Community-Acquired Pressure Injuries in the Acute Care Setting

Community-Acquired Pressure Injuries: Prevalence, Risk Factors and Effect of Care Bundles-An Integrative Review

AIM AND OBJECTIVES

To summarise the evidence and present the state of the science on pressure injury care bundles in the community. Specifically, this review examined (i) the extent of pressure injury by studying its prevalence and incidence in the last 10 years, (ii) the risk factors associated with community-acquired pressure injury and (iii) the components and outcomes associated with effective pressure injury care bundles in the community.

BACKGROUND

PI care bundles have effectively reduced PI rates; however, there is limited evidence of care bundles used in community settings.

DESIGN

Integrative review.

METHODS

This integrative review is guided by the Whittemore and Knafl framework and follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines. Quality appraisal was applied to assess the quality of selected articles. Data relevant to the review aims were extracted, and findings were synthesised and presented. PubMed, Medline, CINAHL and Web of Science were searched. Studies published in the English language between 2012 and 2022 were retrieved.

RESULTS

A total of 89 articles were retrieved; 25 met the inclusion criteria. Most studies reported the point prevalence and period prevalence of community-acquired pressure injuries, and only one study reported the incidence of community-acquired pressure injuries. The point prevalence and period prevalence of community-acquired pressure injury were 0.02% to 10.8% and 2.7% to 86.4%, respectively, and the cumulative incidence was 1.3%. The risk factors for community-acquired pressure injury assessed vary between studies; older age, poor nutrition, immobility and multiple comorbidities are commonly reported. Socioeconomic and caregiving factors were not studied. Very few studies evaluated pressure injury care bundles in the community. Even so, the components of the pressure injury care bundle vary between studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Pressure injury development is associated with a complex interplay of factors. Socioeconomic and caregiving factors were not examined in any of the papers. There is a lack of understanding of the components and outcomes associated with effective pressure injury care bundles in the community.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Despite their prevalence, community-acquired pressure injuries (CAPIs) are often underreported due to inadequate follow-up and reporting mechanisms. Although the risk factors for CAPIs vary across studies, older age, impaired mobility, multiple comorbidities and malnutrition consistently emerge as key contributors. Pressure injury preventive care bundles are more commonly used in the acute care setting rather than the community setting.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

No Patient or Public Contribution.

Socio-economic and environmental factors associated with community-acquired pressure injuries: A mixed method study

AIMS

To: (1) report on the prevalence of community-acquired pressure injuries (CAPIs) in patients admitted into the acute care setting; (2) examine the socio-economic and home environment associated with CAPIs; and (3) understand the challenges of caring for patients with CAPIs at home.

METHODS

This mixed-method study recruited patients admitted with CAPIs in the acute care hospital between March 2021 to June 2022. The hospital's pressure injury (PI) database was used to screen patients admitted with CAPIs. A purposive sample of CAPI patients and their caregivers participated in this study. A cross-sectional survey study was first performed to examine the prevalence of CAPIs and the socio-economic and home environment factors. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to understand the caregivers' challenges in caring for patients with CAPIs at home.

RESULTS

The CAPI prevalence was reported at 1.1 % during the study period (1039 had CAPIs out of 97 912 patients admitted to the hospital). A total of 70 caregivers and patients consented to participate in the study. The mean age of patients was 84.2 (SD = 10.4) years old; 68.6 % (n = 48) were females. Majority presented with a deep tissue injury (DTI) (37.1 %; n = 26) or unstageable PI (31.4 %; n = 22). More than half of the patients had alternating air mattresses at home (54.3 %; n = 38), and only 10 % (n = 7) had positioning wedges and used a sliding sheet for turning. The mean age of the caregivers was 43.4 years old (SD = 13.1), and 84.3 % (n = 59) were female. Continuous data were summarised using means and standard deviations, and categorical data were summarised using frequencies and percentages. Logistic regression found no significant socio-demographic and clinical predictors of patients having PI stages 2, 3, and 4 compared to patients with DTI and unstageable PI. Challenges to caring for PI at home included high financial burden, physical limitations, and personal challenges in CAPIs management.

CONCLUSION

CAPIs are prevalent among older patients admitted to the acute care setting. Understanding the influence of socio-economic factors is crucial for developing comprehensive strategies to mitigate the occurrence and impact of PIs. Ongoing support and education to the caregivers in the community is essential to address the reported challenges in PI care.

Sustainable pressure injury prevention

The quality department used adaptive leadership and the plan-do-study-act cycle to decrease pressure injury (PI) rates. After identifying gaps, the pressure injury prevention bundle was developed and implemented to bring evidence-based nursing practice to frontline nurses. Organisational rates of PI was followed for 4 years (2019-2022) and a smaller subset of 88 patients were followed in the prospective arm. Using statistical analysis, the decrease in PI rates (90%) and severity is significant (p<0.5) and sustained compared with the year prior to interventions.