Achieving consensus in pressure ulcer reporting

Effectiveness of training in increasing awareness about managing pressure injuries in emergency departments

INTRODUCTION

Emergency room conditions and the characteristics of the patients followed up pose a risk for pressure injury.

AIM

This study was conducted as a pilot study to assess the effectiveness of a training program in increasing the awareness of healthcare professionals working in an emergency department about how to manage pressure injuries.

METHODS

The study was a prospective, pre-test post-test intervention study without a control group. The study included 595 patients who were hospitalized in the emergency room for more than two hours and voluntarily agreed to participate, as well as 11 physicians and 17 nurses working in the emergency department between 15 April and 19 June 2019 2019. It was carried out in three stages. In the first stage, the 30-day pressure injury incidence rate in the emergency department was evaluated using the "Emergency Department Patients Information and Pressure Injury Assessment Form" and "The Braden Scale for Predicting Pressure Injury Risk". In the second stage, the healthcare professionals were given training about pressure injuries. The knowledge levels of healthcare professionals before and after the training were evaluated using "The Descriptive Characteristics Form for Emergency Department Personnel (doctors and nurses)" and "The Questionnaire for Identifying and Preventing Pressure Injury". In the third stage, the 30-day pressure injury incidence rate in the was re-evaluated after the training using the same two scales as before. The SPSS 25 package program was used to evaluate the data in terms of frequency, percentage, mean and standard deviation, and the Mann-Whitney U Test for independent groups, the t-test, the correlated sample t-test, the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test, Pearson Chi-square test, Yates Chi-square test and Fisher's Exact Chi-square test were also used.

RESULTS

The mean knowledge test score of the healthcare professionals working in the emergency department was determined as X¯±SD = 53.71 ± 14.70 before the training and X¯±SD = 58.57 ± 11.83 after the training. The average score on the prevention dimension of the Questionnaire for Identifying and Preventing Pressure Injury was found to be statistically significantly higher than before the training (p < 0.05). The pressure injury incidence in the emergency department was 12.5% before the training and 8.8% afterwards.

CONCLUSION

It was observed that the knowledge of healthcare professionals about pressure injury was insufficient and that training given on this topic both increased their knowledge and decreased the incidence of pressure injury. However, the difference was not statistically significant. Training about pressure injuries is important for preventing pressure injury, identifying the injury early, treating the injury appropriately and increasing the awareness of healthcare professionals.

Reporting of pressure ulcers and medical device related pressure ulcers in policy and practice: A narrative literature review

Pressure ulcers (PUs) occur in a range of care settings, resulting in reduced quality of life for the individual. There has been a growing awareness that medical devices can cause PUs, although reporting has been limited. There is a need to evaluate PU reporting practice and identify whether standards exist for medical device-related pressure ulcers (MDRPUs).

AIM

To synthesize academic and grey literature relevant to reporting of PUs and MDRPUs in healthcare settings.

METHODS

A systematic search of multiple scientific and grey literature databases was undertaken. Key search terms and Boolean operators were used to identify relevant literature. All sources of evidence discussing reporting practices were included in a synthesis. Primary topics are discussed in the corresponding analysis.

RESULTS

Thirty-one evidence sources met the inclusion criteria, including 16 journal articles and 15 policy and guidance documents. The results revealed a variation in reporting practices. MDRPUs were often not identified as a separate category in local and national systems. Policies for related patient safety reporting varied across all organisational levels, with more serious categories of PUs reported more consistently. Reporting to medical device regulatory bodies was not mandatory.

CONCLUSION

This narrative review identified inconsistencies in local and national reporting of PUs and MDRPUs, prohibiting meaningful comparisons and improvements in patient safety. Lack of specific medical device data and low levels of voluntary reporting to regulatory bodies is likely to result in an under-reporting, with little evidence of specific devices which may be a patient safety concern.

Specialised wound care clinics in Spain: distribution and characteristics

OBJECTIVE

To determine the number of specialised wound care units/clinics (SWCUs) in Spain, at present, and to describe their most important characteristics.

METHOD

This was an observational study with a descriptive-analytical, cross-sectional, multicentre approach, where the studied population consisted of SWCUs in Spain. A specific data-collection questionnaire was designed using a modified Delphi method, consisting of four rounds, with the collaboration of 10 wound experts. The final questionnaire included 49 items distributed across four dimensions/areas with a content validity index (CVI-Total for pertinence=0.96 and CVI-Total for relevance=0.94.

RESULTS

A total of 42 SWCUs were included in the study. Most SWCUs were based in hospitals (n=15, 35.7%) or healthcare centres, covering a specific healthcare area (n=17, 40.5%). SWCU coordinators were primarily nurses (n=33, 78.6%). Staff members' professions in SWCUs included registered nurses (n=38 units, 92.7%), nursing assistants (n=8 units, 19.5%), podiatrists (n=8 units, 19.5%), vascular surgeons (n=7 units, 17%), osteopaths (n=2 units, 4.8%) and medical doctors from different specialties (n=3 units, 7.2%). For wound aetiology, the most prevalent wounds managed were diabetic foot ulcers (n=38 units, 90.5%), followed by venous leg ulcers (n=36 units, 85.7%) and arterial ischaemic ulcers (n=36 units, 85.7%). A statistically significant association was found between the number of staff members in a SWCU and the existence of resistance/opposition barriers when developing a SWCU (Chi-square test, p=0.049; Cramér's V=0.34; 34%), as well as between resistance/opposition barriers when developing a SWCU and a nurse as coordinator of a SWCU (MacNemar test, p=0.007, Cramér's V=0.35; 35%).

CONCLUSION

The typical SWCU implemented in Spain is located in a hospital or integrated in a healthcare structure that offers coverage to a whole health area and providing services for people with hard-to-heal wounds (wound management and prevention) and health professionals (advice, consultancy and training/education). Despite the growing number of SWCUs in Spain, the future of this new organisational model is uncertain, as there can be barriers to creating them and some deficiencies, such as low staff numbers, which need to be addressed.

Analyses of pressure ulcer incidence in inpatient setting in a Portuguese hospital

AIM

To gain more insight into the magnitude of the problem of pressure ulcer incidence in general wards of a Portuguese hospital.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Retrospective cohort analysis of electronic health record database from 7132 adult patients admitted to medical and surgical wards of Aveiro Hospital during 2012. The development of (at least) one pressure ulcer during the length of stay was associated with age, gender, type of admission, specialty units, first Braden Scale score, length of stay, patient discharge outcome and ICD-9 diagnosis.

RESULTS

An incidence of 3.4% participants with pressure ulcer category I-IV in inpatient setting during 2012. During the length of stay, 320 new pressure ulcers were developed, most of them category/stage II. The sacrum/coccyx and the trochanters were the most problematic areas.

CONCLUSIONS

The major risk factor for the development of a new pressure ulcer during the length of stay was the presence of (at least) one pressure ulcer at the first skin assessment. The length of stay itself, age and lower Braden Scale scores of our participants also played an important role in the odds of developing a pressure ulcer. Infectious diseases, traumatism and fractures and respiratory diseases were the ICD-9 diagnoses with higher frequency of participants that developed (at least) one pressure ulcer during the length of stay. It's important to standardize procedures and documentation in all care settings. The documentation of nursing interventions is vital to evaluate the impact of evidence-based nursing.

Pressure ulcers in four Indonesian hospitals: prevalence, patient characteristics, ulcer characteristics, prevention and treatment

The objective of this article was to study characteristics of pressure ulcer patients and their ulcers, pressure ulcer preventive and treatment measures in four Indonesian general hospitals. A multicentre cross-sectional design was applied to assess pressure ulcers and pressure ulcer care in adult patients in medical, surgical, specialised and intensive care units. Ninety-one of the 1132 patients had a total of 142 ulcers. Half (44·0%) already had pressure ulcers before admission. The overall prevalence of category I-IV pressure ulcers was 8·0% (95% CI 6·4-9·6), and the overall nosocomial pressure ulcer prevalence was 4·5% (95% CI 3·3-5·7). Most pressure ulcer patients had friction and shear problems, were bedfast, had diabetes and had more bedridden days. Most ulcers (42·3%) were category III and IV. One third of the patients had both pressure ulcers and moisture lesions (36·3%) and suffered from pain (45·1%). The most frequently used prevention measures were repositioning (61·5%), skin moisturising (47·3%), patient education (36·3%) and massage (35·2%). Most pressure ulcer dressings involved saline-impregnated or antimicrobial gauzes. This study shows the complexities of pressure ulcers in Indonesian general hospitals and reveals that the quality of pressure ulcer care (prevention and treatment) could be improved by implementing the recent evidence-based international guideline.

Analyses of pressure ulcer point prevalence at the first skin assessment in a Portuguese hospital

AIM

To analyze the first pressure ulcer risk and skin assessment records of hospitalized adult patients in medical and surgical areas of Aveiro Hospital during 2012 in association with their demographic and clinical characteristics.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Retrospective cohort analysis of electronic health record database from 7132 adult patients admitted to medical and surgical areas in a Portuguese hospital during 2012. The presence of (at least) one pressure ulcer at the first skin assessment in inpatient setting was associated with age, gender, type of admission, specialty units, length of stay, patient discharge and ICD-9 diagnosis.

RESULTS

Point prevalence of participants with pressure ulcer category/stage I-IV of 7.9% at the first skin assessment in inpatient setting. A total of 1455 pressure ulcers were documented, most of them category/stage I. The heels and the sacrum/coccyx were the most problematic areas. Participants with pressure ulcer commonly had two or more pressure ulcers.

CONCLUSIONS

The point prevalence of participants with pressure ulcer of our study was similar international literature. The presence of a pressure ulcer at the first skin assessment could be an important measure of frailty and the participants with pressure ulcer commonly had more than one documented pressure ulcer. Advanced age or lower Braden Scale scores or Emergency Service admission were relevant variables for the presence of (at least) one pressure ulcer at the first skin assessment in inpatient setting as well as respiratory, infectious or genitourinary system diseases.

Pressure ulcer and wounds reporting in NHS hospitals in England part 2: Survey of monitoring systems

This is the second of a two related papers describing work undertaken to compare and contrast Pressure Ulcer (PU) monitoring systems across NHS in-patient facilities in England. The work comprised 1) a PU/Wound Audit (PUWA) and 2) a survey of PU monitoring systems. This second paper focusses on the survey which explores differences in the implementation of PU adverse event monitoring systems in 24 NHS hospital Trusts in England. The survey questionnaire comprised 41 items incorporating single and multiple response options and free-text items and was completed by the PUWA Trust lead in liaison with key people in the organisation. All 24 (100%) Trusts returned the questionnaire, with high levels of data completeness (99.1%). The questionnaire results showed variation between Trusts in relation to the recording of PUs and their reporting as part of NHS prevalence and incident monitoring systems and to Trust boards and healthcare commissioners including the inclusion (or not) of device ulcers, unstageable ulcers, Deep Tissue Injury, combined PUs/Incontinence Associated Dermatitis, category ≥ 1 ulcers or category ≥ 2 ulcers, inherited ulcers, acquired ulcers, avoidable and unavoidable ulcers and the definition of Present On Admission. These fundamental differences in reporting preclude Trust to Trust comparisons of PU prevalence and incident reporting and monitoring systems due to variation in local application and data collection methods. The results of this work and the PUWA led to the development of recommendations for PU monitoring practice, many of which are internationally relevant.

Pressure-reducing interventions among persons with pressure ulcers: results from the first three national pressure ulcer prevalence surveys in Sweden

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The overall aim of this study was to describe preventive interventions among persons with pressure ulcer (PU) in three nationwide PU prevalence surveys in Sweden.

METHODS

A cross-sectional research design was used; more than 70 000 persons from different hospitals and nursing homes participated in the three prevalence surveys conducted in March 2011, October 2011 and March 2012. The methodology used was that recommended by the European Pressure Ulcers Advisory Panel.

RESULTS

The overall prevalence of PU categories I-IV in hospitals was 16.6%, 14.4% and 16.1%, respectively. Corresponding figures for nursing homes were 14.5%, 14.2% and 11.8%, respectively. Heel protection/floating heels and sliding sheets were more frequently planned for persons with PU category I.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the three prevalence studies that have showed high prevalence of PU the use of preventing interventions is still not on an acceptable level. Heel protection/floating heels and sliding sheets were more frequently planned for persons with PUs, and individual-planned repositioning also increased. However, when persons already have a PU they should all have pressure-reducing preventive interventions to prevent the development of more PUs. Preventing PUs presents a challenge even when facilities have prevention programmes. A PU prevention programme requires an enthusiastic leader who will maintain the team's focus and direction for all staff involved in patient care.