Assessing pressure injury risk using a single mobility scale in hospitalised patients: a comparative study using case-control design

Patient Repositioning during Hospitalization and Prevention of Pressure Ulcers: a Narrative Review

Objective

This article presents a literature review to explore and analyze the current situation of pressure ulcers or lesions or decubitus ulcers, pathophysiological, epidemiological aspects, and risk factors. The progress in evidence of the effectiveness of preventive repositioning in the appearance of these lesions in vulnerable hospitalized patients is also evaluated.

Methods

Databases were reviewed in non-systematic manner, including the Cochrane Wounds Specialized Register; Medline, Scopus, PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE (Ovid); EMBASE (Ovid), Web of Science, SciELO, and Lilacs. The general search terms included [pressure ulcers or pressure lesions or decubitus ulcers] and [prevention or preventive] and [repositioning or positioning or position changes or postural change] and [patient at risk or vulnerable] and [hospitalized or ICU or intensive care]. Systematic literature reviews, randomized clinical trials, observational studies, cost-effectiveness and qualitative studies in English or Spanish were included.

Results

Although globally, the incidence, prevalence, and years of disability associated to these lesions has diminished between 1990 and 2019, the high impact on health persists. Evidence found on the effectiveness of repositioning in preventing pressure ulcers and health associated costs has been evaluated with certainty between low and very low, as a result of conducting research with serious methodological limitations that report results with high inaccuracy.

Conclusion

The findings reported present that these lesions persist at hospital level and continue being a global social and health problem with high impact on health budgets. Likewise, there is a need to develop greater quality research on prevention strategies, such as repositioning, which validate their effectiveness, and justify their use.

Prevalence of pressure injury on the medical wards of public general hospitals in Kuwait: a national cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Pressure injury is a severe problem that can significantly impact a patient's health, quality of life, and healthcare expenses. The prevalence of pressure injuries is a widely used clinical indicator of patient safety and quality of care. This study aims to address the research gap that exists on this topic in Kuwait by investigating the prevalence of pressure injuries and preventive measures on the medical wards of the country's public general hospitals.

METHODS

A cross-sectional research design was adopted to measure the point prevalence of pressure injuries on 54 medical wards in the public general hospitals. Data, including variables pertaining to hospitals, patients, pressure injuries and preventive practices, were collected using an online form. The data were processed and analysed using Microsoft Excel and SPSS 23 (α level = 0.05). Analysis provided an overview of patient, pressure injury characteristics and preventive measures, and the relationships between the patient and pressure injury characteristics and the prevalence of pressure injuries. A model for predicting the determinants of pressure injury prevalence was constructed from a linear regression analysis.

RESULTS

The mean national prevalence of pressure injury was 17.6% (95% CI: 11.3-23.8). Purely community-acquired pressure injuries represent the majority of pressure injuries nationally (58.1%). Regarding preventive measures, "pressure injury assessment on admission" has been provided to 65.5% of patients. Correlation analysis revealed that the only statistically significant correlation with the prevalence of hospital-acquired pressure injury was "pressure injury assessment on admission", which was strongly negative (ρ = -0.857). Therefore, this was the only variable included in the regression analysis as a predictor of pressure injury prevalence (Beta = 0.839). The results showed many statistically significant differences between hospitals with respect to the variables studied.

CONCLUSIONS

The national pressure injury prevalence is high compared to the global rate. The higher percentage of purely community-acquired pressure injuries requires particular attention. Many risk factors for the development of pressure injuries are public health concerns, and effective mitigating strategies are needed. Further research is required to assess the knowledge, attitude, and behaviour of nurses with respect to pressure injuries, and to evaluate preventive and management practices.

Characteristics of Patients with Pressure Injuries in a COVID-19 Referral Hospital

OBJECTIVE

This retrospective study aimed to describe the characteristics of patients treated at a COVID-19 referral hospital from March 2020 to June 2021 who experienced pressure injuries (PIs) either before or after admission.

METHODS

The researchers collected and analyzed data on patients' demographic characteristics, symptoms, comorbidities, location and severity of PI, laboratory values, oxygen therapy, length of stay, and vasopressor use.

RESULTS

During the study period, 1,070 patients were hospitalized for COVID-19 with varying degrees of severity, and 12 patients were diagnosed with PI. Eight (66.7%) of the patients with PI were men. The median age was 60 (range, 51-71) years, and half of the patients had obesity. Eleven of the patients with PI (91.4%) had at least one comorbid condition. The sacrum and gluteus were the two most commonly affected sites. Those with stage 3 PI had a substantially greater median d-dimer value (7,900 ng/mL) than patients with stage 2 PI (1,100 ng/mL). The average length of stay was 22 (range, 9.8-40.3) days.

CONCLUSIONS

Health professionals should be aware of an increase in d-dimer in patients with COVID-19 and PI. Even though PIs in these patients might not result in mortality, an increase in morbidity can be avoided with the right care.

Validation of the Helsinki University Hospital prevent pressure Injury Risk Assessment Tool: a prospective observational study

Background

Pressure injures are a common adverse event in a hospital, and they are one of the most important quality indicators of patient care. Risk assessment is recommended as the first step in the prevention of pressure injuries. A Prevent Pressure Injury Risk Assessment Tool is a new tool for risk assessment that was developed by the Helsinki University Hospital.

Aim

The aim of this study was to evaluate the predictive validity and the concurrent validity of the Prevent Pressure Injury Risk Assessment Tool in acute care.

Method

The prospective observational study was conducted in 19 in-patient wards representing internal medicine, neurology, and surgery during 2017–2018. The participants’ inclusion criteria were: age ≥18 years old, no pressure injury on admission to the hospital and consenting to participate. The data collected by physical assessment of patients was combined with data from electronic patient records. Each patient was assessed by two different nurses with the Prevent Pressure Injury Risk Assessment Tool and the Braden Scale at patient admission. Furthermore, skin condition was observed throughout the hospital stay.

Results

Of the 637 patients accepted for the study, 10 (1.6%) developed a pressure injury during the hospital stay. Poisson regression analysis showed that pressure injuries were more likely in high–risk patients compared to those with low-risk. The sensitivity of the Prevent Pressure Injury Risk Assessment Tool was adequate (75%), while specificity was poor (40%). A moderate correlation was found between the Prevent Pressure Injury Risk Assessment Tool and the Braden Scale.

Conclusions

The Prevent Pressure Injury Risk Assessment Tool may be useful for identifying the adult pressure injury risk patients in acute care. Further research is needed to evaluate interrater reliability, and usability and validity with different patient populations.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12912-021-00799-6.

Reducing Hospital-Acquired Pressure Injuries through Measure-vention

ABSTRACT

Evidence has shown that Braden subscale scores are independent predictors of the development of pressure injuries. However, current practice is to implement preventive measures for pressure injuries based on the total Braden Scale score. Applying evidence from the literature on Braden subscales and using "Measure-vention," a quality improvement project using Braden subscales, was implemented in a 30-bed ICU in a Northern California level II trauma acute care hospital. The pilot study's purpose was to test whether tailoring interventions specific to the patient's subscale risk would decrease the incidence of hospital-acquired pressure injuries (HAPIs). A 6-month pilot was launched for all patients in the ICU, regardless of Braden total score. Frontline staff collected data in real time, measuring adherence to the "Interventions by Braden Subscale" protocol, and event reports were aggregated to measure the incidence of HAPIs before and after the pilot. At the end of the pilot, the ICU noted a decrease in HAPIs by 63.5%. The results demonstrated the efficacy of using the Braden subscales to guide preventive HAPI care, preventing both HAPIs and the overutilization of resources.

Incidence and risk factors for pressure injuries in adults in specialised medical care: a prospective observational study

INTRODUCTION

Hospital-acquired pressure injuries are one of the most important indicators of quality patient care. It is important to identify high-risk patients to guide the implementation of appropriate prevention strategies. This can be done by using an assessment tool that covers the main risk factors for pressure injuries.

AIM

The purpose of the study was to describe the incidence of pressure injuries and the associated risk factors among patients assessed with the Prevent Pressure Injury (PPI) risk assessment tool developed by the Helsinki University Hospital.

METHOD

The study was conducted by selecting six wards from medical, surgical and neurological units. The target group were the patients being treated in the study units who gave their informed consent. The research data were retrieved from electronic patient records.

RESULTS

From the target group, 332 patients were eligible to participate in the study. The pressure injury risk was found to increase with longer hospital stays and older age. Surgical patients had an increased risk of pressure injuries compared to other specialty fields. A primary diagnosis of musculoskeletal or connective tissue disease, and secondary diagnoses of hypertension and cerebral haemorrhage, were linked with an increased pressure injury risk. A total of nine pressure injuries occurred in nine patients, with an incidence of 2.5% (stages II-IV).

CONCLUSION

The observation and recording of pressure injuries in specialised medical care remain insufficient. Longer hospital stays, older age and surgery increase pressure injury risk. Also, patients' primary and secondary diagnoses may increase the pressure injury risk.

DECLARATION OF INTEREST

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Effectiveness of interventions to prevent pressure injury in adults admitted to acute hospital settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Hospital-acquired pressure injuries cause significant harm to afflicted individuals, and financially burden hospitals. Most pressure injuries are avoidable with the use of preventative interventions. However, within acute hospital settings the effectiveness of pressure injury preventative interventions, as demonstrated by high-level evidence, requires examination.

OBJECTIVE

Analyse the effectiveness of interventions to prevent pressure injury in adults admitted to acute hospital settings.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

DATA SOURCES

CINAHL, MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science and Embase were searched in May/June 2019. In April 2020, searches were updated to the end of 2019.

METHODS

Randomised controlled trials which investigated the effectiveness of pressure injury preventative interventions on pressure injury incidence, within adults admitted to acute hospital settings, were included. Trials limited to pressure injury treatment or specialty areas, and non-English reports, were excluded. Screening, extraction and risk-of-bias assessment were undertaken independently by two reviewers, with a third as arbitrator. Included studies were grouped by intervention type. Studies were synthesised narratively, and meta-analysis was undertaken where study interventions were similar. Using a random-effects model, primary meta-analyses were undertaken using intention-to-treat data.

RESULTS

Of 2000 records, 45 studies were included in the systematic review which investigated nine different intervention types: continence management, heel protection devices, medication, nutrition, positioning, prophylactic dressings, support surfaces, topical preparations and bundled interventions. All studies were judged to be at unclear or high risk-of-bias. Several meta-analyses were undertaken, pooled by intervention type. Most pooled samples were heterogeneous. Based on intention-to-treat data, only one intervention demonstrated a statistically significant effect: Australian medical sheepskin surfaces compared to other standard care surfaces (risk ratio 0.42, p = 0.006, I² = 36%), but included studies were limited by bias and age. Following per protocol meta-analyses, only two intervention types demonstrated a significant effect: support surfaces (active versus other comparison [risk ratio = 0.54, p = 0.005, I² = 43%] and standard surfaces [risk ratio = 0.31, p < 0.001, I² = 0%]; and reactive versus other comparison surfaces [risk ratio = 0.53, p = 0.03, I² = 64%]) and heel protection devices versus standard care (risk ratio = 0.38, p < 0.001, I² = 36%).

CONCLUSIONS

Only one intervention was supported by intention-to-treat meta-analysis. Significantly, all trials were at unclear or high risk-of-bias; and there were several limitations regarding heterogeneity across trials and trial outcomes. Further large-scale, high-quality trials testing pressure injury preventative interventions are required to establish effectiveness within acute hospital settings. Attention should be paid to true intention-to-treat analysis, and acute and intensive care settings should be reported separately. PROSPERO registration number:CRD42019129556.