OR Time and Sacral Pressure Injuries in Critically Ill Surgical Patients

Hospital-acquired pressure injury prevention in people with a BMI of 30.0 or higher: A scoping review

AIM(S)

To: (1) explore current best practices for hospital-acquired pressure injury prevention in high BMI patients; (2) summarize nurses' experiences in preventing and managing them; (3) explore the association between a high BMI and occurrence and severity of pressure injury.

DESIGN

Exploratory.

METHODS

Scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid MEDLINE, EBSCO CINAHL Plus, JBI Evidence Synthesis, Scopus, Embase, clinical registries and grey literature (search dates: January 2009 to May 2021).

RESULTS

Overall, 1479 studies were screened. The included studies were published between 2010 and 2022. Five interventional studies and 32 best practice recommendations (Objective 1) reported low-quality evidence. Findings of thematic analysis reported in nine studies (Objective 2) identified nurses' issues as insufficient bariatric equipment, inadequate staffing, weight bias, fatigue, obese-related terminology issues, ethical dilemmas and insufficient staff education in high BMI patients' pressure injury prevention. No association between hospital-acquired pressure injury occurrence and high BMI were reported by 18 out of 28 included studies (Objective 3).

CONCLUSION

Quality of evidence was low for the interventional studies and best practice recommendations.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE

Current (2019) International Pressure Injury Guideline to be used despite the low quality of evidence of most best practice recommendations.

IMPACT STATEMENT

This study addressed hospital-acquired pressure injury prevention in high BMI patients. Greater proportion of studies in this review found no association between high BMI and occurrence of hospital-acquired pressure injury. Nurses need educational interventions on pressure injury prevention in high body mass index people, sufficient staffing for repositioning and improved availability of bariatric equipment.

REPORTING METHOD

We adhered to relevant EQUATOR guidelines, PRISMA extension for scoping reviews.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

No patient or public contribution. WHAT DOES THIS PAPER CONTRIBUTE TO THE WIDER GLOBAL CLINICAL COMMUNITY?: Larger clinical trials are needed on repositioning frequency, support surfaces, prophylactic dressings and risk assessment tools to inform clinical practice guidelines on pressure injury prevention in high BMI people.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

Wound Practice and Research (https://doi.org/10.33235/wpr.29.3.133-139).

Operative Positioning and Intraoperative-Acquired Pressure Injury: A Retrospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

To comprehensively assess the association between operative positioning with intraoperative-acquired pressure injury (IAPI) development.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included 455 patients who underwent surgery between October 2020 and January 2021. The authors grouped patients by operative positioning into the prone position and nonprone position groups. They used propensity-score matching at a 1:2 ratio to control for preoperative confounders, applied multiple logistic regression models to analyze the effects between positioning and IAPI, and assessed interactions of positioning and intraoperative factors on IAPI.

RESULTS

The final enrollment was 92 cases in the prone position group and 181 in the nonprone position group. Multivariable logistic analysis suggested that the prone position had a 2.92 times higher risk of IAPI than the nonprone position (odds ratio, 2.92; 95% CI, 1.13-7.57; P = .026). Subgroup analysis showed a significant multiplicative interaction between positioning and foam dressing on IAPI (P < .05), which was not observed in other intraoperative factors (P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides evidence that prone operative positioning can increase IAPI risk. Patients in the prone position may particularly benefit from using dressings in Chinese populations. Further large-sample longitudinal studies are required to confirm these findings.

Comparison of four risk assessment scales in predicting the risk of intraoperative acquired pressure injury in adult surgical patients: a prospective study

OBJECTIVE

To develop and compare four predictive models for intraoperative acquired pressure injury (IAPI) in surgical patients.

METHODS

One hundred patients undergoing various surgeries (hepatobiliary, pancreas, spleen, gastrointestinal, and cardiac surgeries) at Ruijin Hospital from November 2021 to September 2022 were included in this prospective cohort study. Four pressure injury risk assessment scales were used to measure the pressure injury risk: the Braden scale, Munro Pressure Injury Risk Assessment Scale, Scott Triggers tool, and CORN Intraoperative Acquired Pressure Injury Risk Assessment Scale. The patients were divided into the IAPI group and non-IAPI group.

RESULTS

In total, 37% of patients (37/100) developed class I/stage pressure injury (erythema) after surgery, which resolved within 2 hours after surgery in 86.49% of cases and further progressed to class II/stage or higher pressure injury within 6 days in 15.63% of cases. The application effects of the four commonly used risk assessment tools were compared with the sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. The Munro Scale showed the best sensitivity and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve among the four tools for postoperative assessment, but its specificity was only 20.63.

CONCLUSIONS

More appropriate assessment tools are required for IAPI risk evaluation.

Using Continuous Intraoperative Pressure Mapping to Describe Patterns of Tissue Interface Pressure

The purpose of this study was to describe patterns of intraoperative tissue interface pressure, identify the amount of time during which the pressure at four anatomical locations exceeded 32 mm Hg, and examine associations between patient- and surgery-related variables and peak tissue interface pressure. We used a pressure mapping system to measure the intraoperative tissue interface pressure of 150 patients. We implemented linear mixed-effects models to assess trends in the mean and peak tissue interface pressure. The percentage of time during which the interface pressure exceeded 32 mm Hg at the scapulae, interscapular area, and sacral area was 70%, 70%, and 90%, respectively. Body mass index, length of surgery, and intraoperative position were major predictors of increased pressure. Understanding patterns of tissue interface pressure of patients during surgery may help perioperative nurses develop strategies to attenuate pressure and protect skin integrity.

Munro Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Scale in Adult Patients Undergoing General Anesthesia in the Operating Room

Pressure ulcers are a common complication of immobility and frequently occur in surgical patients. The occurrence of pressure ulcers is affected by many factors, such as operation time and position, anesthesia method, and postoperative nursing. The aim of this study was to investigate the Munro Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Scale's value in predicting acute pressure ulcers in general anesthesia patients. This case-control study included patients who underwent more than 2 hours of general anesthesia in our hospital from January 2018 to December 2020. The case group comprised 42 patients who had pressure sores in surgical compression sites within 3 days after surgery. The control group consisted of 84 patients without acute pressure sores after surgery. Baseline patient data were compared between the two groups, and a logistic multivariate model was used to analyze potential risk factors for acute pressure ulcers. The Munro Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Scale scores and Braden scale scores were compared between the two groups during and after surgery. A receiver operating characteristic curve was used to evaluate the clinical value of the two scales (administered at the two time points) in predicting the occurrence of acute pressure ulcers after surgery. The operation and anesthesia times of patients in the case group were longer than those in the control group (P < 0.05). The proportion of comatose patients and patients with diabetes were significantly higher in the case group. While the case group had higher Munro scores during and after surgery compared to the control group (P < 0.05), Braden scores at the corresponding time points were lower (P < 0.05). The following variables were identified as independent risk factors of acute pressure ulcers: prolonged operation time and anesthesia time, increase in Munro scores during and after operation, decrease in Braden scores during and after operation, and comatose status (P < 0.05). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of the postoperative Munro score for predicting postoperative pressure ulcer risk was 0.774; the sensitivity and specificity were 67.73% and 80.58%, respectively. The AUC of the intraoperative Braden score for predicting postoperative pressure ulcer risk was 0.836, with a sensitivity of 78.95% and specificity of 78.00%. The AUC of the postoperative Braden score for predicting postoperative pressure ulcer risk was 0.809, with a sensitivity of 73.58% and specificity of 64.26% (P < 0.05). Our results indicate that the intraoperative Munro Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Scale is highly effective for predicting the risk of postoperative pressure ulcers in surgical patients who require general anesthesia.

A Change in Focus: Shifting From Treatment to Prevention of Perioperative Pressure Injuries

Hospital-acquired pressure injuries are a patient safety concern and can be costly for health care organizations. A multidisciplinary team of senior leaders, managers, nurses, and educators from departments that care for perioperative patients created an evidence-based perioperative pressure injury prevention bundle that includes skin and risk assessments, visual and electronic health record cues, prophylactic protection of at-risk skin, communication among providers and leaders regarding patient risk and injury throughout hospitalization, staff member education, compliance audits, root cause analyses, and wound care team follow-up. The prevention bundle resulted in a 50% reduction in perioperative pressure injuries the first calendar year after implementation and a zero-incidence rate for perioperative pressure injuries for at least a two-year period. This article discusses hospital-acquired pressure injuries related to the perioperative setting and outlines the full perioperative pressure injury prevention bundle.

Critical biomechanical and clinical insights concerning tissue protection when positioning patients in the operating room: A scoping review

An optimal position of the patient during operation may require a compromise between the best position for surgical access and the position a patient and his or her tissues can tolerate without sustaining injury. This scoping review analysed the existing, contemporary evidence regarding surgical positioning-related tissue damage risks, from both biomechanical and clinical perspectives, focusing on the challenges in preventing tissue damage in the constraining operating room environment, which does not allow repositioning and limits the use of dynamic or thick and soft support surfaces. Deep and multidisciplinary aetiological understanding is required for effective prevention of intraoperatively acquired tissue damage, primarily including pressure ulcers (injuries) and neural injuries. Lack of such understanding typically leads to misconceptions and increased risk to patients. This article therefore provides a comprehensive aetiological description concerning the types of potential tissue damage, vulnerable anatomical locations, the risk factors specific to the operative setting (eg, the effects of anaesthetics and instruments), the complex interactions between the tissue damage risk and the pathophysiology of the surgery itself (eg, the inflammatory response to the surgical incisions), risk assessments for surgical patients and their limitations, and available (including emerging) technologies for positioning. The present multidisciplinary and integrated approach, which holistically joins the bioengineering and clinical perspectives, is unique to this work and has not been taken before. Close collaboration between bioengineers and clinicians, such as demonstrated here, is required to revisit the design of operating tables, support surfaces for surgery, surgical instruments for patient stabilisation, and for surgical access. Each type of equipment and its combined use should be evaluated and improved where needed with regard to the two major threats to tissue health in the operative setting: pressure ulcers and neural damage.