Pressure injury data in Australian acute care settings: A comparison of three data sets

Inter-rater reliability of descriptors for the classification of mucosal pressure injury: A prospective cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Mucosal pressure injuries (PIs) are usually caused by pressure from essential medical devices. There is no universally accepted criterion for assessment, monitoring, or reporting mucosal PI. Reliable descriptors are vital to benchmark the frequency and severity of this hospital-acquired complication.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to determine whether modified Reaper Oral Mucosa Pressure Injury Scale (ROMPIS) descriptors improved the reliability of mucosal PI assessment. Secondary aims were to explore nurses' knowledge of and attitudes toward mucosal PI.

METHODS

A prospective cross-sectional survey was distributed to nurses from two tertiary affiliated intensive care units via REDCap® to capture demographic data, knowledge, attitudes, and inter-rater reliability (IRR) measures. Nurses were randomised at a 1:1 ratio to original or modified ROMPIS descriptors and classified 12 images of mucosal PI. IRR was assessed using percentage agreement, Fleiss' kappa, and intraclass correlation coefficients.

RESULTS

The survey response rate was 20.9% (n = 98/468), with 73.5% (n = 72/98) completing IRR measures. Agreement was higher with modified (75%) than original ROMPIS descriptors (69.4%). IRR was fair for the original (κ = 0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.28, 0.33], z 26.5, p < 0.001) and modified ROMPIS (κ = 0.29, 95% CI [0.26, 0.31], z 25.0, p < 0.001). Intraclass correlation coefficient findings indicated ratings were inconsistent for the original (0.33, 95% CI [0.18, 0.59], F 18.8 (11 df), p < 0.001) and modified ROMPIS (0.31, 95% CI [0.17, 0.57], F 17.6 (11 df), p < 0.001). PI-specific education and risk factor recognition were common.

CONCLUSION

Modified descriptors had marginally better agreement. Participants understand management and prevention but need to strengthen their perceived capacity for mucosal PI risk assessment. This work provides a foundation for future benchmarking and a platform from which further research to refine and test descriptors specific to mucosal PI can be generated.

Development of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Risk of Hospitalization With Pressure Injury After Entering Residential Aged Care

OBJECTIVES

Although largely preventable, pressure injury is a major concern in individuals in permanent residential aged care (PRAC). Our study aimed to identify predictors and develop a prognostic model for risk of hospitalization with pressure injury (PI) using integrated Australian aged and health care data.

DESIGN

National retrospective cohort study.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Individuals ≥65 years old (N = 206,540) who entered 1797 PRAC facilities between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2016.

METHODS

PI, ascertained from hospitalization records, within 365 days of PRAC entry was the outcome of interest. Individual, medication, facility, system, and health care-related factors were examined as predictors. Prognostic models were developed using elastic nets penalized regression and Fine and Gray models. Area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) assessed model discrimination out-of-sample.

RESULTS

Within 365 days of PRAC entry, 4.3% (n = 8802) of individuals had a hospitalization with PI. The strongest predictors for PI risk include history of PIs [sub-distribution hazard ratio (sHR) 2.41; 95% CI 1.77-3.29]; numbers of prior hospitalizations (having ≥5 hospitalizations, sHR 1.95; 95% CI 1.74-2.19); history of traumatic amputation of toe, ankle, foot and leg (sHR 1.72; 95% CI 1.44-2.05); and history of skin disease (sHR 1.54; 95% CI 1.45-1.65). Lower care needs at PRAC entry with respect to mobility, complex health care, and medication assistance were associated with lower risk of PI. The risk prediction model had an AUC of 0.74 (95% CI 0.72-0.75).

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Our prognostic model for risk of hospitalization with PI performed moderately well and can be used by health and aged care providers to implement risk-based prevention plans at PRAC entry.

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.

Clinical Coders' Perspectives on Pressure Injury Coding in Acute Care Services in Victoria, Australia

Pressure injuries (PIs) substantively impact quality of care during hospital stays, although only when they are severe or acquired as a result of the hospital stay are they reported as quality indicators. Globally, researchers have repeatedly highlighted the need to invest more in quality improvement, risk assessment, prevention, early detection, and care for PI to avoid the higher costs associated with treatment of PI. Coders' perspectives on quality assurance of the clinical coded PI data have never been investigated. This study aimed to explore challenges that hospital coders face in accurately coding and reporting PI data and subsequently, explore reasons why data sources may vary in their reporting of PI data. This article is based upon data collected as part of a multi-phase collaborative project to build capacity for optimizing PI prevention across Monash Partners health services. We have conducted 16 semi-structured phone interviews with clinical coders recruited from four participating health services located in Melbourne, Australia. One of the main findings was that hospital coders often lacked vital information in clinicians' records needed to code PI and report quality indicators accurately and highlighted the need for quality improvement processes for PI clinical documentation. Nursing documentation improvement is a vital component of the complex capacity building programs on PI prevention in acute care services and is relied on by coders. Coders reported the benefit of inter-professional collaborative workshops, where nurses and coders shared their perspectives. Collaborative workshops had the potential to improve coders' knowledge of PI classification and clinicians' understanding of what information should be included when documenting PI in the medical notes. Our findings identified three methods of quality assurance were important to coders to ensure accuracy of PI reporting: (1) training prior to initiation of coding activity and (2) continued education, and (3) audit and feedback communication about how to handle specific complex cases and complex documentation. From a behavioral perspective, most of the coders reported confidence in their own abilities and were open to changes in coding standards. Transitioning from paper-based to electronic records highlighted the need to improve training of both clinicians and coders.

Pressure Injury Surveillance and Prevention in Australia: Monash Partners Capacity Building Framework

A hospital-acquired pressure injury (HAPI) is a common complication across the globe. The severity of HAPI ranges from skin redness and no skin breakdown to full skin and tissue loss, exposing the tendons and bones. HAPI can significantly impact the quality of life. In addition to the human cost, this injury carries a high economic burden with the cost of treatment far outweighing the preventative measures. The HAPI rates are a key indicator of health services performance. Globally, healthcare services aim to reduce its incidence. In Australia, the federal health minister has prioritised the need for improvement in HAPI surveillance and prevention. Capacity building is vital to optimise pressure injury (PI) surveillance and prevention in acute care services. In this perspective article, we provide a framework for capacity building to optimise HAPI prevention and surveillance in a large cross-sector collaborative partnership in Australia. This framework comprises six key action areas in capacity building to optimise the HAPI outcomes, such as research, organisational development, workforce development, leadership, collaboration, and consumer involvement.

Pressure injury data in Australian acute care settings: A comparison of three data sets

Hospital-acquired pressure injuries (HAPIs) represent a serious clinical and economic problem. The cost of treating HAPIs in Australian public hospitals was recently reported at AUS$983 million per annum. There are three main sources of data for documenting pressure injury (PI) occurrence in Australian hospitals: incident reporting, medical record coded data, and real-time surveys of pressure injury. PI data reported at hospital level and to external agencies using these three different sources are variable. This reporting issue leads to inaccurate data interpretation and hinders improvement in accuracy of PI identification and PI prevention. This study involved a comparison of the three different data sources in selected Australian hospitals, to improve the accuracy and comparability of data. Findings from this study provide benchmark areas for improvement in PI documenting and reporting. Better understanding the agreement between the three data sets could lead to a more efficient and effective sharing of data sources.