The effect of vasopressor agents on pressure injury development in intensive care patients

BACKGROUND

Vasopressors are life-saving agents that increase mean arterial pressure. The pharmacodynamic features of these agents and previous studies suggest that vasopressors may be an essential risk factor in developing pressure injuries.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to examine the effect of vasopressors in medical-surgical intensive care patients on pressure injury development.

DESIGN AND SETTINGS

This retrospective and correlational study was conducted between March 2021- May 2022. The electronic patient data were obtained from 148 surgical and medical patients exposed to vasopressor agents in the intensive care unit. Data on patients' demographic and clinical characteristics were evaluated using descriptive statistical methods (number, percentage, mean, standard deviation). Logistic regression modelling was used to assess independent relationships with pressure injury risk; results are reported as odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

All patients were given norepinephrine agents, and dopamine infusion secondary to norepinephrine was found in only 28.3 % of patients (n = 42). Pressure injury incidence was 43.2 % (n = 64). Duration of norepinephrine infusion was recognized as an independent risk factor for ICU-acquired pressure injury development (OR 1.22, 95 % CI 1.11-1.35), while a medical admission diagnosis (instead of surgical) was protective against pressure injury risk (OR 0.24, 95 % CI 0.10-0.59).

CONCLUSION

This study indicated that duration of norepinephrine infusion is a significant risk factor for pressure injury development.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE

Although norepinephrine use cannot be avoided entirely, its administration may be an early warning for nurses to increase pressure injury prevention strategies. Skin evaluation should be performed more frequently, and preventive strategies should be implemented meticulously. This study was registered on clincialtrials.gov (Identifier: NCT06163352).

Nomogram model on estimating the risk of pressure injuries for hospitalized patients in the intensive care unit

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to build and validate a nomogram model to estimate the risk of pressure injuries in intensive care unit patients.

DESIGN

Multicenter prospective cohort study.

SETTING

33 tertiary hospitals in the Gansu Province, China.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

This study included 6420 patients between April 2021 to October 2022 from an information platform of pressure injury risk management called the "Long Hu Hui." Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses identified pressure injury risk factors to be included in the nomogram. The resulting nomogram was tested for calibration discrimination, and clinical usefulness. Of the included patients, 77 developed pressure injuries, representing an incidence rate of 1.2 %. Analysis of binary logistic regression revealed that the estimation nomogram included weight loss greater than 5 kg in the last three months, pneumotomy cannula, thoracic catheter, isoproterenol, norepinephrine, abnormal skin color, ruptured erythema, stroke, increased body temperature and nonspecific patients (specific patients include paralysis, unconsciousness, dementia, forced body position). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the training cohort was 0.806 (95 % CI 0.755-0.857), and the AUC of the text cohort was 0.737 (95 % CI 0.574-0.901). The model has excellent calibration in both the training cohort (H-L test: χ2 = 6.34, P = 0.61) and the text cohort (H-L test: χ2 = 4.50, P = 0.81). Furthermore, the decision curve analysis revealed the preferred net benefit and the threshold probability in the estimation nomogram.

CONCLUSIONS

The nomogram model accurately estimated the risk of pressure injuries among intensive care patients, it should be used to inform risk assessment and facilitate early intervention strategies in future practice.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE

The nomogram allows intensive care providers to dynamically assess the patient's risk of pressure injuries and to implement more targeted interventions accordingly.

Data-driven approach to predicting the risk of pressure injury: A retrospective analysis based on changes in patient conditions

AIMS

To determine the risk of pressure injury development in the intensive care unit based on changes in patient conditions.

DESIGN

This retrospective study was based on secondary data analysis.

METHODS

Patient data from electronic health records were retrospectively obtained and we included 438 and 1752 patients with and without pressure injury, respectively, among those admitted to the medical and surgical intensive care units (ICUs) from January 2017-February 2020. Changes in patient conditions were analysed based on the first and last objective data values from the day of ICU admission to the day before the onset of pressure injury and categorised as follows: improved, maintained normal, exacerbated and unchanged. Logistic regression was performed to identify the significant predictors of pressure injury development based on 11 variables.

RESULTS

The 11 selected variables were age, body mass index, activity, acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II score, nursing severity level, pulse and albumin, haematocrit, C-reactive protein, total bilirubin and blood urea nitrogen levels. The risk for a pressure injury was high with exacerbation of or persistently abnormal levels of nursing severity, albumin, haematocrit, C-reactive protein, blood urea nitrogen and pulse >100 beat/min.

CONCLUSION

Periodic monitoring of haematological variables is important for preventing pressure injury in the intensive care unit.

REPORTING METHOD

The study followed STROBE guidelines.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This study contributes to the utilisation of patient data from electronic health records.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

In addition to other pressure injury risk assessment tools, ICU nurses can help prevent pressure injuries by assessing patients' blood test results, thereby promoting patient safety and enhancing the efficacy of nursing practice.

Vasoconstrictor Agent Administration as a Risk Factor for Pressure Injury Development in Intensive Care Unit Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Significance: Pressure injury (PI) is a common critical presentation in intensive care units (ICU) and is an important clinical concern in critical care settings. Some developing data support the vasoconstrictor agent administration as a potential risk factor; however, synthesis of available evidence has not been completed. Recent Advances: Comprehensive tactics were employed to search electronic databases PubMed, Web of Science, and Ovid Embase for data on vasoconstrictor agent administration associated with PI in ICU patients. Extraction was limited to studies that matched the inclusion criteria. The pooled odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes. Critical Issues: Twenty-six studies were included, involving 50,192 patients who matched the selection criteria. Around 5.8% of patients (2,523/43,210) got PI in total. PI occurred in 10.9% (1,496/13,675) of the vasoconstrictor agent administration population and 3.5% (1,027/29,503) of the drug-free population. The pooled unadjusted odds ratio was 2.83 (95% CI = 2.21-3.64, p < 0.001). The adjusted odds ratio was 1.83 (95% CI = 1.26-2.68, p = 0.002). Subgroup analysis and meta-regression found that the risk of PI did not vary with research design, time of occurrence, patient age, or male proportion. Future Directions: Vasoconstrictor agent administration raised the risk of PI in critical care patients by nearly twofold. More emphasis should be placed on the timely prevention of PI in patients receiving vasoconstrictor agent administration in the ICU.

Pressure ulcer incidence in critically ill patients: Role of body mass index, nutrition therapy, and other non-nutritional factors

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical and nutritional risk factors related to the occurrence of pressure ulcers (PUs) in patients admitted to an Intensive Care Unit (ICU).

METHODS

This is a cohort retrospective study, carried out by analyzing the medical records of patients admitted to the ICU of a hospital, containing information on sociodemographic, clinical, dietary, and anthropometric data, presence of mechanical ventilation, sedation, and use of noradrenaline. To verify the clinical and nutritional risk factors, multivariate Poisson's regression with robust variance was used to estimate the relative risk (RR) according to the explanatory variables.

RESULTS

A total of 130 patients were evaluated from January 1 to December 31, 2019. The incidence of PUs in the study population was 29.2%. In univariate analysis, male sex, suspended or enteral diet, use of mechanical ventilation, and sedatives had a significant association with the PUs (p < 0.05). However, when adjusted for potential confounders, only suspended diet remained associated with the PUs. Furthermore, in an analysis stratified by hospitalization time, it was observed that for each 1 kg/m² increase in body mass index, there is a 10% increased risk of PUs occurrence (RR: 1.10; 95%CI: 1.01-1.23).

CONCLUSION

Patients with suspended diet, diabetics, with longer-time hospitalization, and overweight have a higher risk of presenting pressure ulcers.

Skin hydration measurement and the prediction of the early development of pressure ulcers among at risk adults: A systematic review

This systematic review aimed to examine skin hydration and determine if this biophysical parameter can predict pressure ulcer development in at risk adults. A literature search was conducted in March 2022, using PubMed, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases. A total of 1727 records were returned, with 9 studies satisfying the inclusion criteria. Data were extracted using a pre-designed extraction tool and a narrative synthesis of the data was undertaken. The methodological quality of the included articles was assessed using the evidence-based librarianship checklist. Included studies were published between 1997 and 2021, with most using a prospective cohort design (88.9%, n = 8). The mean sample size was 74 participants (SD = 38.6; median 71). All studies measured skin hydration objectively, with 55.6% (n = 5) using the Corneometer® CM825 and 33.3% (n = 3) of studies reported a statistically significant association between skin hydration and pressure ulcer development. The mean evidence-based librarianship percentage was 66.6% (SD: 20.7%), however, only 33.3% (n = 3) of studies scored ≥75%, indicating validity. The quality of included studies, methodology variation, and reported results has reduced the homogeneity of outcomes. This review highlights the requirement for future research evidence to ascertain the role of skin hydration in pressure ulcer development.

Effects of vasopressor agents on the development of pressure ulcers in critically ill patients: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this systematic review was to determine the effect of vasopressor agents on the development of pressure ulcers (PUs) among critically ill patients in intensive care units (ICUs). The secondary outcome of interest was length of stay in the ICU.

METHOD

A systematic review was undertaken using the databases searched: Medline, Embase, CINAHL and The Cochrane Library. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were used to formulate the review. Data were extracted using a predesigned data extraction table and analysed as appropriate using RevMan. Quality appraisal was undertaken using the EBL Critical Appraisal Tool.

RESULTS

The inclusion criteria were met by 13 studies. Two studies provided sufficient data to compare the number of patients who developed a PU with and without the use of vasopressors. Consistently, within these two studies, being treated with a vasopressor increased the likelihood of PU development. RevMan analysis identified that shorter duration of administration of vasopressors was associated with less PU development (mean difference (MD) 65.97 hours, 95% confidence interval (CI): 43.47-88.47; p=0.0001). Further, a lower dose of vasopressors was also associated with less PU development (MD: 8.76μg/min, 95% CI: 6.06-11.46; p<0.00001). Mean length of stay increased by 11.46 days for those with a PU compared to those without a PU (MD: 11.46 days; 95% CI: 7.10-15.82; p<0.00001). The overall validities of the studies varied between 45-90%, meaning that there is potential for bias within all the included studies.

CONCLUSION

Vasopressor agents can contribute to the development of PUs in critically ill patients in ICUs. Prolonged ICU stay was also associated with pressure ulcers in this specific patient group. Given the risk of bias within the included studies, further studies are needed to validate the findings of this review paper.

Risk Factors for Pressure Injuries in Adult Patients: A Narrative Synthesis

Pressure injuries remain a serious health complication for patients and nursing staff. Evidence from the past decade has not been analysed through narrative synthesis yet. PubMed, Embase, CINAHL Complete, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and other reviews/sources were screened. Risk of bias was evaluated using a slightly modified QUIPS tool. Risk factor domains were used to assign (non)statistically independent risk factors. Hence, 67 studies with 679,660 patients were included. In low to moderate risk of bias studies, non-blanchable erythema reliably predicted pressure injury stage 2. Factors influencing mechanical boundary conditions, e.g., higher interface pressure or BMI < 18.5, as well as factors affecting interindividual susceptibility (male sex, older age, anemia, hypoalbuminemia, diabetes, hypotension, low physical activity, existing pressure injuries) and treatment-related aspects, such as length of stay in intensive care units, were identified as possible risk factors for pressure injury development. Health care professionals' evidence-based knowledge of above-mentioned risk factors is vital to ensure optimal prevention and/or treatment. Openly accessible risk factors, e.g., sex, age, BMI, pre-existing diabetes, and non-blanchable erythema, can serve as yellow flags for pressure injury development. Close communication concerning further risk factors, e.g., anemia, hypoalbuminemia, or low physical activity, may optimize prevention and/or treatment. Further high-quality evidence is warranted.

Subsequent Pressure Injury Development in Mechanically Ventilated Critical Care Patients with Hospital-Acquired Pressure Injury: A Retrospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

To identify factors associated with subsequent hospital-acquired pressure injury (HAPrI) formation among patients in surgical and cardiovascular surgical ICUs with an initial HAPrI.

METHODS

Patients admitted to a level 1 trauma center and academic medical center in the Western US between 2014 and 2018 were eligible for this retrospective cohort study. Inclusion criteria were development of an HAPrI stage 2 or above, age older than 18 years, the use of mechanical ventilation for at least 24 hours, and documentation of a risk-based HAPrI-prevention plan including repositioning at least every 2 hours. The primary outcome measure was development of a second, subsequent HAPrI stage 2 or higher. Potential predictor variables included demographic factors, shock, Charleston comorbidity score, blood gas and laboratory values, surgical factors, vasopressor infusions, levels of sedation or agitation, Braden Scale scores, and nursing skin assessment data.

RESULTS

The final sample consisted of 226 patients. Among those, 77 (34%) developed a second HAPrI. Independent risk factors for subsequent HAPrI formation were decreased hemoglobin (odds ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53-0.92; P < .000), vasopressin infusion (odds ratio, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.17-4.26; P = .02), and longer length of stay in the ICU (odds ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00-1.02; P = .009).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with an HAPrI are at high risk of subsequent HAPrI development. Anemia, vasopressin infusion, and longer ICU stays are independent risk factors for repeat HAPrI formation.

The Effectiveness of Care Bundles Including the Braden Scale for Preventing Hospital Acquired Pressure Ulcers in Older Adults Hospitalized in ICUs: A Systematic Review

Background:

Despite technological and scientific advances, Hospital Acquired Pressure Ulcers (HAPUs) remain a common, expensive, but preventable adverse event. The global prevalence ranges from 9% to 53% while three million people develop HAPUs in the United States and 60,000 people die from associated complications. HAPU prevalence is reported as high as 42% in ICUs (ICU) costing on average $48,000 to clinically manage.

Objective:

The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of multi-component interventions (care bundles), incorporating the Braden scale for assessment, in reducing the prevalence of HAPUs in older adults hospitalized in ICUs.

Methods:

This was a systematic review of the literature using the Cochrane method. A systematic search was performed in six databases (CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, JBI Evidence-Based Practice Database, PubMed, and ProQuest) from January 2012 until December 2018. Bias was assessed with the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Checklist, and the quality of evidence was evaluated with the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses Levels of Evidence.

Results:

The search identified 453 studies for evaluation; 9 studies were reviewed. From the analysis, pressure ulcer prevention programs incorporated three strategies: 1) Evidence-based care bundles with risk assessments upon admission to the ICU; 2) Unit-based skincare expertise; and 3) Staff education with auditing feedback. Common clinical management processes included in the care bundles were frequent risk reassessments, daily skin inspections, moisture removal treatments, nutritional and hydration support, offloading pressure techniques, and protective surface protocols. The Braden scale was an effective risk assessment for the ICU. Through early risk identification and preventative strategies, HAPU programs resulted in prevalence reduction, less severe ulcers, and reduced care costs.

Conclusion:

Older adults hospitalized in the ICU are most vulnerable to developing HAPUs. Early and accurate identification of risk factors for pressure is essential for prevention. Care bundles with three to five evidence-based interventions, and risk assessment with the Braden scale, were effective in preventing HAPUs in older adults hospitalized in intensive care settings. Higher quality evidence is essential to better understanding the impact of HAPU prevention programs using care bundles with risk assessments on patient outcomes and financial results.

The Role of Nutrition for Pressure Injury Prevention and Healing: The 2019 International Clinical Practice Guideline Recommendations

GENERAL PURPOSE

To review the nutrition-related recommendations presented in the 2019 European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel, and Pan Pacific Pressure Injury Alliance Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers/Injuries: Clinical Practice Guideline with further discussion of nutrition for pressure injury management in the context of the recommendations.

TARGET AUDIENCE

This continuing education activity is intended for physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and nurses with an interest in skin and wound care.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES/OUTCOMES

After participating in this educational activity, the participant should be better able to:1. Distinguish nutrition and malnutrition, especially as they relate to the development and healing of pressure injuries.2. Differentiate the tools and techniques that help clinicians assess nutrition status as well as the causes of pressure injuries in specific populations.3. Identify interventions for improving nutrition status and promoting pressure injury healing.

ABSTRACT

Macro- and micronutrients are required by each organ system in specific amounts to promote the growth, development, maintenance, and repair of body tissues. Specifically, nutrition plays an important role in the prevention and treatment of pressure injuries. The purpose of this manuscript is to review the nutrition-related recommendations presented in the 2019 European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel, and Pan Pacific Pressure Injury Alliance Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers/Injuries: Clinical Practice Guideline. Nutrition for pressure injury management is discussed in the context of the recommendations.

Relationship between a pressure redistributing foam mattress and pressure injuries: An observational prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Pressure injuries remain a significant health care issue in various settings. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between a pressure redistributing foam mattress (PRFM) and the development of pressure injuries.

METHODS

This study employed an observational prospective cohort study design. We enrolled 254 participants from the intensive care unit who were at risk of developing pressure injuries. Participants were exposed to either a nonpressure redistributing foam mattress (NPRFM), which was the standard mattress used at the study site, or a PRFM made of viscoelastic, temperature-sensitive, polyurethane memory foam. The patients' assignment to either a PRFM or NPRFM was performed upon their admission, before the study eligibility screening. The relationship between the PRFM and the development of pressure injuries was studied using a logistic regression model.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of pressure injuries was 5.9% (15/254) in our study, with 1.6% (2/127) for participants who used a PRFM and 10.2% (13/127) for those using a NPRFM. After adjusting for potential confounding variables, use of a PRFM was associated with an 88% reduced risk of pressure injury development (OR = 0.12, 95% CI: 0.03, 0.56, P = 0.007). The use of a PRFM also contributed to a postponed occurrence of pressure injuries by 4.2 days on average in comparison with that of a NPRFM (P = 0.041).

CONCLUSIONS

A PRFM is associated with a significantly reduced incidence and postponed occurrence of pressure injuries. It is recommended to use a PRFM for patients at risk of developing pressure injuries.

Best Practice in Pressure Injury Prevention Among Critical Care Patients

Pressure injuries are areas of damage to the skin and underlying tissue caused by pressure or pressure in combination with shear. Pressure injury prevention in the critical care population necessitates risk assessment, selection of appropriate preventive interventions, and ongoing assessment to determine the adequacy of the preventive interventions. Best practices in preventive interventions among critical care patients, including skin and tissue assessment, skin care, repositioning, nutrition, support surfaces, and early mobilization, are described. Unique considerations in special populations including older adults and individuals with obesity are also addressed.

Predictors of pressure injury development in critically ill adults: A retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this research was to identify predictors of pressure injury, using data from the electronic health records of critically ill adults.

METHODOLOGY

A retrospective cohort study was conducted using logistic regression models to examine risk factors adjusted for age, gender, race/ethnicity and length of stay.

SETTING

The study cohort included 1587 adults in intensive care units within an urban academic medical centre.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The presence or absence of a hospital-acquired pressure injury was determined during monthly skin integrity prevalence surveys. All pressure injuries were independently confirmed by two Certified Wound Care Nurses.

RESULTS

Eighty-one (5.1%) of the 1587 cohort patients developed pressure injuries. After adjusting for confounders, the clinical variables associated with pressure injury development included mean arterial pressure <60 mmHg and lowest Total Braden score up to two weeks prior to the date of HAPI development or date of prevalence survey for the comparison group.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides a more comprehensive understanding about pressure injury risk in critically ill adults, identifying extrinsic and intrinsic factors associated with pressure injury development. Prospective multisite studies are needed to further examine these potential contributors to pressure injury development within the context of adherence to prevention interventions.

Skin injury prevalence and incidence in China: a multicentre investigation

OBJECTIVE:

To quantify the prevalence and incidence of different skin injuries, pressure ulcers (PU), skin tears (ST) and incontinence-associated dermatitis (IAD) in China, and to identify their causes to aid prevention and control.

METHOD:

A cross-sectional observational study was conducted across nine tertiary hospitals. Registered nurses were trained on a standard approach to injury assessment and examination. The study was carried out at the same time on the same day across the participating centres. Participating patients were examined for PU, ST or IAD.

RESULTS:

A total of 13,176 inpatients were assessed and 233 PU were identified, of which 126 occurred in hospitals, 99 cases at home and eight cases within community hospitals. In addition, there were 141 skin tears and 97 IADs.

CONCLUSION:

This study involved the largest number of hospitals, to date (in China). Therefore, the prevalence and rate of incidence of skin injury obtained in this study may represent a regional baseline in China.

Predicting the Risk for Hospital-Acquired Pressure Ulcers in Critical Care Patients

BACKGROUND

Assessments of risk for pressure ulcers in critical care patients may not include important predictors.

OBJECTIVE

To construct risk-prediction models of hospital-acquired pressure ulcers in intensive care patients and compare the models' predictive validities with validity of the Braden Scale.

METHODS

Data were collected retrospectively on patients admitted to intensive care from October 2011 through October 2013. Logistic regression and decision trees were used to construct the risk-prediction models. Predictive validity was measured by using sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and area under the curve.

RESULTS

With logistic regression analysis, 6 factors were significant independent predictors. With the decision tree, 4 types of high-risk populations were identified. Predictive validity of Braden Scale scores was lower than the validities of the logistic regression and the decision tree models.

CONCLUSION

Risk for hospital-acquired pressure ulcers is overpredicted with the Braden Scale, with low specificity and low positive predictive value.

Predictors of Pressure Injuries in a Critical Care Unit in Lebanon: Prevalence, Characteristics, and Associated Factors

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to identify factors associated with pressure injury in a medical-surgical intensive care unit (MSICU).

DESIGN

Retrospective review of medical records.

SUBJECTS AND SETTING

We reviewed the medical records of 145 patients who developed a new pressure injury in the MSICU of a 420-bed university medical center in Lebanon.

METHODS

Medical records of all patients cared for in the MSICU from December 2014 to June 2017 were reviewed by a research assistant using a standardized form. We extracted potential risk factors for pressure injury including sex, age, weight upon admission, weight at discharge, length of MSICU stay, episodes of hypotension, administration of inotropes/vasopressors, admitting diagnosis, comorbid conditions, and cumulative scores on the Braden Scale for Pressure Sore Risk. The outcome variable was development of any new pressure injury during their stay in our intensive care unit.

RESULTS

Forty-nine patents (33.7%) developed a new pressure injury. Bivariate analysis found statistically significant associations between pressure injury occurrences and administration of vasopressors (odds ratio [OR] = 0.42; 95% confidence interval = 0.29-0.87; P = .02), the administration of dopamine (OR = 0.20; 95% confidence interval = 0.04-0.94; P = .04), and hospital-acquired pressure injury. Among the continuous variables, analysis revealed significant relationships between weight at discharge (t = 2.31, P = .02), MSICU length of stay (t = 5.30; P = .000), cumulative Braden Scale score (t = 3.06; P = .002), hypotension (t =-2.74; P = .007), and development a new pressure injury. Multivariate analysis indicated that length of stay (β= -.110; P = .002), administration of vasopressors (β=-.266; P = .029), and total hours of hypotension (β=-.53; P = .041) were significant predictors of pressure injury.

CONCLUSIONS

Vasopressor use, hypotension, and length of stay were associated with an increased likelihood of pressure injury in adults managed in an MSICU. None of these factors is specifically evaluated during completion of the Braden Scale for Pressure Sore Risk. Based on these findings we recommend development of a pressure injury scale specific to critically ill adults.

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.

Comparison of awareness of patient parameters between two groups of caregivers in intensive care unit

Aim of the Study:

Materials and Methods:

Results:

Conclusions:

Risk factors for pressure injuries among critical care patients: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To identify risk factors independently predictive of pressure injury (also known as pressure ulcer) development among critical-care patients.

DESIGN

We undertook a systematic review of primary research based on standardized criteria set forth by the Institute of Medicine.

DATA SOURCES

We searched the following databases: CINAHL (EBSCOhost), the Cochrane Library (Wilson), Dissertations & Theses Global (ProQuest), PubMed (National Library of Medicine), and Scopus. There was no language restriction.

METHOD

A research librarian coordinated the search strategy. Articles that potentially met inclusion criteria were screened by two investigators. Among the articles that met selection criteria, one investigator extracted data and a second investigator reviewed the data for accuracy. Based on a literature search, we developed a tool for assessing study quality using a combination of currently available tools and expert input. We used the method developed by Coleman et al. in 2014 to generate evidence tables and a summary narrative synthesis by domain and subdomain.

RESULTS

Of 1753 abstracts reviewed, 158 were identified as potentially eligible and 18 fulfilled eligibility criteria. Five studies were classified as high quality, two were moderate quality, nine were low quality, and two were of very low quality. Age, mobility/activity, perfusion, and vasopressor infusion emerged as important risk factors for pressure injury development, whereas results for risk categories that are theoretically important, including nutrition, and skin/pressure injury status, were mixed. Methodological limitations across studies limited the generalizability of the results, and future research is needed, particularly to evaluate risk conferred by altered nutrition and skin/pressure injury status, and to further elucidate the effects of perfusion-related variables.

CONCLUSIONS

Results underscore the importance of avoiding overinterpretation of a single study, and the importance of taking study quality into consideration when reviewing risk factors. Maximal pressure injury prevention efforts are particularly important among critical-care patients who are older, have altered mobility, experience poor perfusion, or who are receiving a vasopressor infusion.

Blister fluid and serum cytokine levels in severe sepsis in humans reflect skin dysfunction

BACKGROUND

Knowledge of sepsis-related end-organ inflammation in vivo is limited. We investigated the cytokine response in skin and in serum in sepsis and its relation to multiorgan failure (MOF) and survival.

METHODS

Cytokines were analysed in serum and in suction blister fluid of intact skin of 44 patients with severe sepsis and 15 healthy controls. Blister fluid and serum samples were collected within 48 h of the first sepsis-induced organ failure. This is a substudy of a larger follow-up study on wound healing in sepsis.

RESULTS

Cytokine levels were higher in patients with sepsis vs. controls (interleukin [IL]-10, blisters: 65.9 vs. 4.3 pg/ml, P < 0.001, serum: 25.7 vs. 4.5 pg/ml, P = 0.004; IL-6, blisters: 41.9 vs. 0.03 pg/ml, P < 0.001, serum: 45.5 vs. 2.1 pg/ml, P < 0.001). Patients with MOF had higher levels of IL-10 (116.4 vs. 21.3 pg/ml, P = 0.015), IL-4 (0.7 vs. 0.07 pg/ml, P = 0.013) and basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF) (25.9 vs. 9.5 pg/ml, P = 0.027) in blister fluid than patients without MOF. In blister fluid, survivors had lower levels of IL-10 (43.3 vs. 181.9 pg/ml, P = 0.024) and bFGF (15.8 vs. 31.9 pg/ml, P = 0.006) than non-survivors. In serum, survivors had higher levels of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) (152.2 vs. 14.7 pg/ml, P = 0.012) and lower levels of IL-6 (38.5 vs. 91.1 pg/ml, P = 0.011) than non-survivors. The blister fluid levels of bFGF, TNF and VEGF did not correlate with the serum levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Cytokine responses in skin blister fluid in patients with sepsis differed from those in healthy controls.

Pressure Ulcers: Developing Clinical Indicators in Evidence-based Practice. A Prospective Study

Aims and objectives:

It is widely recognized that Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients have a greater likelihood of developing pressure ulcers in comparison to hospital or home care patients. Accordingly, this study aimed to evaluate whether specific clinical characteristics could be used as clinical indicators towards pressure ulcers prevention.

Method:

We monitored 210 hospitalized ICU patients during a 12-month period. Pressure ulcers were assessed following the current guidelines. Clinical characteristics such as gender, age, hospitalized days, hemodialysis treatment, hematocrit, and serum albumin levels were considered as the most common predictors for pressure ulcers development. The significance of associations was controlled using multiple logistic regression after adjusting for clinical characteristics and was presented as adjusted odds ratio (AOR).

Results:

The prevalence of pressure ulcers was 24.3%. Logistic regression revealed that patients with increased age AOR=1.04; (CI: 1.01-1.07) and last-long hospitalization AOR=1.17; (CI: 1.11-1.23) were significantly more likely to present pressure ulcers compared to the younger ones and patients with less length of stay, respectively. We also found that patients under hemodialysis treatment were more likely to present pressure ulcers AOR=4.09; (CI: 1.12-14.98) compared to patients that did not underwent hemodialysis and the risk of pressure ulcers development was decreased by 9% for every single unit of hematocrit value increase AOR=0.91; (CI: 0.82-0.99).

Conclusion:

Our data analysis confirms that the clinical characteristics that were studied are independently associated with pressure ulcers development, and therefore, it is a crucial incentive to consider that these specific clinical characteristics are important indicators in the evidence-based practice.

A Model of Pressure, Oxygenation, and Perfusion Risk Factors for Pressure Ulcers in the Intensive Care Unit

BACKGROUND

Although most intensive care patients are at risk for pressure ulcers, not all experience such ulcers.

OBJECTIVE

To examine a model of variables related to extrinsic and intrinsic pressure on skin and underlying tissues, oxygenation, perfusion, and baseline comorbid conditions to identify risk factors associated with pressure ulcers in critically ill adults.

METHOD

A retrospective chart review was conducted on patients identified by weekly rounds from January 2010 through October 2010 to determine the prevalence of pressure ulcers. Variables were analyzed via bivariate analysis and logistic regression for unit-acquired pressure ulcers.

RESULTS

Data on 345 patients with 436 intensive care admissions were reviewed. Variables were significant in each model category at P < .05. In the regression analysis of first admission only (n = 306), the model was significant (P < .001) and yielded correct classification of 86.3% of patients. For all intensive care admissions (n = 391), the model was significant (P < .001) and yielded correct classification of 83.9% of patients. In both models, 4 of the same variables were significant: any transport off the unit, number of days to bed change, systolic blood pressure less than 90 mm Hg, and use of more than 1 vasopressor. History of pulmonary disease and presence of a feeding tube were also significant in regression analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Several variables within the model of pressure, oxygenation, and perfusion were significantly associated with development of pressure ulcers.

Vasopressors and development of pressure ulcers in adult critical care patients

BACKGROUND

Vasopressors are lifesaving agents used to raise mean arterial pressure in critically ill patients in shock states. The pharmacodynamics of these agents suggest vasopressors may play a role in development of pressure ulcers; however, this aspect has been understudied.

OBJECTIVE

To examine associations between type, dose, and duration of vasopressors (norepinephrine, epinephrine, vasopressin, phenylephrine, dopamine) and development of pressure ulcers in medical-surgical and cardiothoracic intensive care unit patients and to examine predictors of the development of pressure ulcers in these patients.

METHODS

A retrospective correlational design was used in a sample of 306 medical-surgical and cardiothoracic intensive care unit patients who received vasopressor agents during 2012.

RESULTS

Norepinephrine and vasopressin were significantly associated with development of pressure ulcers; vasopressin was the only significant predictor in multivariate analysis. In addition, mean arterial pressure less than 60 mm Hg in patients receiving vasopressors, cardiac arrest, and mechanical ventilation longer than 72 hours were predictive of development of pressure ulcers. Patients with a cardiac diagnosis at the time of admission to the intensive care unit were less likely than patients without such a diagnosis to experience pressure ulcers while in the unit.

CONCLUSION

The addition of vasopressin administered concomitantly with a first-line agent (often norepinephrine) may represent the point at which the risk for pressure ulcers escalates and may be an early warning to heighten strategies to prevent pressure ulcers. Conversely, because vasopressors cannot be terminated to avert development of pressure ulcers, these findings may add to the body of knowledge on factors that potentially contribute to the development of unavoidable pressure ulcers.

Predictive Validity of Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Tools for Elderly: A Meta-Analysis

Preventing pressure ulcers is one of the most challenging goals existing for today's health care provider. Currently used tools which assess risk of pressure ulcer development rarely evaluate the accuracy of predictability, especially in older adults. The current study aimed at providing a systemic review and meta-analysis of 29 studies using three pressure ulcer risk assessment tools: Braden, Norton, and Waterlow Scales. Overall predictive validities of pressure ulcer risks in the pooled sensitivity and specificity indicated a similar range with a moderate accuracy level in all three scales, while heterogeneity showed more than 80% variability among studies. The studies applying the Braden Scale used five different cut-off points representing the primary cause of heterogeneity. Results indicate that commonly used screening tools for pressure ulcer risk have limitations regarding validity and accuracy for use with older adults due to heterogeneity among studies.

Pressure UlceR Programme Of reSEarch (PURPOSE): using mixed methods (systematic reviews, prospective cohort, case study, consensus and psychometrics) to identify patient and organisational risk, develop a risk assessment tool and patient-reported outcome Quality of Life and Health Utility measures

Background

The Pressure UlceR Programme Of reSEarch (PURPOSE) consisted of two themes. Theme 1 focused on improving our understanding of individuals’ and organisational risk factors and on improving the quality of risk assessments (work packages 1–3) and theme 2 focused on developing patient-reported outcome measures (work packages 4 and 5).

Methods

The programme comprised 21 individual pieces of work. Pain: (1) multicentre pain prevalence study in acute hospitals, (2) multicentre pain prevalence study in community localities incorporating (3) a comparison of case-finding methods, and (4) multicentre, prospective cohort study. Severe pressure ulcers: (5) retrospective case study, (6) patient involvement workshop with the Pressure Ulcer Research Service User Network for the UK (PURSUN UK) and (7) development of root cause analysis methodology. Risk assessment: (8) systematic review, (9) consensus study, (10) conceptual framework development and theoretical causal pathway, (11) design and pretesting of draft Risk Assessment Framework and (12) field test to assess reliability, validity, data completeness and clinical usability. Quality of life: (13) conceptual framework development (systematic review, patient interviews), (14 and 15) provisional instrument development, with items generated from patient interviews [from (1) above] two systematic reviews and experts, (16) pretesting of the provisional Pressure Ulcer Quality of Life (PU-QOL) instrument using mixed methods, (17) field test 1 including (18) optimal mode of administration substudy and item reduction with testing of scale formation, acceptability, scaling assumptions, reliability and validity, and (19) field test 2 – final psychometric evaluation to test scale targeting, item response categories, item fit, response bias, acceptability, scaling assumptions, reliability and validity. Cost–utility: (20) time trade-off task valuations of health states derived from selected PU-QOL items, and (21) validation of the items selected and psychometric properties of the new Pressure Ulcer Quality of Life Utility Index (PUQOL-UI).

Key findings

Pain: prevalence studies – hospital and community patients experience both pressure area-related and pressure ulcer pain; pain cohort study – indicates that pain is independently predictive of category 2 (and above) pressure ulcer development. Severe pressure ulcers: these were more likely to develop in contexts in which clinicians failed to listen to patients/carers or recognise/respond to high risk or the presence of an existing pressure ulcer and services were not effectively co-ordinated; service users found the interactive workshop format valuable; including novel components (interviews with patients and carers) in root cause analysis improves the quality of the insights captured. Risk assessment: we developed a Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Framework, the PURPOSE-T, incorporating the Minimum Data Set, a screening stage, a full assessment stage, use of colour to support decision-making, and decision pathways that make a clear distinction between patients with an existing pressure ulcer(s) (or scarring from previous ulcers) who require secondary prevention and treatment and those at risk who require primary prevention (http://medhealth.leeds.ac.uk/accesspurposet). Quality of life: the final PU-QOL instrument consists of 10 scales to measure pain, exudate, odour, sleep, vitality, mobility/movement, daily activities, emotional well-being, self-consciousness and appearance, and participation (http://medhealth.leeds.ac.uk/puqol-ques). Cost–utility: seven items were selected from the PU-QOL instrument for inclusion in the PUQOL-UI (http://medhealth.leeds.ac.uk/puqol-ui); secondary study analysis indicated that item selection for the PUQOL-UI was appropriate and that the index was acceptable to patients and had adequate levels of validity.

Conclusions

The PURPOSE programme has provided important insights for pressure ulcer prevention and treatment and involvement of service users in research and development, with implications for patient and public involvement, clinical practice, quality/safety/health service management and research including replication of the pain risk factor study, work exploring ‘best practice’ settings, the impact of including skin status as an indicator for escalation of preventative interventions, further psychometric evaluation of PU-QOL and PUQOL-UI the measurement of ‘disease attribution.’

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme.

Predictive capacity of risk assessment scales and clinical judgment for pressure ulcers: a meta-analysis

A systematic review with meta-analysis was completed to determine the capacity of risk assessment scales and nurses' clinical judgment to predict pressure ulcer (PU) development. Electronic databases were searched for prospective studies on the validity and predictive capacity of PUs risk assessment scales published between 1962 and 2010 in English, Spanish, Portuguese, Korean, German, and Greek. We excluded gray literature sources, integrative review articles, and retrospective or cross-sectional studies. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed according to the guidelines of the Critical Appraisal Skills Program. Predictive capacity was measured as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals. When 2 or more valid original studies were found, a meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effect model and sensitivity analysis. We identified 57 studies, including 31 that included a validation study. We also retrieved 4 studies that tested clinical judgment as a risk prediction factor. Meta-analysis produced the following pooled predictive capacity indicators: Braden (RR = 4.26); Norton (RR = 3.69); Waterlow (RR = 2.66); Cubbin-Jackson (RR = 8.63); EMINA (RR = 6.17); Pressure Sore Predictor Scale (RR = 21.4); and clinical judgment (RR = 1.89). Pooled analysis of 11 studies found adequate risk prediction capacity in various clinical settings; the Braden, Norton, EMINA (mEntal state, Mobility, Incontinence, Nutrition, Activity), Waterlow, and Cubbin-Jackson scales showed the highest predictive capacity. The clinical judgment of nurses was found to achieve inadequate predictive capacity when used alone, and should be used in combination with a validated scale.

Evidence-based prevention of pressure ulcers in the intensive care unit

The development of stage III or IV pressure ulcers is currently considered a never event. Critical care patients are at high risk for development of pressure ulcers because of the increased use of devices, hemodynamic instability, and the use of vasoactive medications. This article addresses risk factors, risk scales such as the Norden, Braden, Waterlow, and Jackson-Cubbin scales used to determine the risk of pressure ulcers in critical care patients, and prevention of device-related pressure ulcers in patients in the critical care unit.

Body mass index and pressure ulcers: improved predictability of pressure ulcers in intensive care patients

BACKGROUND

Obesity contributes to immobility and subsequent pressure on skin surfaces. Knowledge of the relationship between obesity and development of pressure ulcers in intensive care patients will provide better understanding of which patients are at high risk for pressure ulcers and allow more efficient prevention.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the incidence of pressure ulcers in patients who differ in body mass index and to determine whether inclusion of body mass index enhanced use of the Braden scale in the prediction of pressure ulcers.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, data were collected from the medical records of 4 groups of patients with different body mass index values: underweight, normal weight, obese, and extremely obese. Data included patients' demographics, body weight, score on the Braden scale, and occurrence of pressure ulcers.

RESULTS

The incidence of pressure ulcers in the underweight, normal weight, obese, and extremely obese groups was 8.6%, 5.5%, 2.8%, and 9.9%, respectively. When both the score on the Braden scale and the body mass index were predictive of pressure ulcers, extremely obese patients were about 2 times more likely to experience an ulcer than were normal weight patients. In the final model, the area under the curve was 0.71. The baseline area under the curve for the Braden scale was 0.68.

CONCLUSIONS

Body mass index and incidence of pressure ulcers were related in intensive care patients. Addition of body mass index did not appreciably improve the accuracy of the Braden scale for predicting pressure ulcers.

Driving hospital-acquired pressure ulcers to zero

The prevention of hospital-acquired pressure ulcers remains a top priority for health care facilities worldwide. This article discusses a process improvement in an intensive care unit where the unit-acquired pressure ulcer rate was dropped from 30% to 0% by front-line staff nurses. The key areas addressed by the staff were education, creating a process for turning patients during bedside report, and the creation of a documentation tool for accurate skin/wound assessment. Involving front-line staff in the prevention methodology creates a process that is quickly adopted by staff, peer-to-peer accountability in accurate skin/wound assessment, and positive outcomes.

Factors predicting the development of pressure ulcers in an at-risk population who receive standardized preventive care: secondary analyses of a multicentre randomised controlled trial

AIMS

To identify predictive factors associated with the development of pressure ulcers in patients at risk who receive standardized preventive care.

BACKGROUND

Numerous studies have examined factors that predict risk for pressure ulcer development. Only a few studies identified risk factors associated with pressure ulcer development in hospitalized patients receiving standardized preventive care.

DESIGN

Secondary analyses of data collected in a multicentre randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

The sample consisted of 610 consecutive patients at risk for pressure ulcer development (Braden Score <17) receiving standardized preventive care measures. Patient demographic information, data on skin and risk assessment, medical history and diagnosis were collected during 26 months (December 2007-January 2010). Predictive factors were identified using multivariate statistics.

RESULTS

Pressure ulcers in category II-IV were significantly associated with non-blanchable erythema, urogenital disorders and higher body temperature. Predictive factors significantly associated with superficial pressure ulcers were admission to an internal medicine ward, incontinence-associated dermatitis, non-blanchable erythema and a lower Braden score. Superficial sacral pressure ulcers were significantly associated with incontinence-associated dermatitis.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the standardized preventive measures they received, hospitalized patients with non-blanchable erythema, urogenital disorders and a higher body temperature were at increased risk for developing pressure ulcers.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Improved identification of at-risk patients can be achieved by taking into account specific predictive factors. Even if preventive measures are in place, continuous assessment and tailoring of interventions is necessary in all patients at risk. Daily skin observation can be used to continuously monitor the effectiveness of the intervention.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of incontinence-associated dermatitis, incontinence, and moisture as risk factors for pressure ulcer development

The aim of this analysis was to identify the association between incontinence-associated dermatitis (IAD), its most important etiologic factors (incontinence and moisture), and pressure ulcers (PUs). A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. We searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for relevant papers dating through March 15, 2013. Fifty-eight studies were included. Measures of relative effect at the univariate level were meta-analyzed. In most studies (86%), a significant association between variables of interest was found, with pooled odds ratios of PUs in univariate models between 1.92 (95% CI 1.54-2.38) for urinary incontinence and 4.99 (95% CI 2.62-9.50) for double incontinence (p < .05). This evidence indicates an association between IAD, its most important etiological factors, and PUs. Methodological issues should be considered when interpreting the results of this review.

Predictive power of the Braden scale for pressure sore risk in adult critical care patients: a comprehensive review

Critical care is designed for managing the sickest patients within our healthcare system. Multiple factors associated with an increased likelihood of pressure ulcer development have been investigated in the critical care population. Nevertheless, there is a lack of consensus regarding which of these factors poses the greatest risk for pressure ulceration. While the Braden scale for pressure sore risk is the most commonly used tool for measuring pressure ulcer risk in the United States, research focusing on the cumulative Braden Scale score and subscale scores is lacking in the critical care population. This author conducted a literature review on pressure ulcer risk assessment in the critical care population, to include the predictive value of both the total score and the subscale scores. In this review, the subscales sensory perception, mobility, moisture, and friction/shear were found to be associated with an increased likelihood of pressure ulcer development; in contrast, the Activity and Nutrition subscales were not found to predict pressure ulcer development in this population. In order to more precisely quantify risk in the critically ill population, modification of the Braden scale or development of a critical care specific risk assessment tool may be indicated.

Reusability of EMR Data for Applying Cubbin and Jackson Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Scale in Critical Care Patients

OBJECTIVES

The purposes of this study were to examine the predictive validity of the Cubbin and Jackson pressure ulcer risk assessment scale for the development of pressure ulcers in intensive care unit (ICU) patients retrospectively and to evaluate the reusability of Electronic Medical Records (EMR) data.

METHODS

A retrospective design was used to examine 829 cases admitted to four ICUs in a tertiary care hospital from May 2010 to April 2011. Patients who were without pressure ulcers at admission to ICU, 18 years or older, and had stayed in ICU for 24 hours or longer were included. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated.

RESULTS

The reported incidence rate of pressure ulcers among the study subjects was 14.2%. At the cut-off score of 24 of the Cubbin and Jackson scale, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and AUC were 72.0%, 68.8%, 27.7%, 93.7%, and 0.76, respectively. Eight items out 10 of the Cubbin and Jackson scale were readily available in the EMR data.

CONCLUSIONS

The Cubbin and Jackson scale performed slightly better than the Braden scale to predict pressure ulcer development. Eight items of the Cubbin and Jackson scale except mobility and hygiene can be extracted from the EMR, which initially demonstrated the reusability of EMR data for pressure ulcer risk assessment. If the Cubbin and Jackson scale is a part of the EMR assessment form, it would help nurses perform tasks to effectively prevent pressure ulcers with an EMR alert for high-risk patients.

Predictive validity of the Braden scale for patients in intensive care units

BACKGROUND

Patients in intensive care units are at higher risk for development of pressure ulcers than other patients. In order to prevent pressure ulcers from developing in intensive care patients, risk for development of pressure ulcers must be assessed accurately.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the predictive validity of the Braden scale for assessing risk for development of pressure ulcers in intensive care patients by using 4 years of data from electronic health records. Methods Data from the electronic health records of patients admitted to intensive care units between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2010, were extracted from the data warehouse of an academic medical center. Predictive validity was measured by using sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value. The receiver operating characteristic curve was generated, and the area under the curve was reported.

RESULTS

A total of 7790 intensive care patients were included in the analysis. A cutoff score of 16 on the Braden scale had a sensitivity of 0.954, specificity of 0.207, positive predictive value of 0.114, and negative predictive value of 0.977. The area under the curve was 0.672 (95% CI, 0.663-0.683). The optimal cutoff for intensive care patients, determined from the receiver operating characteristic curve, was 13.

CONCLUSIONS

The Braden scale shows insufficient predictive validity and poor accuracy in discriminating intensive care patients at risk of pressure ulcers developing. The Braden scale may not sufficiently reflect characteristics of intensive care patients. Further research is needed to determine which possibly predictive factors are specific to intensive care units in order to increase the usefulness of the Braden scale for predicting pressure ulcers in intensive care patients.

Characteristics of hospitalised US veterans with nosocomial pressure ulcers

The objective of this study was to describe demographic and clinical characteristics of hospitalised US veterans with nosocomial pressure ulcer (NPU) referred to a certified Wound, Ostomy & Continence Nurse (WOCN). We conducted a retrospective review of electronic records at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center in the northwestern USA. Records of veterans with NPU referred to a WOCN (n = 29) from May 2005 to June 2006 were reviewed. Location and stage of pressure ulcer(s), Braden score on admission and when the ulcer was first noted, day of hospital stay when the ulcer was first noted, medical diagnoses and clinical conditions and events such as surgery, hypoxemia, hypoalbuminemia and hypotension were recorded. Mean age of the patients was 69·8. The most common location was the sacrum/coccyx. Most ulcers were stage 1 when identified. Braden score during admission classified half of the sample at risk, but 81% of Braden scores at ulcer occurrence were <18. Ninety percent of the sample had three or more comorbidities. Over half had died in the 1-14 months after the reviewed hospitalisation. Hospitalised veterans referred for WOCN consultation had multiple risk factors and comorbid conditions, including hypoxemia, serum albumin depletion, anaemia and hypotension. Veterans cared for in Veterans Affairs Medical Centers are known to have multiple health problems, and those in this sample not only had nosocomial pressure ulcer, but also other physiological derangements that may shorten survival.

Patient risk factors for pressure ulcer development: systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To identify risk factors independently predictive of pressure ulcer development in adult patient populations?

DESIGN

A systematic review of primary research was undertaken, based upon methods recommended for effectiveness questions but adapted to identify observational risk factor studies.

DATA SOURCES

Fourteen electronic databases were searched, each from inception until March 2010, with hand searching of specialist journals and conference proceedings; contact with experts and a citation search. There was no language restriction.

REVIEW METHODS

Abstracts were screened, reviewed against the eligibility criteria, data extracted and quality appraised by at least one reviewer and checked by a second. Where necessary, statistical review was undertaken. We developed an assessment framework and quality classification based upon guidelines for assessing quality and methodological considerations in the analysis, meta-analysis and publication of observational studies. Studies were classified as high, moderate, low and very low quality. Risk factors were categorised into risk factor domains and sub-domains. Evidence tables were generated and a summary narrative synthesis by sub-domain and domain was undertaken.

RESULTS

Of 5462 abstracts retrieved, 365 were identified as potentially eligible and 54 fulfilled the eligibility criteria. The 54 studies included 34,449 patients and acute and community patient populations. Seventeen studies were classified as high or moderate quality, whilst 37 studies (68.5%) had inadequate numbers of pressure ulcers and other methodological limitations. Risk factors emerging most frequently as independent predictors of pressure ulcer development included three primary domains of mobility/activity, perfusion (including diabetes) and skin/pressure ulcer status. Skin moisture, age, haematological measures, nutrition and general health status are also important, but did not emerge as frequently as the three main domains. Body temperature and immunity may be important but require further confirmatory research. There is limited evidence that either race or gender is important.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall there is no single factor which can explain pressure ulcer risk, rather a complex interplay of factors which increase the probability of pressure ulcer development. The review highlights the limitations of over-interpretation of results from individual studies and the benefits of reviewing results from a number of studies to develop a more reliable overall assessment of factors which are important in affecting patient susceptibility.

Backrest position in prevention of pressure ulcers and ventilator-associated pneumonia: conflicting recommendations

Pressure ulcers and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) are both common in acute and critical care settings and are considerable sources of morbidity, mortality, and health care costs. To prevent pressure ulcers, guidelines limit bed backrest elevation to less than 30 degrees, whereas recommendations to reduce VAP include use of backrest elevations of 30 degrees or more. Although a variety of risk factors beyond patient position have been identified for both pressure ulcers and VAP, this article will focus on summarizing the major evidence for each of these apparently conflicting positioning strategies and discuss implications for practice in managing mechanically ventilated patients with risk factors for both pressure ulcers and VAP.

Relationship between morphological characteristics and etiology of pressure ulcers in intensive care unit patients

PURPOSE

Pressure ulcer (PU) prevention is crucial for critically ill patients in the intensive care unit, but etiologic factors leading to their development have not yet been completely elucidated. This study explores the relationships among etiologic factors, interventional nursing care, and morphological characteristics of PUs in intensive care unit patients.

DESIGN

We used a qualitative exploratory method to link morphological characteristics of specific PUs to etiologic factors.

METHODS

Details of individual PUs were described by sketching the PU photograph and categorized to characterize the morphology of PUs. After identification of characteristics, the development process was evaluated by in-depth review of medical records.

RESULTS

The morphological characteristics of 30 PUs were organized into 4 categories. This process revealed a type of PU not previously described, which we labeled "leaf-type." These PUs were located on the lower sacrum, rhombic-oval in shape, and characterized by purpura and PU wrinkles. Possible etiologic factors for the specific PUs were divided into 4 categories: (1) the occurrence of PU risk episodes, (2) failure of the peripheral circulation, (3) periods of critical immobility, and (4) position change techniques inducing skin deformation.

CONCLUSION

PU can be categorized into 4 morphological types, including a new category of leaf-shaped PU. We found that frequently repeated position changes such as lateral tilt and repeated head elevation caused deformation of the sacral skin that may play a role in PU development.

Predictors of pressure ulcers in adult critical care patients

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers are one of the most underrated conditions in critically ill patients. Despite the introduction of clinical practice guidelines and advances in medical technology, the prevalence of pressure ulcers in hospitalized patients continues to escalate. Currently, consensus is lacking on the most important risk factors for pressure ulcers in critically ill patients, and no risk assessment scale exclusively for pressure ulcers in these patients is available.

OBJECTIVE

To determine which risk factors are most predictive of pressure ulcers in adult critical care patients. Risk factors investigated included total score on the Braden Scale, mobility, activity, sensory perception, moisture, friction/shear, nutrition, age, blood pressure, length of stay in the intensive care unit, score on the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II, vasopressor administration, and comorbid conditions.

METHODS

A retrospective, correlational design was used to examine 347 patients admitted to a medical-surgical intensive care unit from October 2008 through May 2009.

RESULTS

According to direct logistic regression analyses, age, length of stay, mobility, friction/shear, norepinephrine infusion, and cardiovascular disease explained a major part of the variance in pressure ulcers.

CONCLUSION

Current risk assessment scales for development of pressure ulcers may not include risk factors common in critically ill adults. Development of a risk assessment model for pressure ulcers in these patients is warranted and could be the foundation for development of a risk assessment tool.