1
|
Shi C, Dumville JC, Cullum N, Rhodes S, Jammali-Blasi A, McInnes E. Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 5:CD013620. [PMID: 33969911 PMCID: PMC8108044 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013620.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Pressure ulcers (also known as pressure injuries, pressure sores, decubitus ulcers and bed sores) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both, caused by unrelieved pressure, shear or friction. Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces are widely used with the aim of preventing pressure ulcers. OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (beds, mattresses or overlays) compared with any support surface on the incidence of pressure ulcers in any population in any setting. SEARCH METHODS In November 2019, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials that allocated participants of any age to alternating pressure (active) air beds, overlays or mattresses. Comparators were any beds, overlays or mattresses. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS At least two review authors independently assessed studies using predetermined inclusion criteria. We carried out data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and the certainty of the evidence assessment according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology. MAIN RESULTS We included 32 studies (9058 participants) in the review. Most studies were small (median study sample size: 83 participants). The average age of participants ranged from 37.2 to 87.0 years (median: 69.1 years). Participants were largely from acute care settings (including accident and emergency departments). We synthesised data for six comparisons in the review: alternating pressure (active) air surfaces versus: foam surfaces, reactive air surfaces, reactive water surfaces, reactive fibre surfaces, reactive gel surfaces used in the operating room followed by foam surfaces used on the ward bed, and another type of alternating pressure air surface. Of the 32 included studies, 25 (78.1%) presented findings which were considered at high overall risk of bias. PRIMARY OUTCOME pressure ulcer incidence Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces may reduce the proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer compared with foam surfaces (risk ratio (RR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34 to 1.17; I2 = 63%; 4 studies, 2247 participants; low-certainty evidence). Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces applied on both operating tables and hospital beds may reduce the proportion of people developing a new pressure ulcer compared with reactive gel surfaces used on operating tables followed by foam surfaces applied on hospital beds (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.76; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 415 participants; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether there is a difference in the proportion of people developing new pressure ulcers between alternating pressure (active) air surfaces and the following surfaces, as all these comparisons have very low-certainty evidence: (1) reactive water surfaces; (2) reactive fibre surfaces; and (3) reactive air surfaces. The comparisons between different types of alternating pressure air surfaces are presented narratively. Overall, all comparisons suggest little to no difference between these surfaces in pressure ulcer incidence (7 studies, 2833 participants; low-certainty evidence). Included studies have data on time to pressure ulcer incidence for three comparisons. When time to pressure ulcer development is considered using a hazard ratio (HR), it is uncertain whether there is a difference in the risk of developing new pressure ulcers, over 90 days' follow-up, between alternating pressure (active) air surfaces and foam surfaces (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.64; I2 = 86%; 2 studies, 2105 participants; very low-certainty evidence). For the comparison with reactive air surfaces, there is low-certainty evidence that people treated with alternating pressure (active) air surfaces may have a higher risk of developing an incident pressure ulcer than those treated with reactive air surfaces over 14 days' follow-up (HR 2.25, 95% CI 1.05 to 4.83; 1 study, 308 participants). Neither of the two studies with time to ulcer incidence data suggested a difference in the risk of developing an incident pressure ulcer over 60 days' follow-up between different types of alternating pressure air surfaces. Secondary outcomes The included studies have data on (1) support-surface-associated patient comfort for comparisons involving foam surfaces, reactive air surfaces, reactive fibre surfaces and alternating pressure (active) air surfaces; (2) adverse events for comparisons involving foam surfaces, reactive gel surfaces and alternating pressure (active) air surfaces; and (3) health-related quality of life outcomes for the comparison involving foam surfaces. However, all these outcomes and comparisons have low or very low-certainty evidence and it is uncertain whether there are any differences in these outcomes. Included studies have data on cost effectiveness for two comparisons. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that alternating pressure (active) air surfaces are probably more cost-effective than foam surfaces (1 study, 2029 participants) and that alternating pressure (active) air mattresses are probably more cost-effective than overlay versions of this technology for people in acute care settings (1 study, 1971 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Current evidence is uncertain about the difference in pressure ulcer incidence between using alternating pressure (active) air surfaces and other surfaces (reactive water surfaces, reactive fibre surfaces and reactive air surfaces). Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces may reduce pressure ulcer risk compared with foam surfaces and reactive gel surfaces used on operating tables followed by foam surfaces applied on hospital beds. People using alternating pressure (active) air surfaces may be more likely to develop new pressure ulcers over 14 days' follow-up than those treated with reactive air surfaces in the nursing home setting; but as the result is sensitive to the choice of outcome measure it should be interpreted cautiously. Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces are probably more cost-effective than reactive foam surfaces in preventing new pressure ulcers. Future studies should include time-to-event outcomes and assessment of adverse events and trial-level cost-effectiveness. Further review using network meta-analysis will add to the findings reported here.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chunhu Shi
- Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - Jo C Dumville
- Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - Nicky Cullum
- Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - Sarah Rhodes
- Division of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Asmara Jammali-Blasi
- Nursing Research Institute, St Vincent's Health Australia (Sydney) and Australian Catholic University (ACU), School of Nursing, Midwifery and Paramedicine, Australian Catholic University, Darlinghurst, Australia
| | - Elizabeth McInnes
- Nursing Research Institute, St Vincent's Health Australia Sydney, St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne & Australian Catholic University, Fitzroy, Melbourne, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Shi C, Dumville JC, Cullum N, Rhodes S, Jammali-Blasi A, Ramsden V, McInnes E. Beds, overlays and mattresses for treating pressure ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 5:CD013624. [PMID: 33969896 PMCID: PMC8108042 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013624.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Pressure ulcers (also known as pressure injuries, pressure sores, decubitus ulcers and bed sores) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both, caused by unrelieved pressure, shear or friction. Beds, overlays or mattresses are widely used with the aim of treating pressure ulcers. OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of beds, overlays and mattresses on pressure ulcer healing in people with pressure ulcers of any stage, in any setting. SEARCH METHODS In November 2019, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials that allocated participants of any age to pressure-redistributing beds, overlays or mattresses. Comparators were any beds, overlays or mattresses that were applied for treating pressure ulcers. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS At least two review authors independently assessed studies using predetermined inclusion criteria. We carried out data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and the certainty of the evidence assessment according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology. MAIN RESULTS We included 13 studies (972 participants) in the review. Most studies were small (median study sample size: 72 participants). The average age of participants ranged from 64.0 to 86.5 years (median: 82.7 years) and all studies recruited people with existing pressure ulcers (the baseline ulcer area size ranging from 4.2 to 18.6 cm2,median 6.6 cm2). Participants were recruited from acute care settings (six studies) and community and long-term care settings (seven studies). Of the 13 studies, three (224 participants) involved surfaces that were not well described and therefore could not be classified. Additionally, six (46.2%) of the 13 studies presented findings which were considered at high overall risk of bias. We synthesised data for four comparisons in the review: alternating pressure (active) air surfaces versus foam surfaces; reactive air surfaces versus foam surfaces; reactive water surfaces versus foam surfaces, and a comparison between two types of alternating pressure (active) air surfaces. We summarise key findings for these four comparisons below. (1) Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces versus foam surfaces: we are uncertain if there is a difference between alternating pressure (active) air surfaces and foam surfaces in the proportion of participants whose pressure ulcers completely healed (two studies with 132 participants; the reported risk ratio (RR) in one study was 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 3.58). There is also uncertainty for the outcomes of patient comfort (one study with 83 participants) and adverse events (one study with 49 participants). These outcomes have very low-certainty evidence. Included studies did not report time to complete ulcer healing, health-related quality of life, or cost effectiveness. (2) Reactive air surfaces versus foam surfaces: it is uncertain if there is a difference in the proportion of participants with completely healed pressure ulcers between reactive air surfaces and foam surfaces (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.80; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 156 participants; low-certainty evidence). When time to complete pressure ulcer healing is considered using a hazard ratio, data from one small study (84 participants) suggests a greater hazard for complete ulcer healing on reactive air surfaces (hazard ratio 2.66, 95% CI 1.34 to 5.17; low-certainty evidence). These results are sensitive to the choice of outcome measure so should be interpreted as uncertain. We are also uncertain whether there is any difference between these surfaces in patient comfort responses (1 study, 72 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and in adverse events (2 studies, 156 participants; low-certainty evidence). There is low-certainty evidence that reactive air surfaces may cost an extra 26 US dollars for every ulcer-free day in the first year of use (1 study, 87 participants). Included studies did not report health-related quality of life. (3) Reactive water surfaces versus foam surfaces: it is uncertain if there is a difference between reactive water surfaces and foam surfaces in the proportion of participants with healed pressure ulcers (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.63; 1 study, 101 participants) and in adverse events (1 study, 120 participants). All these have very low-certainty evidence. Included studies did not report time to complete ulcer healing, patient comfort, health-related quality of life, or cost effectiveness. (4) Comparison between two types of alternating pressure (active) air surfaces: it is uncertain if there is a difference between Nimbus and Pegasus alternating pressure (active) air surfaces in the proportion of participants with healed pressure ulcers, in patient comfort responses and in adverse events: each of these outcomes had four studies (256 participants) but very low-certainty evidence. Included studies did not report time to complete ulcer healing, health-related quality of life, or cost effectiveness. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS We are uncertain about the relative effects of most different pressure-redistributing surfaces for pressure ulcer healing (types directly compared are alternating pressure air surfaces versus foam surfaces, reactive air surfaces versus foam surfaces, reactive water surfaces versus foam surfaces, and Nimbus versus Pegasus alternating pressure (active) air surfaces). There is also uncertainty regarding the effects of these different surfaces on the outcomes of comfort and adverse events. However, people using reactive air surfaces may be more likely to have pressure ulcers completely healed than those using foam surfaces over 37.5 days' follow-up, and reactive air surfaces may cost more for each ulcer-free day than foam surfaces. Future research in this area could consider the evaluation of alternating pressure air surfaces versus foam surfaces as a high priority. Time-to-event outcomes, careful assessment of adverse events and trial-level cost-effectiveness evaluation should be considered in future studies. Further review using network meta-analysis will add to the findings reported here.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chunhu Shi
- Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - Jo C Dumville
- Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - Nicky Cullum
- Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - Sarah Rhodes
- Division of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Asmara Jammali-Blasi
- Nursing Research Institute, St Vincent's Health Australia (Sydney) and Australian Catholic University (ACU), School of Nursing, Midwifery and Paramedicine, Australian Catholic University, Darlinghurst, Australia
| | - Victoria Ramsden
- School of Nursing, Faculty of Medicine, University of Notre Dame, Darlinghurst, Australia
| | - Elizabeth McInnes
- Nursing Research Institute, St Vincent's Health Australia Sydney, St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne & Australian Catholic University, Fitzroy, Melbourne, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND Pressure ulcers (also known as pressure injuries, pressure sores, decubitus ulcers and bed sores) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both, caused by unrelieved pressure, shear or friction. Reactive air surfaces (beds, mattresses or overlays) can be used for preventing pressure ulcers. OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of reactive air beds, mattresses or overlays compared with any support surface on the incidence of pressure ulcers in any population in any setting. SEARCH METHODS In November 2019, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials that allocated participants of any age to reactive air beds, overlays or mattresses. Comparators were any beds, overlays or mattresses that were applied for preventing pressure ulcers. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS At least two review authors independently assessed studies using predetermined inclusion criteria. We carried out data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and the certainty of the evidence assessment according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology. If a reactive air surface was compared with surfaces that were not clearly specified, then we recorded and described the concerned study but did not included it in further data analyses. MAIN RESULTS We included 17 studies (2604 participants) in this review. Most studies were small (median study sample size: 83 participants). The average participant age ranged from 56 to 87 years (median: 72 years). Participants were recruited from a wide range of care settings with the majority being acute care settings. Almost all studies were conducted in the regions of Europe and America. Of the 17 included studies, two (223 participants) compared reactive air surfaces with surfaces that were not well described and therefore could not be classified. We analysed data for five comparisons: reactive air surfaces compared with (1) alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (seven studies with 1728 participants), (2) foam surfaces (four studies with 229 participants), (3) reactive water surfaces (one study with 37 participants), (4) reactive gel surfaces (one study with 66 participants), and (5) another type of reactive air surface (two studies with 223 participants). Of the 17 studies, seven (41.2%) presented findings which were considered at high overall risk of bias. PRIMARY OUTCOME Pressure ulcer incidence Reactive air surfaces may reduce the proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer compared with foam surfaces (risk ratio (RR) 0.42; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 0.96; I2 = 25%; 4 studies, 229 participants; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if there is a difference in the proportions of participants developing a new pressure ulcer on reactive air surfaces compared with: alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (6 studies, 1648 participants); reactive water surfaces (1 study, 37 participants); reactive gel surfaces (1 study, 66 participants), or another type of reactive air surface (2 studies, 223 participants). Evidence for all these comparisons is of very low certainty. Included studies have data on time to pressure ulcer incidence for two comparisons. When time to pressure ulcer incidence is considered using a hazard ratio (HR), low-certainty evidence suggests that in the nursing home setting, people on reactive air surfaces may be less likely to develop a new pressure ulcer over 14 days' of follow-up than people on alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (HR 0.44; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.96; 1 study, 308 participants). It is uncertain if there is a difference in the hazard of developing new pressure ulcers between two types of reactive air surfaces (1 study, 123 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes Support-surface-associated patient comfort: the included studies have data on this outcome for three comparisons. We could not pool any data as comfort outcome measures differed between included studies; therefore a narrative summary is provided. It is uncertain if there is a difference in patient comfort responses between reactive air surfaces and foam surfaces over the top of an alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (1 study, 72 participants), and between those using reactive air surfaces and those using alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (4 studies, 1364 participants). Evidence for these two comparisons is of very low certainty. It is also uncertain if there is a difference in patient comfort responses between two types of reactive air surfaces (1 study, 84 participants; low-certainty evidence). All reported adverse events: there were data on this outcome for one comparison: it is uncertain if there is a difference in adverse events between reactive air surfaces and foam surfaces (1 study, 72 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The included studies have no data for health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness for all five comparisons. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Current evidence is uncertain regarding any differences in the relative effects of reactive air surfaces on ulcer incidence and patient comfort, when compared with reactive water surfaces, reactive gel surfaces, or another type of reactive air surface. Using reactive air surfaces may reduce the risk of developing new pressure ulcers compared with using foam surfaces. Also, using reactive air surfaces may reduce the risk of developing new pressure ulcers within 14 days compared with alternating pressure (active) air surfaces in people in a nursing home setting. Future research in this area should consider evaluation of the most important support surfaces from the perspective of decision-makers. Time-to-event outcomes, careful assessment of adverse events and trial-level cost-effectiveness evaluation should be considered in future studies. Trials should be designed to minimise the risk of detection bias; for example, by using digital photography and adjudicators of the photographs being blinded to group allocation. Further review using network meta-analysis will add to the findings reported here.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chunhu Shi
- Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - Jo C Dumville
- Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - Nicky Cullum
- Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - Sarah Rhodes
- Division of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Vannessa Leung
- Sydney Eye Hospital, Sydney, Australia
- Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Kensington, Sydney, Australia
- School of Medicine, University of Sydney, Camperdown, Sydney, Australia
| | - Elizabeth McInnes
- Nursing Research Institute, St Vincent's Health Australia Sydney, St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne & Australian Catholic University, Fitzroy, Melbourne, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Shi C, Dumville JC, Cullum N, Rhodes S, McInnes E. Alternative reactive support surfaces (non-foam and non-air-filled) for preventing pressure ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 5:CD013623. [PMID: 34097764 PMCID: PMC8179967 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013623.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Pressure ulcers (also known as injuries, pressure sores, decubitus ulcers and bed sores) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both, caused by unrelieved pressure, shear or friction. Reactive surfaces that are not made of foam or air cells can be used for preventing pressure ulcers. OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of non-foam and non-air-filled reactive beds, mattresses or overlays compared with any other support surface on the incidence of pressure ulcers in any population in any setting. SEARCH METHODS In November 2019, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials that allocated participants of any age to non-foam or non-air-filled reactive beds, overlays or mattresses. Comparators were any beds, overlays or mattresses used. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS At least two review authors independently assessed studies using predetermined inclusion criteria. We carried out data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and the certainty of the evidence assessment according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology. If a non-foam or non-air-filled surface was compared with surfaces that were not clearly specified, then the included study was recorded and described but not considered further in any data analyses. MAIN RESULTS We included 20 studies (4653 participants) in this review. Most studies were small (median study sample size: 198 participants). The average participant age ranged from 37.2 to 85.4 years (median: 72.5 years). Participants were recruited from a wide range of care settings but were mainly from acute care settings. Almost all studies were conducted in Europe and America. Of the 20 studies, 11 (2826 participants) included surfaces that were not well described and therefore could not be fully classified. We synthesised data for the following 12 comparisons: (1) reactive water surfaces versus alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (three studies with 414 participants), (2) reactive water surfaces versus foam surfaces (one study with 117 participants), (3) reactive water surfaces versus reactive air surfaces (one study with 37 participants), (4) reactive water surfaces versus reactive fibre surfaces (one study with 87 participants), (5) reactive fibre surfaces versus alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (four studies with 384 participants), (6) reactive fibre surfaces versus foam surfaces (two studies with 228 participants), (7) reactive gel surfaces on operating tables followed by foam surfaces on ward beds versus alternating pressure (active) air surfaces on operating tables and subsequently on ward beds (two studies with 415 participants), (8) reactive gel surfaces versus reactive air surfaces (one study with 74 participants), (9) reactive gel surfaces versus foam surfaces (one study with 135 participants), (10) reactive gel surfaces versus reactive gel surfaces (one study with 113 participants), (11) reactive foam and gel surfaces versus reactive gel surfaces (one study with 166 participants) and (12) reactive foam and gel surfaces versus foam surfaces (one study with 91 participants). Of the 20 studies, 16 (80%) presented findings which were considered to be at high overall risk of bias. PRIMARY OUTCOME Pressure ulcer incidence We did not find analysable data for two comparisons: reactive water surfaces versus foam surfaces, and reactive water surfaces versus reactive fibre surfaces. Reactive gel surfaces used on operating tables followed by foam surfaces applied on hospital beds (14/205 (6.8%)) may increase the proportion of people developing a new pressure ulcer compared with alternating pressure (active) air surfaces applied on both operating tables and hospital beds (3/210 (1.4%) (risk ratio 4.53, 95% confidence interval 1.31 to 15.65; 2 studies, 415 participants; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence). For all other comparisons, it is uncertain whether there is a difference in the proportion of participants developing new pressure ulcers as all data were of very low certainty. Included studies did not report time to pressure ulcer incidence for any comparison in this review. Secondary outcomes Support-surface-associated patient comfort: the included studies provide data on this outcome for one comparison. It is uncertain if there is a difference in patient comfort between alternating pressure (active) air surfaces and reactive fibre surfaces (one study with 187 participants; very low-certainty evidence). All reported adverse events: there is evidence on this outcome for one comparison. It is uncertain if there is a difference in adverse events between reactive gel surfaces followed by foam surfaces and alternating pressure (active) air surfaces applied on both operating tables and hospital beds (one study with 198 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not find any health-related quality of life or cost-effectiveness evidence for any comparison in this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Current evidence is generally uncertain about the differences between non-foam and non-air-filled reactive surfaces and other surfaces in terms of pressure ulcer incidence, patient comfort, adverse effects, health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness. Reactive gel surfaces used on operating tables followed by foam surfaces applied on hospital beds may increase the risk of having new pressure ulcers compared with alternating pressure (active) air surfaces applied on both operating tables and hospital beds. Future research in this area should consider evaluation of the most important support surfaces from the perspective of decision-makers. Time-to-event outcomes, careful assessment of adverse events and trial-level cost-effectiveness evaluation should be considered in future studies. Trials should be designed to minimise the risk of detection bias; for example, by using digital photography and adjudicators of the photographs being blinded to group allocation. Further review using network meta-analysis will add to the findings reported here.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chunhu Shi
- Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - Jo C Dumville
- Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - Nicky Cullum
- Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - Sarah Rhodes
- Division of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Elizabeth McInnes
- Nursing Research Institute, St Vincent's Health Australia Sydney, St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne & Australian Catholic University, Fitzroy, Melbourne, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND Pressure ulcers (also known as pressure injuries) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both, caused by unrelieved pressure, shear or friction. Foam surfaces (beds, mattresses or overlays) are widely used with the aim of preventing pressure ulcers. OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of foam beds, mattresses or overlays compared with any support surface on the incidence of pressure ulcers in any population in any setting. SEARCH METHODS In November 2019, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials that allocated participants of any age to foam beds, mattresses or overlays. Comparators were any beds, mattresses or overlays. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS At least two review authors independently assessed studies using predetermined inclusion criteria. We carried out data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and the certainty of the evidence assessment according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology. If a foam surface was compared with surfaces that were not clearly specified, then the included study was recorded and described but not considered further in any data analyses. MAIN RESULTS We included 29 studies (9566 participants) in the review. Most studies were small (median study sample size: 101 participants). The average age of participants ranged from 47.0 to 85.3 years (median: 76.0 years). Participants were mainly from acute care settings. We analysed data for seven comparisons in the review: foam surfaces compared with: (1) alternating pressure air surfaces, (2) reactive air surfaces, (3) reactive fibre surfaces, (4) reactive gel surfaces, (5) reactive foam and gel surfaces, (6) reactive water surfaces, and (7) another type of foam surface. Of the 29 included studies, 17 (58.6%) presented findings which were considered at high overall risk of bias. PRIMARY OUTCOME pressure ulcer incidence Low-certainty evidence suggests that foam surfaces may increase the risk of developing new pressure ulcers compared with (1) alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (risk ratio (RR) 1.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 2.95; I2 = 63%; 4 studies, 2247 participants), and (2) reactive air surfaces (RR 2.40, 95% CI 1.04 to 5.54; I2 = 25%; 4 studies, 229 participants). We are uncertain regarding the difference in pressure ulcer incidence in people treated with foam surfaces and the following surfaces: (1) reactive fibre surfaces (1 study, 68 participants); (2) reactive gel surfaces (1 study, 135 participants); (3) reactive gel and foam surfaces (1 study, 91 participants); and (4) another type of foam surface (6 studies, 733 participants). These had very low-certainty evidence. Included studies have data on time to pressure ulcer development for two comparisons. When time to ulcer development is considered using hazard ratios, the difference in the risk of having new pressure ulcers, over 90 days' follow-up, between foam surfaces and alternating pressure air surfaces is uncertain (2 studies, 2105 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Two further studies comparing different types of foam surfaces also reported time-to-event data, suggesting that viscoelastic foam surfaces with a density of 40 to 60 kg/m3 may decrease the risk of having new pressure ulcers over 11.5 days' follow-up compared with foam surfaces with a density of 33 kg/m3 (1 study, 62 participants); and solid foam surfaces may decrease the risk of having new pressure ulcers over one month's follow-up compared with convoluted foam surfaces (1 study, 84 participants). Both had low-certainty evidence. There was no analysable data for the comparison of foam surfaces with reactive water surfaces (one study with 117 participants). Secondary outcomes Support-surface-associated patient comfort: the review contains data for three comparisons for this outcome. It is uncertain if there is a difference in patient comfort measure between foam surfaces and alternating pressure air surfaces (1 study, 76 participants; very low-certainty evidence); foam surfaces and reactive air surfaces (1 study, 72 participants; very low-certainty evidence); and different types of foam surfaces (4 studies, 669 participants; very low-certainty evidence). All reported adverse events: the review contains data for two comparisons for this outcome. We are uncertain about differences in adverse effects between foam surfaces and alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (3 studies, 2181 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and between foam surfaces and reactive air surfaces (1 study, 72 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Health-related quality of life: only one study reported data on this outcome. It is uncertain if there is a difference (low-certainty evidence) between foam surfaces and alternating pressure (active) air surfaces in health-related quality of life measured with two different questionnaires, the EQ-5D-5L (267 participants) and the PU-QoL-UI (233 participants). Cost-effectiveness: one study reported trial-based cost-effectiveness evaluations. Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces are probably more cost-effective than foam surfaces in preventing pressure ulcer incidence (2029 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Current evidence suggests uncertainty about the differences in pressure ulcer incidence, patient comfort, adverse events and health-related quality of life between using foam surfaces and other surfaces (reactive fibre surfaces, reactive gel surfaces, reactive foam and gel surfaces, or reactive water surfaces). Foam surfaces may increase pressure ulcer incidence compared with alternating pressure (active) air surfaces and reactive air surfaces. Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces are probably more cost-effective than foam surfaces in preventing new pressure ulcers. Future research in this area should consider evaluation of the most important support surfaces from the perspective of decision-makers. Time-to-event outcomes, careful assessment of adverse events and trial-level cost-effectiveness evaluation should be considered in future studies. Trials should be designed to minimise the risk of detection bias; for example, by using digital photography and by blinding adjudicators of the photographs to group allocation. Further review using network meta-analysis will add to the findings reported here.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chunhu Shi
- Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - Jo C Dumville
- Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - Nicky Cullum
- Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - Sarah Rhodes
- Division of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Elizabeth McInnes
- Nursing Research Institute, St Vincent's Health Australia Sydney, St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne & Australian Catholic University, Fitzroy, Melbourne, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Mervis JS, Phillips TJ. Pressure ulcers: Prevention and management. J Am Acad Dermatol 2019; 81:893-902. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2018.12.068] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/18/2018] [Revised: 12/11/2018] [Accepted: 12/12/2018] [Indexed: 10/27/2022]
|
7
|
Shakibamehr J, Rad M, Akrami R, Rad M. Effectiveness of Tragacanth Gel Cushions in Prevention of Pressure Ulcer in Traumatic Patients: a Randomized Controlled Trial. J Caring Sci 2019; 8:45-49. [PMID: 30915313 PMCID: PMC6428161 DOI: 10.15171/jcs.2019.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/04/2018] [Accepted: 07/22/2018] [Indexed: 12/26/2022] Open
Abstract
Introduction: Introduction: Pressure ulcer is one of the most common and painful complications in patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). This study aimed to compare the effects of tragacanth gel cushions and foam-filled ones on the prevention of pressure ulcers. Methods: This triple-blind, randomized, clinical trial was performed on 94 patients admitted to the ICU of Taleqhani Hospital of Mashhad, Iran. The participants were divided into two groups of tragacanth gel pad and foam (n=47 for each group). Both groups received all the routine care. The participants were examined on a daily basis during a ten-day period. We considered sacral region as the most affected site, and the patients with erythema were excluded from the study. To analyze the data, Chi-squared test, Fisher's exact test, and t-test were run, using Stata version 12. Results: The data showed significant differences in terms of the incidence of skin redness in the tragacanth gel cushions group and foam cushion group, respectively, 6.84 (1.58) and 5.67 (1.26) days after admission. In addition, in the tragacanth gel cushions group 14 patients (29.7%) did not have skin redness compared with the foam cushion group (8.51%), which indicated a significant difference. Conclusion: This study showed that the use of tragacanth gel cushion is effective in the prevention of pressure ulcers in ICU patients. Cushions filled with tragacanth gel also delayed the onset of erythema. Considering their cost-effectiveness and naturalness, the use of tragacanth gel cushions is recommended to improve the sacral skin health and prevent pressure ulcers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Javad Shakibamehr
- Department of Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Sabzevar University of Medical Sciences, Sabzevar, Iran
| | - Mojtaba Rad
- Department of Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Sabzevar University of Medical Sciences, Sabzevar, Iran
| | - Rahim Akrami
- Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Sabzevar University of Medical Sciences, Sabzevar, Iran
| | - Mostafa Rad
- Department of Nursing, Nursing and Midwifery School, Iranian Research Center on Healthy Aging, Sabzevar University of Medical Sciences, Sabzevar, Iran
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Rae KE, Isbel S, Upton D. Support surfaces for the treatment and prevention of pressure ulcers: a systematic literature review. J Wound Care 2018; 27:467-474. [PMID: 30086254 DOI: 10.12968/jowc.2018.27.8.467] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Changes in technology have resulted in a lack of clarity regarding the comparative effectiveness between active and reactive support surfaces in the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers (PUs). The purpose of this literature review was to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of active and reactive mattresses for prevention and treatment of PUs. METHOD A literature search was completed using CINAHL, Medline Plus, Scopus, Cochrane Library and PubMed databases, as well as reference lists. A temporal limiter was placed excluding studies published before 2000 due to changes in care standards and support surface technology. RESULTS Of the 33 articles included, nine were systematic/literature reviews and 24 were randomised controlled trials (RCTs). There was a consensus that pressure mattresses are an effective prevention and treatment strategy, however comparisons of the two types were often inconclusive or conflicting. Studies were conducted in acute, sub-acute or residential facilities, with no studies in a domiciliary setting. The majority of studies were rated as moderate quality with significant methodological limitations. CONCLUSION Further research is needed to investigate the use of support surfaces in a domiciliary setting with an appropriate methodology aimed at minimising the limitations described in the existing literature.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Katherine E Rae
- Occupational Therapist, PhD Candidate, ACT Health Directorate, Canberra, Australia, University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia
| | - Stephen Isbel
- Associate Professor, Course Convenor, ACT Health Directorate, Canberra, Australia
| | - Dominic Upton
- Professor, Dean, College of Health and Human Sciences, Charles Darwin University
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Santamaria N, Gerdtz M, Kapp S, Wilson L, Gefen A. A randomised controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness of multi-layer silicone foam dressings for the prevention of pressure injuries in high-risk aged care residents: The Border III Trial. Int Wound J 2018; 15:482-490. [PMID: 29635842 DOI: 10.1111/iwj.12891] [Citation(s) in RCA: 38] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/23/2017] [Accepted: 12/31/2017] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Pressure injuries are prevalent in highly dependent aged care residents. This study investigated the clinical effectiveness of the application of the Mepilex Border Sacrum and Mepilex Heel dressings to prevent the development of facility-acquired pressure injuries. A total of 288 recently admitted residents were enrolled from 40 Australian nursing homes into a randomised controlled trial. Residents randomised to standard care (n = 150) received pressure injury prevention as recommended by international guidelines. Residents randomised to the intervention (n = 138) received standard pressure injury prevention care and had dressings applied to their sacrum and heels. Participants were comparable on demographic and physiological parameters. More residents in the control group developed pressure injuries than in the intervention group (16 vs 3, P = 0.004), and they developed more pressure injuries in total than residents in the intervention group. The results represent a relative risk reduction of 80% for residents treated with the dressings and for every 12 patients that we treated we prevented one pressure injury. Based on our findings, we conclude that the use of the Mölnlycke Mepilex Border Sacrum and Mepilex Heel dressings confers a significant additional protective benefit to nursing home residents with a high risk of developing a facility-acquired pressure injury.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nick Santamaria
- Department of Nursing, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Marie Gerdtz
- Department of Nursing, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Suzanne Kapp
- Department of Nursing, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Lauren Wilson
- Department of Nursing, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Amit Gefen
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Lozano-Montoya I, Vélez-Díaz-Pallarés M, Abraha I, Cherubini A, Soiza RL, O'Mahony D, Montero-Errasquín B, Correa-Pérez A, Cruz-Jentoft AJ. Nonpharmacologic Interventions to Prevent Pressure Ulcers in Older Patients: An Overview of Systematic Reviews (The Software ENgine for the Assessment and optimization of drug and non-drug Therapy in Older peRsons [SENATOR] Definition of Optimal Evidence-Based Non-drug Therapies in Older People [ONTOP] Series). J Am Med Dir Assoc 2016; 17:370.e1-10. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jamda.2015.12.091] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/28/2015] [Revised: 12/17/2015] [Accepted: 12/18/2015] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
|
11
|
Gascoigne AC, Flood S. Pressure sores. Plast Reconstr Surg 2015. [DOI: 10.1002/9781118655412.ch45] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
|
12
|
Qaseem A, Mir TP, Starkey M, Denberg TD. Risk assessment and prevention of pressure ulcers: a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med 2015; 162:359-69. [PMID: 25732278 DOI: 10.7326/m14-1567] [Citation(s) in RCA: 81] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
DESCRIPTION The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guideline to present the evidence and provide clinical recommendations based on the comparative effectiveness of risk assessment scales and preventive interventions for pressure ulcers. METHODS This guideline is based on published literature on this topic that was identified by using MEDLINE (1946 through February 2014), CINAHL (1998 through February 2014), the Cochrane Library, clinical trials registries, and reference lists. Searches were limited to English-language publications. The outcomes evaluated for this guideline include pressure ulcer incidence and severity, resource use, diagnostic accuracy, measures of risk, and harms. This guideline grades the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations by using ACP's clinical practice guidelines grading system. The target audience for this guideline includes all clinicians, and the target patient population is patients at risk for pressure ulcers. RECOMMENDATION 1 ACP recommends that clinicians should perform a risk assessment to identify patients who are at risk of developing pressure ulcers. (Grade: weak recommendation, low-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 2 ACP recommends that clinicians should choose advanced static mattresses or advanced static overlays in patients who are at an increased risk of developing pressure ulcers. (Grade: strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 3 ACP recommends against using alternating-air mattresses or alternating-air overlays in patients who are at an increased risk of developing pressure ulcers. (Grade: weak recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amir Qaseem
- From the American College of Physicians, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; New York University Clinical Cancer Center, New York, New York; and Carilion Clinic, Roanoke, Virginia
| | - Tanveer P. Mir
- From the American College of Physicians, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; New York University Clinical Cancer Center, New York, New York; and Carilion Clinic, Roanoke, Virginia
| | - Melissa Starkey
- From the American College of Physicians, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; New York University Clinical Cancer Center, New York, New York; and Carilion Clinic, Roanoke, Virginia
| | - Thomas D. Denberg
- From the American College of Physicians, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; New York University Clinical Cancer Center, New York, New York; and Carilion Clinic, Roanoke, Virginia
| | | |
Collapse
|
13
|
Mistiaen PJ, Jolley DJ, McGowan S, Hickey MB, Spreeuwenberg P, Francke AL. A multilevel analysis of three randomised controlled trials of the Australian Medical Sheepskin in the prevention of sacral pressure ulcers. Med J Aust 2010. [DOI: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2010.tb04091.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Patriek J Mistiaen
- NIVEL — Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Damien J Jolley
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC
| | - Sunita McGowan
- Fremantle Hospital, Fremantle, WA
- Curtin University, Perth, WA
| | - Mark B Hickey
- CSIRO Materials Science and Engineering, Melbourne, VIC
| | - Peter Spreeuwenberg
- NIVEL — Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Anneke L Francke
- NIVEL — Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research, Utrecht, The Netherlands
- Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Mistiaen P, Ament A, Francke AL, Achterberg W, Halfens R, Huizinga J, Post H. An economic appraisal of the Australian Medical Sheepskin for the prevention of sacral pressure ulcers from a nursing home perspective. BMC Health Serv Res 2010; 10:226. [PMID: 20687915 PMCID: PMC2924330 DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-10-226] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/18/2010] [Accepted: 08/05/2010] [Indexed: 12/01/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Many devices are in use to prevent pressure ulcers, but from most little is known about their effects and costs. One such preventive device is the Australian Medical Sheepskin that has been proven effective in three randomized trials. In this study the costs and savings from the use of the Australian Medical Sheepskin were investigated from the perspective of a nursing home. Methods An economic model was developed in which monetary costs and monetary savings in respect of the sheepskin were balanced against each other. The model was applied to a fictional (Dutch) nursing home with 100 beds for rehabilitation patients and a time horizon of one year. Input variables for the model consisted of investment costs for using the sheepskin (purchase and laundry), and savings through the prevented cases of pressure ulcers. The input values for the investment costs and for the effectiveness were empirically based on a trial with newly admitted rehabilitation patients from eight nursing homes. The input values for the costs of pressure ulcer treatment were estimated by means of four different approaches. Results Investment costs for using the Australian Medical Sheepskin were larger than the monetary savings obtained by preventing pressure ulcers. Use of the Australian Medical Sheepskin involves an additional cost of approximately €2 per patient per day. Preventing one case of a sacral pressure ulcer by means of the Australian Medical Sheepskin involves an investment of €2,974 when the sheepskin is given to all patients. When the sheepskin is selectively used for more critical patients only, the investment to prevent one case of sacral pressure ulcers decreases to €2,479 (pressure ulcer risk patients) or €1,847 (ADL-severely impaired patients). The factors with the strongest influence on the balance are the frequency of changing the sheepskin and the costs of washing related to this. The economic model was hampered by considerable uncertainty in the estimations of the costs of pressure ulcer treatment. Conclusions From a nursing home perspective, the investment costs for use of the Australian Medical Sheepskin in newly admitted rehabilitation patients are larger than the monetary savings obtained by preventing pressure ulcers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Patriek Mistiaen
- NIVEL, Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research, PO Box 1568, 3500 BN Utrecht, The Netherlands.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|