistic regression model was developed to identify risk factors for device-related pressure injury.

RESULTS

A total of 1920 patients were included in the study sample, including 407 with COVID-19. Among the latter group, at least 1 hospital-acquired pressure injury developed in each of 120 patients (29%); of those, device-related pressure injury developed in 55 patients (46%). The Braden Scale score area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.72 in patients without COVID-19 and 0.71 in patients with COVID-19, indicating fair to poor discrimination.

CONCLUSIONS

Fragile skin and prone positioning during mechanical ventilatory support were risk factors for device-related pressure injury. Clinicians may consider incorporating factors not included in the Braden Scale (eg, oxygenation and perfusion) in routine risk assessment and should maintain vigilance in their efforts to protect patients with COVID-19 from device-related pressure injury.

Incidence of and Risk Factors for Self-load-related and Medical Device-related Pressure Injuries in Critically Ill Patients: A Prospective Observational Cohort Study

There are two types of pressure injuries: self-load-related pressure injuries (PIs) and medical device-related pressure injuries (MDRPIs), but the differences in risk factors between PIs and MDRPIs have not yet been clarified. If risk factors for PIs and MDRPIs differ, preventive interventions should take this into account. This is a prospective cohort study aimed to determine the cumulative incidence of PIs and MDRPIs in critically ill patients and to identify corresponding risk factors. The study included 1418 patients who were admitted to the critical care medical center of a single university hospital in Tokyo, Japan, between December 1, 2019, and August 31, 2020. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate the cumulative incidence of PIs and MDRPIs. Furthermore, the Cox proportional hazards model was used to analyze the predictors in both the PI and MDRPI incidence and non-incidence groups. Predictors were based on data from the 0th disease day. The cumulative incidence of PIs and MDRPIs was 4.6/1000 person-days and 3.6/1000 person-days, respectively. Multivariate analysis using the Cox proportional hazards model showed that common risk factors for the occurrence of PIs and MDRPIs were possession of PI on admission, higher blood lactate, blood purification therapy, and positional restriction. The risk factors for PIs only were diabetes mellitus, septic shock, and a lower serum albumin level, while the risk factors for MDRPIs only were the D-dimer level and extracorporeal membranous oxygenation treatment. Therefore, prophylactic interventions need to consider these different risk factors. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Translation and piloting of the Chinese Mandarin version of an intensive care-specific pressure injury risk assessment tool (the COMHON Index)

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Fatores associados à incidência de lesão por pressão em pacientes críticos: estudo de coorte

RESUMO Objetivos: identificar a incidência de lesão por pressão em pacientes críticos e os fatores associados à sua ocorrência. Métodos: estudo de coorte retrospectiva, baseando-se na análise dos prontuários de 369 pacientes críticos. Utilizou-se estatística descritiva e inferencial, com regressão logística. Resultados: a incidência de lesão por pressão foi de 11,4%. Pacientes com internação por mais de quatro dias (OR 2,99; IC95% 1,15-7,78), em uso de cateter nasoentérico (OR: 3,81; IC95%: 1,4010,38), cateter vesical de demora (OR: 4,78; IC95%: 1,31-17,38) e traqueostomia (OR: 3,64; IC95%: 1,48-8,97) apresentaram maior chance de desenvolver lesão por pressão. A pontuação média da escala de Braden entre os pacientes que desenvolveram (14,2 pontos) ou não (12,3 pontos) lesão por pressão foi estatisticamente diferente (p<0,001). Conclusões: a incidência de lesão por pressão esteve associada ao maior tempo de permanência na unidade, utilização de cateter nasoentérico, cateter vesical de demora e traqueostomia.