Relationship Between Prescription and Documentation of Pressure Injury Prevention Interventions and Their Implementation: An Exploratory, Descriptive Study

Psychometric properties of the Braden scale to assess pressure injury risk in intensive care: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To analyse the psychometric properties of the Braden scale to assess pressure injury risk in adults in intensive care.

DESIGN

A systematic review was conducted, with literature searches undertaken in five electronic databases. No date limits were applied. Selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were completed by two reviewers independently. A customised data extraction template was used, with risk of bias conducted using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist. Data were analysed using narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

Thirty-four studies met inclusion criteria. Two studies reported internal consistency with Cronbach's alpha ranging from poor (0.43) to good (0.85). For interrater reliability, only four studies reported intraclass correlation, ranging from 0.66 to 0.96 for Braden sum score. Three studies reported convergent validity, with strong associations found between the COMHON Index (r = 0.70), Cubbin-Jackson scale (r = 0.80), and Norton scale (r = 0.77), but contrasting associations with the Waterlow score (r = 0.22 to 0.72). A large majority of studies reported predictive validity (n = 29), with wide variability. Several studies investigated optimal cut-off scores, with the majority indicating this was in the range of 12-14.

CONCLUSIONS

This review demonstrates inconsistency in the psychometric properties of the Braden scale in ICU settings. Further research is needed to determine suitability of the Braden scale for ICU before it can be recommended as standard for clinical practice, including comparison with other ICU-specific risk assessment tools.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE

When used in ICU, the reliability, validity and reported cut-off scores of the Braden scale are variable. As a predictive tool, the scale should be used cautiously. In ICU, the value of the Braden scale resides in its ability to identify patients that are most at risk of developing a pressure injury and to implement preventative measures to mitigate identified risk factors.

Use of a risk-based intervention bundle to prescribe and implement interventions to prevent pressure injury: An observational study

AIM

To explore the relationship between the prescription and implementation of pressure injury preventative interventions following risk assessment combined with a risk-stratified intervention bundle.

DESIGN

Single-centre, cross-sectional, observational, prospective.

METHODS

The charts and bedsides of 341 adult inpatients were examined. Data collection included pressure injury risk level, prescribed preventative interventions and evidence of intervention implementation.

RESULTS

Most patients (68.6%) were at risk of pressure injury, and most interventions were prescribed according to their risk level. However, evidence from direct observation and/or documentation indicated intervention implementation rates were relatively poor. Of nine interventions mandated for all patients, compliance with three patient-/carer-focused interventions was particularly poor, with evidence indicating they had been implemented for 3%-10% of patients. Also, nutritional screening-related interventions were implemented poorly. Clinically indicated implementation of heel-elevation devices and bariatric equipment was low for at-risk patients, and the implementation of interventions for patients with existing pressure injuries was suboptimal. Significant proportions of several interventions that were observed as having been implemented were not documented as such.

CONCLUSION

While most interventions were prescribed according to patient risk level, the overall implementation of interventions was poor. However, the results may in part be due to failure to document interventions as opposed to omitting them.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PATIENT CARE

Documentation of interventions is crucial as it provides evidence of the care provided. An increased focus on documentation of pressure injury preventative interventions is required, with a clear distinction between prescription and implementation.

IMPACT

The results highlighted several deficiencies in care, particularly relating to evidence of implementation, patient involvement and nutritional screening. The results from this study will be used to inform and improve future pressure injury prevention practice within the study hospital and should be used to inform and benchmark pressure injury preventative practices in other hospitals.

REPORTING METHOD

The study adheres to STROBE guidelines.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

None.

Pressure injury risk assessment and prescription of preventative interventions using a structured tool versus clinical judgement: An interrater agreement study

AIM

To assess agreement of pressure injury risk level and differences in preventative intervention prescription between nurses using a structured risk assessment tool compared with clinical judgement.

DESIGN

Interrater agreement study.

METHODS

Data were collected from November 2019 to December 2022. Paired nurse-assessors were allocated randomly to independently assess pressure injury risk using a structured tool (incorporating the Waterlow Score), or clinical judgement; then prescribe preventative interventions. Assessments were conducted on 150 acute patient participants in a general tertiary hospital. Agreement of risk level was analysed using absolute agreement proportions, weighted kappa and prevalence-adjusted and bias-adjusted kappa.

RESULTS

Ninety-four nurse assessors participated. Absolute agreement of not-at-risk versus at-risk-any-level was substantial, but absolute agreement of risk-level was only fair. Clinical judgement assessors tended to underestimate risk. Where risk level was agreed, prescribed intervention frequencies were similar, although structured tool assessors prescribed more interventions mandated by standard care, while clinical judgement assessors prescribed more additional/optional interventions. Structured tool assessors prescribed more interventions targeted at lower-risk patients, whereas assessors using clinical judgement prescribed more interventions targeted at higher-risk patients.

CONCLUSION

There were clear differences in pressure injury risk-level assessment between nurses using the two methods, with important differences in intervention prescription frequencies found. Further research is required into the use of both structured tools and clinical judgement to assess pressure injury risk, with emphasis on the impact of risk assessments on subsequent preventative intervention implementation.

IMPACT

The results of this study are important for clinical practice as they demonstrate the influence of using a structured pressure injury risk assessment tool compared to clinical judgement. Whilst further research is required into the use of both structured tools and clinical judgement to assess pressure injury risk and prescribe interventions, our findings do not support a change in practice that would exclude the use of a structured pressure injury risk assessment tool.

REPORTING METHOD

This study adhered to the GRRAS reporting guideline.

PATIENT/PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

No patient or public involvement in this study.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE

Educators and researchers can use the findings to guide teaching about pressure injury risk assessment and preventative intervention and to direct future studies. For clinical nurses and patients, a change in clinical practice that would exclude the use of a structured risk assessment tool is not recommended and further work is needed to validate the role of clinical judgement to assess risk and its impact on preventative intervention.

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.

Use of a Sacral Foam Dressing to Prevent Pressure Injury in At-Risk Subacute Hospitalized Older Adults: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

PURPOSE

The purpose of this pilot study was to inform a future trial aimed at comparing the effectiveness of a prophylactic sacral dressing plus standard care to standard care only to reduce sacral pressure injuries (PIs) in at-risk older adults admitted to a subacute hospital setting.

DESIGN

A pilot study with a pragmatic, open-label, randomized controlled trial design.

SAMPLE AND SETTING

One hundred thirty participants were randomized (intervention n = 66, 50.8%; control n = 64, 49.2%). Protocol violations occurred in 48 participants (intervention n = 33, 68.8%; control n = 15, 31.3%). The study setting was a subacute hospital inpatient care unit located in Queensland, Australia.

METHODS

Participants were randomly allocated 1:1 to the intervention (prophylactic dressing plus standard care) or control group (standard care). Standard care included regular PI risk and skin assessments, and selection and implementation of preventive interventions (eg, support surfaces and increased repositioning) from a PI prevention care plan. The sacral dressing was applied for intervention participants immediately following recruitment. Ward and research staff collected data and assessed skin integrity daily; participants were followed up until onset of a PI or up to 28 days without PI occurrence. In addition, retrospective chart reviews were undertaken to verify PI occurrences. Patient comfort and dressing utility were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Two (3.0%) participants in the intervention group and 1 (1.6%) in the control group developed a sacral PI. The difference was not statistically significant. Only 1 PI was recorded prospectively, while 2 PIs were identified via retrospective chart review. Participants rated dressing comfort highly, particularly during the first 2 weeks, and nurses rated utility highly. Based on the intention-to-treat results, a sample size of 1799 per arm would be required in a definitive trial.

CONCLUSIONS

A definitive trial is feasible and warranted. However, the large sample size required in a definitive trial indicates the need for multiple sites.

Comparison of pressure injury risk assessment outcomes using a structured assessment tool versus clinical judgement: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Whilst performing a pressure injury risk assessment is not in itself preventive, risk status identification is critical to inform the judicious implementation of prevention strategies. Risk assessment is mostly undertaken using a structured tool informed by clinical judgement, though there is a perception that use of clinical judgement alone may be sufficient.

OBJECTIVES

Within acute hospital settings, to identify differences in outcomes (risk status, preventive interventions) following nursing assessment of pressure injury risk when using a structured assessment tool compared to clinical judgement.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

EBSCO CINAHL Complete, EBSCO MEDLINE Complete, Scopus, Web of Science, Ovid EMBASE.

METHODS

Primary research relevant to the objectives was eligible for inclusion. Databases were searched in February 2021 (limits: date 2010-2020, English language, adults). Two reviewers undertook the review process, with a third as arbitrator. Appraisal was undertaken using Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools. Included studies are synthesised narratively. Reporting is in accordance with the PRISMA Statement.

RESULTS

Five moderate to high-quality studies were included. Synthesis was limited by heterogeneity. Several risk assessment tools and methods of clinical judgement were used. Three studies reported pressure injury risk status using both assessment approaches, but in only one did nurses undertake both. Risk status, as identified by each method, varied and was sometimes contradictory. Three studies reported some elements of preventive intervention prescription and/or implementation following risk assessment, but comparison between approaches was limited.

CONCLUSIONS

Some research suggests that risk status varies across different methods of pressure injury risk assessment, but it is unclear what impact this has on preventive intervention use. Risk status was not well linked to preventive interventions. Research is warranted to examine the influence that each approach to risk assessment alone and combined has on identified risk and preventive intervention prescription and implementation.

REGISTRATION

A protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021224747).