Predicting pressure ulcers: cases missed using a new clinical prediction rule

Identification of Risk Factors for the Development of Pressure Ulcers Despite Standard Screening Methodology and Prophylaxis in Trauma Patients

PURPOSE

To present information about a study of risk factors for development of pressure ulcers (PrUs) in trauma patients.

TARGET AUDIENCE

This continuing education activity is intended for physicians and nurses with an interest in skin and wound care.

OBJECTIVES/OUTCOMES

After participating in this educational activity, the participant should be better able to:1. Describe the previous PrU research, scope of the problem, and methodology of the study.2. Explain the results of the study identifying PrU risk factors for trauma patients.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE

Pressure ulceration prevention has been emphasized  over the past several years in inpatient hospital settings with  subsequent decreases in the development of pressure ulcers (PrUs).  However, there remains a subset of trauma and burn patients  that develop PrUs despite standard screening methodology and  prophylaxis. This study determines the conditions that predict  development of pressure ulcers (PrUs) despite conventional  prophylaxis and screening. 

METHODS

Demographic and PrU data were collected over a  5-year period from June 2008 to May 2013. Patients diagnosed  with PrUs upon arrival in the trauma bay were excluded from  analysis. An ordinal logistic regression of PrU stage was used to  estimate odds ratios (ORs) and associated 95% confidence intervals  (CIs) for the association between characteristics of interest and  odds of a PrU. A backward selection process was used to select the  most parsimonious model. 

RESULTS

During the study period, 14,616 trauma patients were  admitted and had available data. A total of 124 patients (0.85%) that met inclusion criteria went on to develop PrUs during their hospital course. Factors associated with the development of PrUs included spine Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) >3 (OR, 5.72; CI, 3.63-9.01), mechanical ventilation (OR, 1.95; CI, 1.23-3.10) and age 40 to 64 (OR, 2.09; CI, 1.24-3.52) and age ≥ 65 (OR, 4.48; CI, 2.52-7.95). Interestingly, head injury AIS >3 was protective from the development of PrUs (OR, 0.56; CI, 0.32-0.96). Hypotension and shock defined as systolic BP <90 mm Hg and base deficit less than -6 were not associated with the development of PrUs. In addition, body mass index was not associated with PrU development. 

CONCLUSIONS

Spinal injuries, older than age 40, and mechanical  ventilation predict the development of PrUs for a subset of  patients, despite conventional prophylaxis and screening. Advanced  prevention methods, such as low-air-loss mattresses for these patient  subgroups should be considered immediately upon identification  of these risk factors during the hospital course.

Pressure Ulcers Prevalence in the Acute Care Setting: A Systematic Review, 2000-2015

Little is known about the prevalence of pressure ulcer (PrU) in acute care settings. The aim of this study is to determine the prevalence rate of PrU in acute care settings and to assess the methodological quality of the reviewed publications. The Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, British Nursing Index, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched using the keywords pressure ulcer or decubitus ulcer or bed sore or pressure sore or pressure injury, with prevalence and acute care, for studies published between January 2000 and December 2015. Nineteen publications met our criteria. These reported a prevalence range of between 7.8% and 54% for those using European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel methodology, 6% and 22% for those using National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel methodology, and 4.94% for the study that employed the Torrance system. The likely worldwide PrU prevalence rate range in acute care settings is between 6% and 18.5%. Prevalence rate varies between studies depending on the methodology of data collection. Moreover, the methodological quality of the included studies in the review was variable; therefore, it was difficult to compare the prevalence rate between the studies, settings, and countries.

Evaluation of an Automated Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Model

The key to timely interventions and reducing avoidable incidence is the early identification of patients at risk for developing pressure ulcers. To enable the automatic detection of such patients and inform acute care interdisciplinary providers, a filter feature model using heuristic statistical methods was applied to a relational database of retrospective patient data including demographics, medications, and clinical visit details. These attributes served as input for the C4.5 decision tree induction algorithm, which was used to classify patient risk. The validity of the resulting classification model, Electronic Pressure Ulcer Prediction (ePUP), was assessed using a fourfold cross-validation. The current results show a limited application of such a naïve classification algorithm for automating pressure ulcer risk assessments. Additional refinements will be necessary before the predictions of ePUP are sufficient for general clinical use and the improvement of patient safety in acute care settings, and during the transition from hospital to home.

Predictive validity of the Braden scale for pressure ulcer risk in critical care patients

This methodological study aimed to evaluate the predictive validity of the Braden scale in critical care patients. The study was conducted in four intensive care units of a general private hospital. After approval of the project by the Hospital Ethics Committee, during six months, adult patients admitted to ICUs with a Braden score <18 and without PU were assessed upon admission and at 48-hours intervals as long as the patient remained at risk or until the development of PU, patients' discharge, death or transfer from the ICU. The cut-off scores of the Braden scale in the first, second and third assessments were 12, 13 and 13, respectively. Sensitivity was 85.7%, 71.4% and 71.4% and specificity was 64.6%, 81.5% and 83.1%, respectively. Areas under the ROC curves revealed very good accuracy for the cut-off scores. The Braden cut-off score 13 in the third assessment showed the best predictive performance in critical care patients.

Hospital-acquired pressure ulcer prevalence--evaluating low-air-loss beds

PURPOSE

Higher-category pressure redistribution mattresses are considered a critical component of a pressure ulcer prevention program, but few studies have quantified the impact of specific preventive measures on the incidence or prevalence of hospital-acquired pressure ulcers (HAPUs). Therefore, this study was undertaken to determine the impact of low-air-loss beds on HAPU prevalence.

METHODS

This prospective, comparative cohort study monitored the prevalence of HAPU at our hospital and compared rates of matched medical-surgical units with and without low-air-loss beds. Units without low-air-loss beds used a variety of alternative pressure redistribution devices for patients deemed at risk for pressure ulceration. The prevalence of HAPU was operationally defined as the number of patients with HAPUs divided by numbers of patients observed.

RESULTS

The prevalence of HAPU over 3 quarters in 2008 ranged from 1.0% to 3.3% (overall rate 2.4%). Eighty-three percent of patients with HAPUs were cared for on low-air-loss beds. Of 12 patients with 16 HAPUs during this time, 75% were aged 70 years or older and 25% were managed in critical care units. Over half of patients who developed HAPUs had been hospitalized for 20 days or more. Half of the patients with HAPUs were scored as no-low risk on the Braden Scale.On the paired medical-surgical units, no statistically significant differences were found when patients with low-air-loss beds were compared to standard hospital mattresses supplemented by a variety of pressure redistribution devices. Seven of 11 HAPUs (63%) occurred in patients placed on low-air-loss beds.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of HAPU in patients placed on low-air-loss beds was no different from patients placed on standard hospital mattresses supplemented by a variety of pressure redistribution devices. Further research is needed to determine the impact of specific strategies on prevention of HAPU.

Heel damage and epidural analgesia: is there a connection?

OBJECTIVE

To determine heel pressure injury prevalence in surgical patients prescribed epidural analgesia and identify intrinsic and extrinsic factors associated with heel damage in this patient cohort.

METHOD

A descriptive study was used to investigate intrinsic and extrinsic variables associated with recorded heel observations at a private hospital in Victoria, Australia. We recruited a sample of 29 consecutive non-emergency participants undergoing general anaesthesia for major surgery, who were prescribed epidural analgesia postoperatively. A total of 58 heel observations were made.

RESULTS

Heel damage prevalence in the study sample was 13.8% (n=8).

CONCLUSION

Intrinsic factors associated with this complication included intra- and postoperative hypotension, vascular disease, smoking, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and multiple disease burdens. Extrinsic factors associated with heel damage included thromboembolic deterrent stockings and the postoperative ward use of heel protectors designed for use in operating theatres. It is hoped that the study findings will assist improvements in the assessment of heel damage risk and promote the pressure prevention strategies required by this patient cohort.

Incidência de úlcera por pressão e ações de enfermagem

OBJETIVOS: Estimar a incidência cumulativa (ICup) e a densidade de incidência (DIup) de úlcera por pressão (UP) e descrever a ocorrência de ações de enfermagem em dois hospitais do Estado da Bahia, antes (fase 1) e durante (fase 2) intervenção educativa. MÉTODOS: Estudo de coortes prospectivo com pacientes médico-cirúrgicos, utilizando avaliação da integridade cutânea, consulta a registros no prontuário, e entrevista com paciente, família e equipe. RESULTADOS: ICup, fase 1 e fase 2 foi, respectivamente, no hospital 1 de 31,4% e 13,6%, e no hospital 2, de 21,4% e 15%; DIup aponta tempo médio de exposição para aparecimento de UP no hospital 1 de 14,3 dias na fase 1 e de 43,5 na fase 2; no hospital 2, de 31,3 dias na fase 1 e 37 na fase 2. CONCLUSÃO: Redução estatisticamente significante da DIup no hospital 1; cuidados de enfermagem preventivos para UP comprometidos em ambos os hospitais nas duas fases.

Extrinsic risk factors for pressure ulcers early in the hospital stay: a nested case-control study

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the impact of extrinsic factors on pressure ulcer risk. The objective of this study was to determine whether risk of pressure ulcers early in the hospital stay is associated with extrinsic factors such as longer emergency department (ED) stays, night or weekend admission, potentially immobilizing procedures and medications, and admission to an intensive care unit (ICU).

METHODS

A nested case-control study was performed in two teaching hospitals in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Participants were medical patients age > or =65 years admitted through the ED. Cases (n = 195) had > or =1 possibly or definitely hospital-acquired pressure ulcers. Three controls per case were sampled randomly from among noncases at the same hospital in the same month (n = 597). Pressure ulcer status was determined by a research nurse on the third day of hospitalization. Pressure ulcers were classified as preexisting, possibly hospital-acquired, or definitely hospital-acquired. Information on extrinsic factors was obtained by chart review.

RESULTS

The odds of pressure ulcers were twice as high for those with an ICU stay as for those without (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.0, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-3.5). The aOR was 0.6 (95% CI, 0.3-0.9) for use of any potentially immobilizing medications during the early inpatient period.

CONCLUSIONS

Many of the procedures experienced by patients in the ED and early in the inpatient stay do not confer excess pressure ulcer risk. Having an ICU stay is associated with a doubling of risk. This finding emphasizes the importance of developing and evaluating interventions to prevent pressure ulcers among patients in the ICU.