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

Impact of Care Bundles Prevention of Hospital-Acquired Pressure Injuries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

AIM

To describe and synthesise current literature on care bundles in preventing hospital-acquired pressure injuries and to present a meta-analysis of experimental studies evaluating the effects of care bundles.

DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, Google Scholar and Medline (OVID), and relevant articles were identified from the inception of each database until June 5, 2024. This systematic review has been registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024554497). This study examined a multicomponent intervention care bundles consisting of three or more components that was implemented and compared with standard care. Outcomes were assessed using rates of hospital-acquired pressure injuries, length of hospital stay (days) and the number of pressure injuries. Study types included randomised controlled trials, nonrandomised studies, quasi-experimental studies, and cohort studies. After completion of the search, titles, abstracts and full texts were independently assessed by two researchers in consecutive rounds according to PICOS criteria; data were extracted and study quality was independently assessed by at least two researchers. A meta-analysis using random effects was conducted, where estimates were combined as odds ratios or risk differences, along with proportions and 95% confidence intervals were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of nine published studies, including 29.572 patients (Control group: 56.8%; Intervention group: 43.2%) were included in this review. The meta-analysis results showed a significant effect of care bundle intervention on hospital-acquired pressure injuries rates, length of hospital stay and number of pressure injuries. According to the results of the study, care bundle application reduces the rate of hospital-acquired pressure injuries, shortens the duration of hospitalisation, and reduces the number and severity of pressure injuries.

NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Although patients and the public were not directly involved in the study, the research addresses key concerns about preventing hospital-acquired pressure injuries. By focusing on care bundles to improve patient safety and reduce pressure injury rates, this study aims to enhance the quality of care, shorten hospital stays and improve patient outcomes, ultimately benefiting both patients and the healthcare system.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

CRD42024554497.

Implementation of a risk-stratified intervention bundle to prevent pressure injury in intensive care: A before-after study

BACKGROUND

Hospital-acquired pressure injury is an enduring problem in intensive care. Several intensive care-specific pressure injury risk assessment tools have been developed, but to date, only the COMHON Index has been aligned with risk-stratified preventative interventions.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a risk-stratified intervention bundle to reduce pressure injury in intensive care and to assess compliance with bundled interventions.

METHODS

A controlled before-after study was undertaken. All patients admitted to a single intensive care unit were included. Standard care was provided in the before phase, and the risk-stratified intervention bundle was implemented in the after phase. The primary outcome measure was pressure injury incidence.

RESULTS

The sample comprised 761 intensive care admissions. In the after phase, pressure injury incidence was reduced (2.1% vs 3.9%; 46% relative risk reduction), injury severity was lower, and there were fewer pressure injuries on the sacrum, buttocks, and heels. Logistic regression modelling identified three significant factors associated with pressure injury development: intensive care length of stay (odds ratio: 1.2); COMHON Index admission score (odds ratio: 1.2), and the before phase (odds ratio: 4.2). In the after phase, individual intervention compliance was variable (range: 40%-100%), but the all-or-nothing compliance was poor (33%).

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of bundled preventive measures associated with COMHON Index risk level reduced pressure injury incidence. Likewise, injury severity decreased, and the location of pressure injuries changed following the intervention. The results from this study support the use of risk-stratified interventions to prevent pressure injury in intensive care. However, further research is needed to examine the effectiveness of the COMHON Index bundle before it can be recommended for widespread clinical practice.

Prophylactic dressings for preventing sacral pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: A randomised feasibility trial

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic dressings are used to prevent sacral pressure injuries (PIs) in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Bedside clinicians are responsible for selecting these dressings despite the lack of comparative evidence.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to assess the feasibility of undertaking a larger multisite comparative effectiveness trial of two prophylactic sacral dressings in adult ICU patients.

METHODS

Using a two-arm pilot randomised feasibility trial design, we randomly allocated adult ICU patients to the Mepilex® Border Sacrum dressing or Allevyn™ Life Sacrum dressing plus usual PI prevention care. Our primary study outcomes were study eligibility, recruitment, retention, intervention fidelity, and missing data criteria. Participants were followed up for up to 14 days or a study endpoint: new sacral PI, ICU discharge, death, prone positioning, urine/faecal incontinence, or withdrawal. Daily clinical data were collected including a deidentified sacral photograph, sacral visual skin assessment, dressing failure rates (rolled edges, adhesion loss), and dressing-related harm (e.g., blisters). The blinded outcome assessor used these data to determine the presence of a new sacral PI.

RESULTS

From January to September 2023, 1069 ICU patients were screened; 77 (7.2%) were eligible, and 68 (88.3%) were recruited. Half of our feasibility criteria were met. One participant (1.5%) developed a sacral PI. Throughout the study, half (n = 54; 49.5%) of the dressing changes were due to dressing failure (rolled edges: n = 43; 79.5%, adhesion failure: n = 11; 20.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

Several prophylactic sacral dressings are available; however, comparative effective evidence between brands relative to performance, benefits, and harms is lacking. Following minor study criteria modifications, we found that a larger multisite comparative trial is feasible. Sacral prophylactic dressing failure and dressing-related harms are care quality and patient safety issues requiring further investigation regarding performance, harm, and costs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registration number: ACTRN12622000793718 and World Health Organization Universal Trial number: U1111-1278-6055.

Insights from the top-cited papers in the critical care nursing literature: A bibliometric and visualized analysis

BACKGROUND

Highly cited papers in critical care nursing can offer valuable insights for all stakeholders engaged in the research process by highlighting key research trends, guiding resource allocation and shaping future research priorities.

AIM

To gain insights from the top-cited papers in the top critical care nursing journals.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a bibliometric analysis of the top-cited papers in the top critical care nursing journals as reported by the Journal Citation Report 2023-released in June 2024. Data were tabulated and visualized using Microsoft Excel and the VOSviewer software.

RESULTS

Forty papers from the top four critical care nursing journals (Intensive and Critical Care Nursing [ICCN], Nursing in Critical Care [NICC], Australian Critical Care [ACC] and American Journal of Critical Care [AJCC]) were analysed. Half of the analysed papers were related to the COVID-19 pandemic, and mental health was the most addressed theme (n = 11 papers). Papers from the ICCN featured contributions from 17 countries, the highest among the journals analysed, followed by NICC, with contributions from 11 countries. Articles received more citations than reviews (median [interquartile range]: 18 [9-23] vs. 8 [8-11.5]), and open-access papers were cited about twice those published under a subscription model (19 [16-31] vs. 9 [8-15]). In ICCN, 9 of the 10 analysed papers were published open access compared with 3 in NICC and ACC and 2 in AJCC.

CONCLUSIONS

The identified themes in this paper underscore the dynamic nature of the field of critical care nursing and the ongoing efforts to address key challenges in critical care nursing practice and health care delivery. Publishing open-access articles on trending topics and collaborating internationally seem to be effective approaches for gaining more citations.

RELEVANCE TO RESEARCH

Understanding these prevalent themes has significant implications for guiding research priorities, informing clinical practice, shaping policy and improving patient outcomes. Academic journals need to encourage increasing the representation of researchers from the Global South in both journals' editorial boards and submissions to the journals.

Comparing the efficacy of Zinc Oxide versus Vaseline prophylactic dressings in preventing sacral pressure injuries in patients admitted to the intensive care unit

Preventing pressure injuries is a primary objective for care and treatment teams in intensive care units (ICUs). Therefore, the current study aimed to compare the efficacy of Zinc Oxide and Vaseline prophylactic dressings in preventing sacral pressure injuries in patients admitted to the ICU. This clinical trial was conducted in the ICU in 2023. The study population included patients at moderate to high risk for pressure injuries based on the Braden scale criteria. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to one of five groups using random allocation software: (1) the intervention group receiving Zinc Oxide as a prophylactic dressing, (2) the intervention group using Zinc Oxide as a topical application, (3) the intervention group with Vaseline as a prophylactic dressing, (4) the intervention group using Vaseline as a topical application and (5) the control group. Participants were homogenous regarding demographic information in all five groups. The frequency distribution of pressure injuries across the five groups was analysed using the Chi-square test. The results revealed no pressure injuries were observed in the Zinc Oxide and Vaseline with dressing groups. In contrast, the Zinc Oxide without dressing group had five cases, the Vaseline without dressing group had six cases and the Control group had 14 cases of pressure injuries. These differences were statistically significant (p < 0.05). The results of this study showed that Zinc Oxide and Vaseline as preventive dressings in the sacral area of patients admitted to ICUs can be considered an effective and affordable strategy for healthcare providers.

Predictive validity of a pressure injury risk assessment tool at different time-points in patients admitted to the intensive care unit

BACKGROUND

Multiple risk assessment scales are available for predicting the development of pressure injuries (PIs) in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Most PI risk assessment tools have been validated at the time of admission; however, another time point during treatment could better reflect clinical changes and therefore, the risk of PIs.

AIM

The study aimed to examine the predictive validity of PI risk assessment scale designed for ICU patients, the conscious level, mobility, haemodynamic, oxygenation and nutrition (COMHON) index, at several time points or intervals during ICU stay.

STUDY DESIGN

This was an observational prospective study undertaken over a period of 1 year (July 2021-June 2022). Patients admitted to ICU for >3 days were included. The number, location and degree of the PIs were recorded. The level of risk for developing PIs during the stay was determined by calculating the COMHON scores at admission, and 72 h, as well as the highest and mean score. Predictive validity was studied using accuracy parameters and areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). The best cutoff point was also determined and used to compare risk between categories.

RESULTS

Of the 286 patients included in the study, 160 (59%) were male. The level of severity evaluated using the APACHE II scale was 18.4 ± 5.8 points. Invasive mechanical ventilation was used in 32.1% (n = 92) of the patients and 20.6% (n = 59) received high flow oxygen therapy. The incidence of PI was 15.4% (n = 44), with sacral location in 47.7% (n = 21) and grade II in 75% (n = 33) of the patients. The AUC was 0.907 (0.872-0.942); 0.881 (0.842-0.920); 0.877 (0.835-0.920) and 0.749 (0.667-0.831) at the mean, the highest, 72 h and ICU admission scores, respectively. The best cutoff point was 13 in all patients. The risk of developing a PI was 6.4 times higher in the high-risk group (>13 points).

CONCLUSIONS

The best predictive capacity for the COMHON index risk assessment was the mean and highest scores. The predictive accuracy was higher on the third day of the patient's stay than on admission, and this was attributed to the clinical changes observed in some patients over the course of their critical illness.

RELEVANCE FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE

Patients in ICU are at high risk of developing PIs, therefore, preventive measures should be maximized. Risk assessment should be carried out sequentially owing to the changes that patients present throughout their ICU stay and preventive measures should be used according to the risk level.

Nursing interventions to prevent pressure injury among open heart surgery patients: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Nurses are vital in identifying and preventive pressure injuries (PIs) in hospitalized patients undergoing open heart surgery. Interventions to prevent PIs are crucial for every critical patient, and it's essential to recognize that preventing PIs involves a complex intervention.

AIM

To examine the nursing interventions for the prevention of PI in patients with open heart surgery.

METHOD

A systematic review study. Web of Science, Science Direct, PubMed, Scopus, MEDLINE Ultimate, CINAHL Ultimate, ULAKBIM, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar and university library databases were scanned. The initial search performed in the databases was updated on 4 February 2023, and on 7 April 2024, for potential publications included in that period. Data between February 2013 and April 2024 were scanned. The databases were searched with the keywords 'pressure injury', 'nursing interventions' and 'open heart surgery'. The systematic compilation process was carried out in accordance with the guidelines in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guide.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies were examined using nursing interventions that applied to the selected study population. Care packages included an inflatable head pad, a pressure sensor mattress cover, multi-layer silicone foam, pressure-reducing coatings, endotracheal tube (ETT) repositioning and cuff pressure regulation. Interventions to reduce PI in open heart surgery patients are applied in the preadmission, perioperative and postoperative periods.

CONCLUSION

It was concluded that care packages, inflatable head pads, pressure sensor bedspreads, multi-layered silicone foam, pressure-reducing covers, ETT repositioning and cuff pressure regulation were effective in all nursing interventions. The strength of the available evidence was rated from strong to weak.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

These findings reveal an efficient combination of multi-component nursing interventions for preventing PIs in planning patient care in the intensive care. The interventions that are used throughout the patient's entire care process are crucial for the prevention of PIs.

Prophylactic dressings to prevent sacral pressure injuries in adult patients admitted to intensive care units: A three-arm feasibility randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Pressure injuries in intensive care patients are a safety issue. Specialized foam sacral prophylactic dressings prevent pressure injuries with several products available for clinicians to choose from.

OBJECTIVES

Assess the feasibility of conducting a multisite trial to test the effectiveness of two dressings versus usual care in preventing sacral pressure injuries in intensive care patients.

METHODS

Using a three-arm pilot randomized trial design, adult intensive care unit patients at risk for pressure injuries were randomly allocated to the Mepilex® Sacrum dressing, the Allevyn™ Life Sacrum dressing or the control group. Daily pressure injury data were collected including a de-identified sacral photograph, which the blinded outcome assessor used to determine the study end point: a new sacral pressure injury. Pre-determined feasibility criteria were measured in terms of eligibility, recruitment, retention, intervention fidelity and missing data.

RESULTS

From May-September 2021, we screened 602 intensive care unit adult patients for eligibility with 93 % (n = 558) excluded. Forty-four (7 %) were eligible, and all were recruited and randomized (100 %). After receipt of the intervention two participants withdrew from the study. Our final sample of 42 participants were randomly allocated to the Mepilex® (n = 12), Allevyn™ (n = 14) or control (n = 16) group. The interventions were delivered as intended and there were 11 (6 %) cases of missing outcome data. Five participants (12 %) developed a sacral pressure injury, four of whom received a sacral dressing.

CONCLUSIONS

A larger trial is feasible with minor refinement to the length of stay eligibility criterion.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Prophylactic sacral dressings are recommended for pressure injury prevention. Determining the feasibility of a larger trial to test the effectiveness of two dressings versus usual care in preventing sacral pressure injuries in intensive care patients can provide evidence to aid clinicians, policy makers and managers make value-based care decisions.

Impact of head-of-bed elevation angle on the development of pressure ulcers and pneumonia in patients on mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Mechanical ventilation is crucial for patient management in intensive care units, but it comes with complications such as pressure ulcers and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). The impact of head-of-bed elevation angles on these complications remains a critical area for investigation.

METHODS

This systematic review and meta-analysis followed PRISMA guidelines and involved searches across PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, conducted on September 19, 2023, with no date or language restrictions. We included randomized controlled trials that compared different head-of-bed elevation angles in adult ICU patients on mechanical ventilation. Data were extracted on study characteristics, quality assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and statistical analyses performed using chi-square tests for heterogeneity and fixed or random-effects models based on heterogeneity results.

RESULTS

Six studies met inclusion criteria out of an initial 601 articles. These studies showed minimal heterogeneity (I2 = 0.0% for pressure ulcers, p = 0.930; and for VAP, p = 0.797), supporting the use of fixed-effect models. Results indicated that a higher elevation angle (45°) significantly increased the risk of pressure ulcers (OR = 1.95, 95% CI: 1.12-3.37, p < 0.05) and decreased the incidence of VAP compared to a lower angle (30°) (OR = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.31-0.84, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

While higher head-of-bed elevation can reduce the risk of VAP in mechanically ventilated patients, it may increase the risk of pressure ulcers. Clinical strategies should carefully balance these outcomes to optimize patient care in ICU settings.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO 2024 CRD42024570232.

Comparing the Waterlow and Jackson/Cubbin pressure injury risk scales in intensive care units: A multi‐centre study

To compare the predictive properties of the Jackson/Cubbin scale and Waterlow scales in intensive care unit patients. A multi‐centre study. This study was conducted between April 2021 and February 2023 in 72 intensive care units of 38 tertiary hospitals in Gansu Province, China. All adults admitted to the intensive care unit for 24 hours or more without pressure injury on admission were screened using the Waterlow scale and Jackson/Cubbin scales in intensive care. Additionally, the negative predictive value, positive predictive value, sensitivity, specificity and receiver operating characteristic curve with area under the curve of the Waterlow scale and Cubbin/Jackson scales were determined. The participant population for this study included 6203 patients. Predictive properties for the Jackson/Cubbin scales and Waterlow scales, respectively, were as follows: Cut‐off scores, 28 versus 22; AUC, 0.859 versus 0.64; sensitivity, 92.4% versus 51.9%; specificity, 67.26% versus 71.46%; positive predictive value, 35% versus 23%; negative predictive value, 99.9% versus 99.1%. Both Waterlow scales and Jackson/Cubbin scales could predict pressure injury risk for patients in the intensive care unit. However, the Jackson/Cubbin scale demonstrated superior predictive properties than the Waterlow scale.

Critical care nurses' knowledge and attitudes toward pressure injury prevention: A pre and post intervention study

OBJECTIVE

To explore nurses' knowledge and attitudes towards pressure injury prevention before and after implementing an educational intervention.

DESIGN/METHOD

A pre-and post-intervention study. Pre-intervention data collection involved administering an instrument, including demographic information, the Pressure Ulcer Knowledge Assessment Tool version 2, and the Attitudes towards Pressure Ulcer Prevention instruments. Following the analysis of pre-intervention data, an educational intervention was implemented. Post-intervention data were collected using the same instrument.

SETTING

Intensive care units at three Saudi Arabian hospitals.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Nurses' knowledge and attitudes towards pressure injury prevention.

RESULTS

The pre-intervention phase included 190 participants, and the post-intervention phase included 195 participants. Participants completed a paper-based survey at two different time points between June 2021 and March 2022. The mean pre-intervention scores for nurses' knowledge and attitudes towards pressure injury prevention were 43.22% and 74.77%, respectively. Following the educational intervention, the knowledge and attitude scores increased significantly to 51.22% and 79.02%, respectively. Higher knowledge of pressure injury prevention was positively associated with positive attitudes towards prevention practices. Age, clinical nursing experience, and experience in intensive care units were identified as factors correlated with knowledge of pressure injury prevention. A Bachelor's qualification or higher predicted better knowledge and attitudes towards pressure injury prevention.

CONCLUSIONS

Nurses' knowledge and attitudes towards pressure injury prevention greatly improved following tailored, evidence-based education. The educational intervention featured multiple on-site bedside discussions, case studies, small-group presentations, and the provision of printed resources.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE

Nurses' knowledge and attitudes towards pressure injury prevention should be examined, and education provided to ensure evidence-based prevention practices are implemented. Tailored small-group education sessions delivered conveniently could be an effective approach. Efforts should focus on attracting and retaining experienced, highly qualified nurses to ensure the adoption of evidence-based prevention practices.

Effectiveness of nonpharmacological interventions to prevent adverse events in the intensive care unit: A review of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Different types of interventions have been assessed for the prevention of adverse events. However, determining which patient-safety practice is most effective can be challenging when there is no systematised evidence synthesis. An overview following the best methodological standards can provide the best reliable integrative evidence.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to provide an overview of effectiveness nonpharmacological interventions aimed at preventing adverse events in the intensive care unit.

METHODS

A review of systematic reviews (SRs) was conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook and PRISMA recommendations. PubMed, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library were searched for SRs published until March 2022. Two reviewers independently assessed the study's quality, using AMSTAR-2, and extracted data on intervention characteristics and effect on prevention of adverse events.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven SRs were included, and 27 nonpharmacological interventions were identified to prevent 11 adverse events. Most of the reviews had critically low methodological quality. Among all the identified interventions, subglottic secretion drainage, semirecumbent position, and kinetic bed therapy were effective in preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia; the use of earplugs, early mobilisation, family participation, and music in reducing delirium; physical rehabilitation in improving muscle strength; use of respiratory support in preventing reintubation; the use of a computerised physician order entry system in reducing risk of medication errors; and the use of heated water humidifier was effective in reducing artificial airway occlusion.

CONCLUSIONS

Some nonpharmacological interventions reduced adverse events in the intensive care setting. These findings should be interpreted carefully due to the low methodological quality. SRs on preventing adverse events in the intensive care unit should adhere to quality assessment tools so that best evidence can be used in decision-making.

Strategies to preventing pressure injuries among intensive care unit patients mechanically ventilated in prone position: a systematic review and a Delphi study

Background

Although the incidence of pressure injury in the prone position is high for the mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit, evidence-based strategies are still lacking.

Propose

To conduct a systematic review of current evidence, and to propose a series of strategies to prevent pressure injuries among mechanically ventilated patients with prone position in the intensive care unit.

Methods

The study was guided by the Medical Research Council framework. After a systematic review of current evidence of original articles, guidelines, expert consensus and theories, a strategy draft was developed. Then we invited 20 experts to modify and refine these strategies through two rounds of Delphi consensus method.

Results

After two rounds of Delphi process, the importance of coefficient of variation (Cv) and Kendall's coefficient of concordance in the strategies repository were 0.067 and 0.311, respectively. And the operability of Cv and Kendall's coefficient of concordance in the strategy draft was 0.055 and 0.294, respectively. Ultimately, we established 31 strategies for including 7 themes (assess risk factors, assess skin and tissue, body position management, skin care, nutrition, preventing medical device-related pressure injuries, education and supervision). In addition, we also developed a strategy framework to clarify our strategies.

Conclusion

According to the Medical Research Council framework, we developed 7 themes and 31 strategies to prevention prone-position pressure injuries among the intensive care unit mechanically ventilated patients. This study was considered to improve the clinical management of pressure injuries among prone position patients in the intensive care unit settings.

Pressure injury prevention practice in Australian intensive care units: A national cross-sectional survey

INTRODUCTION

Pressure injury (PI) is an ongoing problem for patients in intensive care units (ICUs). The aim of this study was to explore the nature and extent of PI prevention practices in Australian adult ICUs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An Australian multicentre, cross-sectional study was conducted via telephone interview using a structured survey instrument comprising six categories: workplace demographics, patient assessment, PI prevention strategies, medical devices, skin hygiene, and other health service strategies. Publicly funded adult ICUs, accredited with the College of Intensive Care Medicine, were surveyed. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and chi-square tests for independence to explore associations according to geographical location.

RESULTS

Of the 75 eligible ICUs, 70 responded (93% response rate). PI was considered problematic in two-thirds (68%) of all ICUs. Common PI prevention strategies included risk assessment and visual skin assessment conducted within at least 6 h of admission (70% and 73%, respectively), a structured repositioning regimen (90%), use of barrier products to protect the skin (94%), sacrum or heel prophylactic multilayered silicone foam dressings (88%), regular PI chart audits (96%), and PI quality improvement projects (90%). PI prevention rounding and safety huddles were used in 37% of ICUs, and 31% undertook PI research. Although most ICUs were supported by a facility-wide skin integrity service, it was more common in metropolitan ICUs than in rural and regional ICUs (p < 0.001). Conversely, there was greater involvement of occupational therapists in PI prevention in rural or regional ICUs than in metropolitan ICUs (p = 0.026).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

This is the first study to provide a comprehensive description of PI prevention practices in Australian ICUs. Findings demonstrate that PI prevention practices, although nuanced in some areas to geographical location, are used in multiple and varied ways across ICUs.

Closure of pressure injury and mortality in internal medicine wards

PURPOSE

The prevalence of pressure injury (PI) in hospitalized patients ranges from 5 to 15%, and is significantly greater in critical care and palliative care units. Prevalence of PI is considered an indicator of health care quality and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. The study aims to determine the features of PI and its association with mortality among hospitalized patients in the inpatient service of a university hospital.

METHODS

The present study comprised 89 patients hospitalized on the internal medicine inpatient service who had PI at the time of hospitalization and or who developed PI during hospitalization. Patients were categorized based on the state of PI closure (complete/incomplete). Mortality rates for 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year were computed.

RESULTS

The median age was 74. (IQR: 62-82). Forty-eight patients were female, and 15.7% of hospitalized patients had PI. A third of patients died during their index hospitalization. Patients with completely closed PI had decreased one-month, three-month, six-month, and one-year mortality rates. Complete closure of PI influenced all four mortality rates independently of other parameters, as determined by Cox regression analysis of the factors impacting mortality.

CONCLUSION

As life expectancy rises, the frequency of PI increases, resulting in a rise in health care expenses. To reduce these expenses, prevention, early identification, and treatment of PI are essential. The primary finding of the study is that complete closure of PI in hospitalized patients reduces the risk of death.

Is caring for pressure ulcers in the intensive care unit in Spain still a challenge? A qualitative study on nurses' perceptions

BACKGROUND

The incidence of pressure ulcers is an indicator of quality in intensive care units. Due to their frequency and severity, they are identified as a problem of great importance, where the well-being of patients and relatives is compromised, also generating a high healthcare cost. Nurses are primarily responsible for the care of pressure ulcers, however, the existing literature exposes a clear lack of knowledge regarding its prevention and treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To explore the attitudes, knowledge and perceived barriers by intensive care nurses regarding pressure ulcers treatment and prevention in a critical care setting.

DESIGN

A descriptive qualitative study has been carried out through semi-structured interviews with 22 intensive care nurses from two tertiary university hospitals in Spain. The consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ) guidelines were used to reinforce the methodological approach of the study.

FINDINGS

From the collected data, 4 main themes emerged: "lack of specific knowledge about pressure ulcers in intensive care", "continuity of care: the main problem to solve", "teamwork and pressure ulcers: gasping for improvement" and "Skin care as another vital sign".

CONCLUSION

Most intensive care nurses consider that they do not have sufficient knowledge regarding pressure ulcers. The nurses' attitudes are positive, however, an ineffective transmission of information and registration regarding ulcers is perceived. Regarding the treatment of pressure ulcers, the lack of continuity of care and updated knowledge/training have been the main barriers. In terms of prevention, the most mentioned barriers have been the clinical condition of the patient and the lack of personnel, despite the level of knowledge.

Prevention of Tracheostomy-Related Pressure Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In the critical care environment, individuals who undergo tracheostomy are highly susceptible to tracheostomy-related pressure injuries.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to reduce tracheostomy-related pressure injury in the critical care setting.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies of pediatric or adult patients in intensive care units conducted to evaluate interventions to reduce tracheostomy-related pressure injury. Reviewers independently extracted data on study and patient characteristics, incidence of tracheostomy-related pressure injury, characteristics of the interventions, and outcomes. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk-of-bias criteria.

RESULTS

Ten studies (2 randomized clinical trials, 5 quasi-experimental, 3 observational) involving 2023 critically ill adult and pediatric patients met eligibility criteria. The incidence of tracheostomy-related pressure injury was 17.0% before intervention and 3.5% after intervention, a 79% decrease. Pressure injury most commonly involved skin in the peristomal area and under tracheostomy ties and flanges. Interventions to mitigate risk of tracheostomy-related pressure injury included modifications to tracheostomy flange securement with foam collars, hydrophilic dressings, and extended-length tracheostomy tubes. Interventions were often investigated as part of care bundles, and there was limited standardization of interventions between studies. Meta-analysis supported the benefit of hydrophilic dressings under tracheostomy flanges for decreasing tracheostomy-related pressure injury.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of hydrophilic dressings and foam collars decreases the incidence of tracheostomy-related pressure injury in critically ill patients. Evidence regarding individual interventions is limited by lack of sensitive measurement tools and by use of bundled interventions. Further research is necessary to delineate optimal interventions for preventing tracheostomy-related pressure injury.

Prophylactic sacral protective dressings' effect on preventing pressure injury: A meta-analysis

We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of prophylactic sacral protective dressings on preventing pressure injury. A systematic literature search up to July 2021 was performed, and 11 studies included 5150 community or hospital-based adult subjects requiring care at the start of the study; 2832 of them were using sacral protective dressings and 2318 were given standard care with no sacral protective dressings. They were reporting relationships between the effects of prophylactic sacral protective dressings on preventing pressure injury. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to assess the effects of prophylactic sacral protective dressings on preventing pressure injury using the dichotomous method with a random or fixed-effect model. Sacral protective dressings had a significantly lower incidence of pressure injuries (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.28-0.53, P < .001) compared with standard care with no sacral protective dressings in community- or hospital-based adult subjects requiring care. Sacral protective dressings had a significantly lower incidence of pressure injuries compared with standard care with no sacral protective dressings in community- or hospital-based adult subjects requiring care. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.