Support Surfaces: Beds, Mattresses, Overlays—Oh My!

Choosing a support surface for pressure injury prevention and treatment

This article discusses an evidence- and consensus-based support-surface algorithm designed to help clinicians choose the most appropriate support surface for preventing or treating pressure injuries based on patient, nurse, and institutional considerations.

Value of hospital resources for effective pressure injury prevention: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Objective

Hospital-acquired pressure injuries are localised skin injuries that cause significant mortality and are costly. Nursing best practices prevent pressure injuries, including time-consuming, complex tasks that lack payment incentives. The Braden Scale is an evidence-based stratification tool nurses use daily to assess pressure-injury risk. Our objective was to analyse the cost-utility of performing repeated risk-assessment for pressure-injury prevention in all patients or high-risk groups.

Design

Cost-utility analysis using Markov modelling from US societal and healthcare sector perspectives within a 1-year time horizon.

Setting

Patient-level longitudinal data on 34 787 encounters from an academic hospital electronic health record (EHR) between 2011 and 2014, including daily Braden scores. Supervised machine learning simulated age-adjusted transition probabilities between risk levels and pressure injuries.

Participants

Hospitalised adults with Braden scores classified into five risk levels: very high risk (6–9), high risk (10–11), moderate risk (12–14), at-risk (15–18), minimal risk (19–23).

Interventions

Standard care, repeated risk assessment in all risk levels or only repeated risk assessment in high-risk strata based on machine-learning simulations.

Main outcome measures

Costs (2016 $US) of pressure-injury treatment and prevention, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) related to pressure injuries were weighted by transition probabilities to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) at $100 000/QALY willingness-to-pay. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses tested model uncertainty.

Results

Simulating prevention for all patients yielded greater QALYs at higher cost from societal and healthcare sector perspectives, equating to ICERs of $2000/QALY and $2142/QALY, respectively. Risk-stratified follow-up in patients with Braden scores <15 dominated standard care. Prevention for all patients was cost-effective in >99% of probabilistic simulations.

Conclusion

Our analysis using EHR data maintains that pressure-injury prevention for all inpatients is cost-effective. Hospitals should invest in nursing compliance with international prevention guidelines.

Pressure Ulcers: Factors Contributing to Their Development in the OR

The prevention of health care-associated pressure ulcers (HAPUs) is an important quality measure because HAPUs are considered a never event. The literature suggests that the prevalence rate of pressure ulcers is 8.5% or higher among patients who undergo surgical procedures that last longer than three hours. We performed a retrospective chart review to determine what factors contribute to the development of pressure ulcers in patients who undergo surgical procedures. The sample population included patients who acquired a pressure ulcer that was not present at admission and developed during their postoperative hospital stay. The project revealed consistent risk factors that may contribute to the development of pressure ulcers in patients who have undergone surgical procedures. These findings can drive the implementation of preventive measures to reduce the occurrence of HAPUs associated with surgical procedures.

Increased Adoption of Quality Improvement Interventions to Implement Evidence-Based Practices for Pressure Ulcer Prevention in U.S. Academic Medical Centers

OBJECTIVE

In 2008, the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services enacted a nonpayment policy for stage III and IV hospital-acquired pressure ulcers (HAPUs), which incentivized hospitals to improve prevention efforts. In response, hospitals looked for ways to support implementation of evidence-based practices for HAPU prevention, such as adoption of quality improvement (QI) interventions. The objective of this study was to quantify adoption patterns of QI interventions for supporting evidence-based practices for HAPU prevention.

METHODS

This study surveyed wound care specialists working at hospitals within the University HealthSystem Consortium. A questionnaire was used to retrospectively describe QI adoption patterns according to 25 HAPU-specific QI interventions into four domains: leadership, staff, information technology (IT), and performance and improvement. Respondents indicated QI interventions implemented between 2007 and 2012 to the nearest quarter and year. Descriptive statistics defined patterns of QI adoption. A t-test and statistical process control chart established statistically significant increase in adoption following nonpayment policy enactment in October 2008. Increase are described in terms of scope (number of QI domains employed) and scale (number of QI interventions within domains).

RESULTS

Fifty-three of the 55 hospitals surveyed reported implementing QI interventions for HAPU prevention. Leadership interventions were most frequent, increasing in scope from 40% to 63% between 2008 and 2012; "annual programs to promote pressure ulcer prevention" showed the greatest increase in scale. Staff interventions increased in scope from 32% to 53%; "frequent consult driven huddles" showed the greatest increase in scale. IT interventions increased in scope from 31% to 55%. Performance and improvement interventions increased in scope from 18% to 40%, with "new skin care products . . ." increasing the most.

LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION

Academic medical centers increased adoption of QI interventions following changes in nonpayment policy. These QI interventions supported adherence to implementation of pressure ulcer prevention protocols. Changes in payment policies for prevention are effective in QI efforts.

Examining the evidence to guide practice: challenging practice habits

Nurses are the largest segment of the nation's health care workforce, which makes nurses vital to the translation of evidence-based practice as a practice norm. Critical care nurses are in a position to critically appraise and apply best evidence in daily practice to improve patients' outcomes. It is important for critical care nurses to continually evaluate their current practice to ensure that they are applying the current best evidence rather than practicing on the basis of tradition. This article is based on a presentation at the 2013 National Teaching Institute of the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses. Four practice interventions that are within the realm of nursing are critiqued on the basis of current best evidence: (1) turning critically ill patients, (2) sleep promotion in the intensive care unit, (3) feeding tube management in infants and children, and (4) prevention of venothromboembolism…again. The related beliefs, current evidence, and implications for practice associated with each topic are described.