Value of pressure injury assessment scales for patients in the intensive care unit: Systematic review and diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis

The relationship between admission Braden score and poor prognosis in Sepsis patients: evidence from the MIMIC-III database

BACKGROUND

The measurement of Braden score can be used as a useful tool for clinical care. However, the relationship between the Braden score and clinical outcomes in sepsis patients remains unclear. This study aims to investigate the association between the Braden score and clinical outcomes in sepsis patients.

METHODS

The Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care III (MIMIC-III) database was searched to identify patients with sepsis who had their Braden score measured. The primary outcomes were 28-day, 60-day, and 90-day mortality. Multivariate Cox regression analysis was used to clarify the relationship between Braden score and primary outcomes, and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and stratified analysis were used to verify our findings.

RESULTS

A total of 8,290 patients were included in our study, during the 28-day, 60-day, and 90-day follow-up periods, mortality was recorded in 1,554, 1,938, and 2,173 patients, those with lower Braden score had a 58% increased risk of 28-day mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 1.58; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.38, 1.81), a 50% increased risk of 60-day mortality(HR 1.50; 95% CI 1.33,1.70), and a 52% increased risk of 90-day mortality(HR 1.52; 95% CI 1.35,1.70). Patients with lower Braden score received more mechanical ventilation and vasopressors, and presented with elevated WBC counts and lactate levels. In addition, lower Braden scores were also linked to increased adjusted ICU mortality and a higher incidence of AKI within the first seven days following ICU admission.

CONCLUSION

Lower Braden score is an independent risk factor for mortality in critically ill patients with sepsis. Braden score can be used as a potential indicator for assessing outcomes in such patients.

Reducing Hospital-Acquired Pressure Injuries in a Cardiothoracic Intensive Care Unit

BACKGROUND

Hospital-acquired pressure injuries are a significant patient safety concern. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services tracks hospital-acquired pressure injuries as a patient safety indicator. Health care organizations with higher-than-expected rates may incur penalties.

LOCAL PROBLEM

The pressure injury prevalence rate in a cardiothoracic intensive care unit was above the National Database of Nursing Quality Indicators benchmark. The current standard of care-use of the Braden scale for pressure injury risk assessment and the SKIN (surface, keep turning, incontinence care, and nutrition) care bundle-may not adequately address the needs of the intensive care unit population. In addition, cardiac patients present a special challenge because of their disease process and the mechanical support devices used to treat patients in cardiogenic shock, which place them at risk for the development of hospital-acquired pressure injuries.

METHODS

A performance improvement project was carried out in the cardiothoracic intensive care unit to reduce the prevalence and incidence of hospital-acquired pressure injuries. A preintervention convenience cohort was compared with a postintervention cohort. The intervention consisted of use of the Cubbin-Jackson scale, an intensive care unit-specific risk-assessment tool, with linked interventions to prevent pressure injuries.

RESULTS

The preintervention and postintervention cohorts consisted of 102 patients each. The pressure injury prevalence and incidence rates decreased by 67.84% and 36.43%, respectively, from before to after the intervention.

CONCLUSION

The use of an intensive care unit-specific risk-assessment tool with linked interventions to prevent pressure injury can help reduce hospital-acquired pressure injuries in an intensive care unit.

Association of norepinephrine with pressure ulcer development in critically ill patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome: A dose-response analysis

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the correlation between varying doses of norepinephrine (NE) and the incidence of pressure injuries (PIs) in COVID-19 patients in intensive care units (ICUs).

DESIGN

A retrospective multicenter study was conducted on 1,078 COVID-19 patients admitted to ICUs with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) requiring mechanical ventilation. The research spanned from March 2020 to April 2021 across five university-affiliated hospitals in Iran. Univariate and multivariate binary logistic regression analyses, along with linear and non-linear dose-response assessments, were utilized to evaluate the relationship between NE dosages and the probability of PI development.

FINDINGS

The multivariate analysis revealed a significant association between higher doses of NE administered over 24 h (OR: 1.832, 95 % CI: 1.218-2.754, P=0.004) and cumulative doses (OR: 1.408, 95 % CI: 1.204-1.975, P=0.048) with the occurrence of PIs. Moreover, patients receiving high NE doses had a nearly fourfold increased risk of developing PIs, regardless of PIs stage, compared to those on low or moderate doses (>15 µg/min vs. ≤ 15 µg/min; OR: 4.401, 95 % CI: 3.339-5.801, P=0.001). Although the linear dose-response analysis did not show a significant correlation between NE doses and PI development (P>0.05), the non-linear analysis indicated that NE doses ≤ 9 µg/min were associated with a reduced risk of PI development.

CONCLUSION

Maintaining NE infusion within the range of 1-9 µg/min appears to be most effective in reducing the likelihood of PIs in ICU patients with COVID-19. Lower NE doses (≤9 µg/min) were associated with a lower risk of PI development, suggesting that factors beyond NE dosage or the use of other vasopressors may play a crucial role in PI formation in this patient cohort.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE

Rather than suggesting a specific threshold, clinicians should consider further studies to determine the optimal dose that balances microvascular perfusion and patient outcomes. It is crucial to comprehensively evaluate additional factors and selectively use vasopressors. Individualized care, including regular monitoring and personalized treatment plans, is essential for achieving the best outcomes in this patient population.

Accuracy and clinical effectiveness of risk prediction tools for pressure injury occurrence: An umbrella review

BACKGROUND

Pressure injuries (PIs) pose a substantial healthcare burden and incur significant costs worldwide. Several risk prediction tools to allow timely implementation of preventive measures and a subsequent reduction in healthcare system burden are available and in use. The ability of risk prediction tools to correctly identify those at high risk of PI (prognostic accuracy) and to have a clinically significant impact on patient management and outcomes (effectiveness) is not clear. We aimed to evaluate the prognostic accuracy and clinical effectiveness of risk prediction tools for PI and to identify gaps in the literature.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

The umbrella review was conducted according to Cochrane guidance. Systematic reviews (SRs) evaluating the accuracy or clinical effectiveness of adult PI risk prediction tools in any clinical settings were eligible. Studies on paediatric tools, sensor-only tools, or staging/diagnosis of existing PIs were excluded. MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and EPISTEMONIKOS were searched (inception to June 2024) to identify relevant SRs, as well as Google Scholar (2013 to 2024) and reference lists. Methodological quality was assessed using adapted AMSTAR-2 criteria. Results were described narratively. We identified 26 SRs meeting all eligibility criteria with 19 SRs assessing prognostic accuracy and 11 assessing clinical effectiveness of risk prediction tools for PI (4 SRs assessed both aspects). The 19 SRs of prognostic accuracy evaluated 70 tools (39 scales and 31 machine learning (ML) models), with the Braden, Norton, Waterlow, Cubbin-Jackson scales (and modifications thereof) the most evaluated tools. Meta-analyses from a focused set of included SRs showed that the scales had sensitivities and specificities ranging from 53% to 97% and 46% to 84%, respectively. Only 2/19 (11%) SRs performed appropriate statistical synthesis and quality assessment. Two SRs assessing machine learning-based algorithms reported high prognostic accuracy estimates, but some of which were sourced from the same data within which the models were developed, leading to potentially overoptimistic results. Two randomised trials assessing the effect of PI risk assessment tools (within the full test-intervention-outcome pathway) on the incidence of PIs were identified from the 11 SRs of clinical effectiveness; both were included in a Cochrane SR and assessed as high risk of bias. Both trials found no evidence of an effect on PI incidence. Limitations included the use of the AMSTAR-2 criteria, which may have overly focused on reporting quality rather than methodological quality, compounded by the poor reporting quality of included SRs and that SRs were not excluded based on low AMSTAR-2 ratings (in order to provide a comprehensive overview). Additionally, diagnostic test accuracy principles, rather than prognostic modelling approaches were heavily relied upon, which do not account for the temporal nature of prediction.

CONCLUSIONS

Available systematic reviews suggest a lack of high-quality evidence for the accuracy of risk prediction tools for PI and limited reliable evidence for their use leading to a reduction in incidence of PI. Further research is needed to establish the clinical effectiveness of appropriately developed and validated risk prediction tools for PI.

Risk prediction tools for pressure injury occurrence: an umbrella review of systematic reviews reporting model development and validation methods

BACKGROUND

Pressure injuries (PIs) place a substantial burden on healthcare systems worldwide. Risk stratification of those who are at risk of developing PIs allows preventive interventions to be focused on patients who are at the highest risk. The considerable number of risk assessment scales and prediction models available underscores the need for a thorough evaluation of their development, validation, and clinical utility. Our objectives were to identify and describe available risk prediction tools for PI occurrence, their content and the development and validation methods used.

METHODS

The umbrella review was conducted according to Cochrane guidance. MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, EPISTEMONIKOS, Google Scholar, and reference lists were searched to identify relevant systematic reviews. The risk of bias was assessed using adapted AMSTAR-2 criteria. Results were described narratively. All included reviews contributed to building a comprehensive list of risk prediction tools.

RESULTS

We identified 32 eligible systematic reviews only seven of which described the development and validation of risk prediction tools for PI. Nineteen reviews assessed the prognostic accuracy of the tools and 11 assessed clinical effectiveness. Of the seven reviews reporting model development and validation, six included only machine learning models. Two reviews included external validations of models, although only one review reported any details on external validation methods or results. This was also the only review to report measures of both discrimination and calibration. Five reviews presented measures of discrimination, such as the area under the curve (AUC), sensitivities, specificities, F1 scores, and G-means. For the four reviews that assessed the risk of bias assessment using the PROBAST tool, all models but one were found to be at high or unclear risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Available tools do not meet current standards for the development or reporting of risk prediction models. The majority of tools have not been externally validated. Standardised and rigorous approaches to risk prediction model development and validation are needed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/tepyk ).

Association Between Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index and Critically Ill Patients With Pressure Injury: Analysis of the MIMIC-IV Database

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To explore the relationship between the Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (GNRI) and the occurrence of Pressure injury (PI) in elderly Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients.

BACKGROUND

PI represent a significant health concern within ICU, where the occurrence of such injuries is notably high among critically ill patients. However, few studies have explored the relationship between GNRI and PI.

DESIGN

A longitudinal, single-centre, retrospective study.

METHODS

The study utilised GNRI calculation to identify PI occurrences. A comprehensive set of covariates was analysed, including demographic information, severity of illness scores, comorbidities, therapeutic interventions, vital signs and laboratory values. Statistical analysis involved descriptive statistics, logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic curves, supplemented by a doubly robust estimation method and propensity score modelling. This study follows the STROBE-nut checklist.

RESULTS

Among 5327 critically ill patients enrolled in the study, with a median age of 76 years, of which 2339 were females, representing 43.91% of the total study population. Binary logistic regression analysis revealed that with each unit increase in the GNRI, the likelihood of PI occurrence decreased by 3.7% in the fully adjusted model. Furthermore, there was a significant decrease in PI occurrence among patients deemed to have no risk compared to those identified as at-risk.

CONCLUSIONS

GNRI emerges as a significant, independent predictor of PI risk in elderly ICU patients, underscoring the importance of nutritional assessment and management in this population.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

This study highlights the critical importance of nutritional assessment, specifically through GNRI, in early identification and prevention of pressure injuries among elderly ICU patients, underscoring the need for integrated nutritional strategies in clinical settings.

NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This is a retrospective cohort study, and no patients or the public were involved in the design and conduct of the study.

A machine learning algorithm-based predictive model for pressure injury risk in emergency patients: A prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To construct pressure injury risk prediction models for emergency patients based on different machine learning algorithms, to optimize the best model, and to provide a suitable assessment tool for preventing the occurrence of pressure injuries in emergency patients.

METHODS

A convenience sampling was used to select 312 patients admitted to the emergency department of a tertiary care hospital in Tianjin, China, from May 2022 to March 2023, and the patients were divided into a modeling group (n = 218) and a validation group (n = 94) in a 7:3 ratio. Based on the results of one-factor logistic regression analysis in the modeling group, three machine learning models, namely, logistic regression, decision tree, and neural network, were used to establish a prediction model for pressure injury in emergency patients and compare their prediction effects. The optimal model was selected for external validation of the model.

RESULTS

The incidence of pressure injuries in emergency patients was 8.97 %, 64.52 % of pressure injuries occurred in the sacrococcygeal region, and 64.52 % were staged as stage 1. Serum albumin level, incontinence, perception, and mobility were independent risk factors for pressure injuries in emergency patients (P < 0.05), and the area under the ROC curve of the three models was 0.944-0.959, sensitivity was 91.8-95.5 %, specificity was 72.2-90.9 %, and the Yoden index was 0.677-0.802; the decision tree was the best model that The area under the ROC curve for the validation group was 0.866 (95 % CI: 0.688-1.000), with a sensitivity of 89.8 %, a specificity of 83.3 %, and a Yoden index of 0.731.

CONCLUSIONS

The decision tree model has the best predictive efficacy and is suitable for individualized risk prediction of pressure injuries in emergency medicine specialties, which provides a reference for the prevention and early intervention of pressure injuries in emergency patients.

Validity and reliability of the Waterlow scale for assessing pressure injury risk in critical adult patients: A multi-centre cohort study

AIM

To evaluate the predictive validity and reliability of the Waterlow scale in critically adult hospitalised patients.

DESIGN

A multi-centre cohort study.

METHODS

This study was conducted in 72 intensive care units (ICUs) in 38 tertiary hospitals in Gansu Province, China. All adults admitted to the ICU for greater than or equal to 24 h without pressure injury (PI) on admission were screened by the Waterlow scale on admission, during ICU stay and ICU discharge from April 2021 to February 2023. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to determine a potential cut-off value for critical adult hospitalised patients. Cut-off values were then determined using Youden's index, and sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy were calculated based on these cut-off values. Test-retest reliability was used to evaluate inter-rater reliability.

RESULTS

A total of 5874 critical patients on admission were included, and 5125 of them were assessed regularly. The area under curve (AUC) was 0.623 (95% CI, 0.574-0.690), with a cut-off score of 19 showing the best balance among sensitivity of 62.7%, specificity of 57.4%, positive predictive value of 2.07% and negative predictive value of 99.08%. The test-retest reliability between the first assessment and the regular assessment was 0.447.

CONCLUSIONS

The Waterlow scale shows insufficient predictive validity and reliability in discriminating critical adults at risk of PI development. To further modify the items of the Waterlow scale, exploring specific risk factors for PI in the ICU and clarifying their impact degree was necessary. Risk predictive models or better tools are inevitable in the future.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patients or family members supported nurses with PI risk assessment, skin examination and other activities during the inquiry.

Comparison of the predictive validity of the Braden and Waterlow scales in intensive care unit patients: A multicentre study

BACKGROUND

The first step in preventing pressure injuries (PIs), which represent a significant burden on intensive care unit (ICU) patients and the health care system, is to assess the risk for developing PIs. A valid risk assessment scale is essential to evaluate the risk and avoid PIs.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the predictive validity of the Braden scale and Waterlow scale in ICUs.

DESIGN

A multicentre, prospective and cross-sectional study.

METHODS

We conducted this study among 6416 patients admitted to ICUs in Gansu province of China from April 2021 to October 2022. The incidence and characteristics of PIs were collected. The risk assessment of PIs was determined using the Braden and Waterlow scale. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the two scales were compared.

RESULTS

Out of 5903 patients, 72 (1.2%) developed PIs. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive, and the area under the curve of the Braden scale were 77.8%, 50.9%, 0.014 and 0.996, and 0.689, respectively. These values for the Waterlow scale were 54.2%, 71.1%, 0.017, 0.994 and 0.651.

CONCLUSIONS

Both scales could be used for risk assessment of PIs in ICU patients. However, the accuracy of visual inspection for assessment of skin colour, nursing preventive measures for patients and scales inter-rater inconsistency may limited the predictive validity statistics.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Both scales could be used for PIs risk assessment. The low specificity of the Braden scale and low sensitivity of the Waterlow scale remind medical staff to use them in combination with clinical judgement and other objective indicators.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This study was designed to enhance the management of PIs. Patients and the general public were not involved in the study design, analysis, and interpretation of the data or manuscript preparation.

Incidence, characteristics, and associated factors of pressure injuries acquired in intensive care units over a 12-month period: A secondary analysis of a quality improvement project

OBJECTIVES

To determine the 12-month cumulative incidence, characteristics, and associated factors of pressure injuries acquired in Intensive Care Units.

SETTING

Four intensive care units in a Norwegian University Hospital.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

A prospective observational cohort study using data from daily skin inspections during a quality improvement project. We used descriptive statistics and logistic regression. Variables associated with the development of intensive care unit-acquired pressure injuries are presented with odds ratios (OR), and 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

The 12-month cumulative incidence of patients (N = 594) developing intensive care unit-acquired pressure injuries was 29 % (172/594) for all categories and 16 % (95/594) when excluding category I pressure injuries (no skin loss). Cumulative incidence for patients acquiring medical device-related pressure injuries was 15 % (91/594) and 11 % (64/594) for category II or worse. Compression stockings (n = 51) and nasogastric tubes (n = 22) were the most frequent documented medical devices related to pressure injuries. Development of pressure injuries category II or worse was significantly associated with vasoactive drug infusions (OR 11.84, 95 % CI [1.59; 88.13]) and longer intensive care unit length of stay (OR 1.06, 95 % CI [1.04; 1.08]).

CONCLUSION

The 12-month cumulative incidence of intensive care unit-acquired pressure injuries was relatively high when category I pressure injuries were included, but comparable to other studies when category I was excluded. Some medical device-related pressure injuries were surprisingly frequent, and these may be prevented. However, associated factors of developing pressure injuries were present and deemed non-modifiable.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE

Awareness about pressure injury prevention is needed in the intensive care unit considering high incidences. Nurses can detect category I pressure injuries early, which may be reversed. Our findings show several factors that clinicians can control to reduce the risk of pressure injuries in the intensive care unit.

Risk factors predicting hospital-acquired pressure injury in adult patients: An overview of reviews

BACKGROUND

Hospital-acquired pressure injuries remain a significant patient safety threat. Current well-known pressure injury risk assessment tools have many limitations and therefore do not accurately predict the risk of pressure injury development over diverse populations. A contemporary understanding of the risk factors predicting pressure injury in adult hospitalised patients will inform pressure injury prevention and future researchers considering risk assessment tool development may benefit from our summary and synthesis of risk factors.

OBJECTIVE

To summarise and synthesise systematic reviews that identify risk factors for hospital-acquired pressure injury development in adult patients.

DESIGN

An overview of systematic reviews.

METHODS

Cochrane and the Joanna Briggs Institute methodologies guided this overview. The Cochrane library, CINAHL, MEDLINE, and Embase databases were searched for relevant articles published in English from January 2008 to September 2022. Two researchers independently screened articles against the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data and assessed the quality of the included reviews using "a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews" (AMSTAR version 2). Data were categorised using an inductive approach and synthesised according to the recent pressure injury conceptual frameworks.

RESULTS

From 11 eligible reviews, 37 risk factors were categorised inductively into 14 groups of risk factors. From these, six groups were classified into two domains: four to mechanical boundary conditions and two to susceptibility and tolerance of the individual. The remaining eight groups were evident across both domains. Four main risk factors, including diabetes, length of surgery or intensive care unit stay, vasopressor use, and low haemoglobin level were synthesised. The overall quality of the included reviews was low in five studies (45 %) and critically low in six studies (55 %).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings highlighted the limitations in the methodological quality of the included reviews that may have influenced our results regarding risk factors. Current risk assessment tools and conceptual frameworks do not fully explain the complex and changing interactions amongst risk factors. This may warrant the need for more high-quality research, such as cohort studies, focussing on predicting hospital-acquired pressure injury in adult patients, to reconsider these risk factors we synthesised.

REGISTRATION

This overview was registered with the PROSPERO (CRD42022362218) on 27 September 2022.

Exploration of pressure injury risk in adult inpatients: An integrated Braden scale and rough set approach

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to develop an interpretive model with decision rules to assess the risk level of pressure injuries in adult inpatients and identify the critical risk factors associated with these injuries.

METHODS

The rough set approach was used to identify the critical risk factors associated with pressure injuries and demonstrate their behavioral patterns. The study focused on adult inpatients aged 18 or above who remained in bed for at least 24 hours after admission. The data was extracted from a nursing electronic medical record system of a hospital in Zhejiang Province, China, from 27 October 2019 to 1 November 2020.

RESULTS

The critical risk factors associated with pressure injuries in adult inpatients were identified as "Sensory perception," "Nutrition," and "Friction and shear." A prediction model with 89 decision rules was established and demonstrated reliable predictive capabilities. Nursing staff should focus more on high-risk and severe-risk rules (Rules 11 to 18) to reduce the likelihood of potential high-risk pressure injuries.

CONCLUSIONS

The prediction model established by the rough set approach can be used to identify the critical risk factors of pressure injuries and has good explanatory ability, which can complement and improve the predictive accuracy of the Braden Scale. The decision-making rules can help nurses improve work efficiency.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE

Explanatory analysis can explain most inpatients' potential risk patterns and corresponding critical risk factors. Data-driven research models and results can help nurses understand patients' potential risks better. Additionally, these insights can be valuable in nursing education, aiding new nurses in comprehending and addressing the potential risks patients face.

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.

Risk assessment instruments for pressure ulcer in adults in critical situation: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

to map the instruments for risk assessment of pressure ulcers in adults in critical situation in intensive care units; identify performance indicators of the instrument, and the appreciation of users regarding the instruments' use/limitations.

METHOD

a scoping review. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews in the writing of the study. We carried out the searches in the EBSCOhost search tool for 8 databases, resulting in 1846 studies, of which 22 studies compose the sample.

RESULTS

we identified two big instrument groups: generalist [Braden, Braden (ALB), Emina, Norton-MI, RAPS, and Waterlow]; and specific (CALCULATE, Cubbin & Jackson, EVARUCI, RAPS-ICU, Song & Choi, Suriaidi and Sanada, and COMHON index). Regarding the predictive value, EVARUCI and CALCULATE presented better results for performance indicators. Concerning appreciation/limitations indicated by users, we highlight the CALCULATE scale, followed by EVARUCI and RAPS-ICU, although they still need future adjustments.

CONCLUSION

the mapping of the literature showed that the evidence is sufficient to indicate one or more instruments for the risk assessment of pressure ulcers for adults in critical situation in intensive care units. (1) The risk assessment instrument must be applied to the patient's specificities. (2) The instruments are divided into two groups: generalist and specific. (3) The EVARUCI and CALCULATE instruments presented better results. (4) The EVARACI presented better results in terms of performance indicators. (5) The CALCULATE highlights itself for being recent scale, appropriate, simple, and easy to use.

Inter-rater reliability of descriptors for the classification of mucosal pressure injury: A prospective cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Mucosal pressure injuries (PIs) are usually caused by pressure from essential medical devices. There is no universally accepted criterion for assessment, monitoring, or reporting mucosal PI. Reliable descriptors are vital to benchmark the frequency and severity of this hospital-acquired complication.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to determine whether modified Reaper Oral Mucosa Pressure Injury Scale (ROMPIS) descriptors improved the reliability of mucosal PI assessment. Secondary aims were to explore nurses' knowledge of and attitudes toward mucosal PI.

METHODS

A prospective cross-sectional survey was distributed to nurses from two tertiary affiliated intensive care units via REDCap® to capture demographic data, knowledge, attitudes, and inter-rater reliability (IRR) measures. Nurses were randomised at a 1:1 ratio to original or modified ROMPIS descriptors and classified 12 images of mucosal PI. IRR was assessed using percentage agreement, Fleiss' kappa, and intraclass correlation coefficients.

RESULTS

The survey response rate was 20.9% (n = 98/468), with 73.5% (n = 72/98) completing IRR measures. Agreement was higher with modified (75%) than original ROMPIS descriptors (69.4%). IRR was fair for the original (κ = 0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.28, 0.33], z 26.5, p < 0.001) and modified ROMPIS (κ = 0.29, 95% CI [0.26, 0.31], z 25.0, p < 0.001). Intraclass correlation coefficient findings indicated ratings were inconsistent for the original (0.33, 95% CI [0.18, 0.59], F 18.8 (11 df), p < 0.001) and modified ROMPIS (0.31, 95% CI [0.17, 0.57], F 17.6 (11 df), p < 0.001). PI-specific education and risk factor recognition were common.

CONCLUSION

Modified descriptors had marginally better agreement. Participants understand management and prevention but need to strengthen their perceived capacity for mucosal PI risk assessment. This work provides a foundation for future benchmarking and a platform from which further research to refine and test descriptors specific to mucosal PI can be generated.

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.

Prevalence of skin pressure injury in critical care patients in the UK: results of a single-day point prevalence evaluation in adult critically ill patients

OBJECTIVES

Hospital-acquired pressure injuries (PIs) are a source of morbidity and mortality, and many are potentially preventable.

DESIGN

This study prospectively evaluated the prevalence and the associated factors of PIs in adult critical care patients admitted to intensive care units (ICU) in the UK.

SETTING

This service evaluation was part of a larger, international, single-day point prevalence study of PIs in adult ICU patients. Training was provided to healthcare givers using an electronic platform to ensure standardised recognition and staging of PIs across all sites.

PARTICIPANTS

The characteristics of the ICUs were recorded before the survey; deidentified patient data were collected using a case report form and uploaded onto a secure online platform.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Factors associated with ICU-acquired PIs in the UK were analysed descriptively and using mixed multiple logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Data from 1312 adult patients admitted to 94 UK ICUs were collected. The proportion of individuals with at least one PI was 16% (211 out of 1312 patients), of whom 8.8% (n=115/1312) acquired one or more PIs in the ICU and 7.3% (n=96/1312) prior to ICU admission. The total number of PIs was 311, of which 148 (47.6%) were acquired in the ICU. The location of majority of these PIs was the sacral area, followed by the heels. Braden score and prior length of ICU stay were associated with PI development.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence and the stage of severity of PIs were generally low in adult critically ill patients admitted to participating UK ICUs during the study period. However, PIs are a problem in an important minority of patients. Lower Braden score and longer length of ICU stay were associated with the development of injuries; most ICUs assess risk using tools which do not account for this.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03270345.

Neuromuscular blocking agents and opioids are major risk factors for developing pressure injuries in patients in the intensive care unit

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) are at high risk for developing pressure injuries, which can cause severe complications and even increase the mortality risk. Therefore, prevention of pressure injuries is most important. In this study, we investigated the risk factors of pressure injury development in patients admitted to the ICU.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed patients ages &gt; 18 years admitted to the medical ICU in a tertiary hospital between January and December 2019. We collected patient baseline characteristics, medications received, mechanical ventilation or hemodialysis use, laboratory findings, and date of pressure injury onset and characteristics.

RESULTS

We analyzed 666 patients who did not have pressure injuries at ICU admission. Pressure injuries developed in 102 patients (15%). The risk of pressure injury development increased as the administration days for neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs; odds ratio [OR], 1.138; p = 0.019) and opioids (OR, 1.084; p = 0.028) increased, and if the patient had problem with friction and shear (OR, 2.203; p = 0.011).

CONCLUSION

The prolonged use of NMBAs and opioids can increase the risk of pressure injury development. Because these medications are associated with immobilization, using both should be minimized and patient early mobilization should be promoted. Among the Braden subscales, "friction and shear" was associated with the development of pressure injuries in ICU patients.

Pressure injury prevalence in Australian intensive care units: A secondary analysis

BACKGROUND

Pressure injuries (PIs) are an enduring problem for patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) because of their vulnerability and numerous risk factors.

METHOD

This study reports Australian data as a subset of data from an international 1-day point prevalence study of ICU-acquired PI in adult patients. Patients aged 18 years or older and admitted to the ICU on the study day were included. The outcome measure was the identification of a PI by direct visual skin assessment on the study day. Data collected included demographic data and clinical risk factors, PI location and stage, and PI prevention strategies used. Descriptive statistics were used to describe PI characteristics, and odds ratios (ORs) were used to identify factors associated with the development of a PI.

RESULTS

Data were collected from 288 patients from 16 Australian ICUs. ICU-acquired PI prevalence was 9.7%, with 40 PIs identified on 28 patients. Most PIs were of stage 1 and stage 2 (26/40, 65.0%). Half of the ICU-acquired PIs were found on the head and face. The odds of developing an ICU-acquired PI increased significantly with renal replacement therapy (OR: 4.25, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.49-12.11), impaired mobility (OR: 3.13, 95% CI: 1.08-9.12), fastest respiratory rate (OR: 1.05 [per breath per minute], 95% CI: 1.00-1.10), longer stay in the ICU (OR: 1.04 [per day], 95% CI: 1.01-1.06), and mechanical ventilation on admission (OR: 0.36, CI: 0.14-0.91).

CONCLUSION

This study found that Australian ICU-acquired PI prevalence was 9.7% and these PIs were associated with many risk factors. Targeted PI prevention strategies should be incorporated into routine prevention approaches to reduce the burden of PIs in the Australian adult ICU patient population.

Epidemiology and outcome of pressure injuries in critically ill patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A propensity score adjusted analysis

BACKGROUND

Pressure injuries are a frequent complication in intensive care unit (ICU) patients, especially in those with comorbid conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Yet no epidemiological data on pressure injuries in critically ill COPD patients are available.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the prevalence of ICU-acquired pressure injuries in critically ill COPD patients and to investigate associations between COPD status, presence of ICU-acquired pressure injury, and mortality.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

This is a secondary analysis of prospectively collected data from DecubICUs, a multinational one-day point-prevalence study of pressure injuries in adult ICU patients. We generated a propensity score summarizing risk for COPD and ICU-acquired pressure injury. The propensity score was used as matching criterion (1:1-ratio) to assess the proportion of ICU-acquired pressure injury attributable to COPD. The propensity score was then used in regression modeling assessing the association of COPD with risk of ICU-acquired pressure injury, and examining variables associated with mortality (Cox proportional-hazard regression).

RESULTS

Of the 13,254 patients recruited to DecubICUs, 1663 (12.5%) had documented COPD. ICU-acquired pressure injury prevalence was higher in COPD patients: 22.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 20.2 to 24.2) vs. 15.3% (95% CI 14.7 to 16.0). COPD was independently associated with developing ICU-acquired pressure injury (odds ratio 1.40, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.61); the proportion attributable to COPD was 6.4% (95% CI 5.2 to 7.6). Compared with non-COPD patients without pressure injury, mortality was no different among patients without COPD but with pressure injury (hazard ratio [HR] 1.07, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.17) or COPD patients without pressure injury (HR 1.13, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.27). Mortality was higher among COPD patients with pressure injury (HR 1.35, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.58).

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Critically ill COPD patients have a statistically significant higher risk of pressure injury. Moreover, those that develop pressure injury are at higher risk of mortality. As such, pressure injury may serve as a surrogate for poor prognostic status to help clinicians identify patients at high risk of death. Also, delivery of interventions to prevent pressure injury are paramount in critically ill COPD patients. Further studies should determine if early intervention in critically ill COPD patients can modify development of pressure injury and improve prognosis.

Intensive Care Pressure Injuries: A Cohort Study Using the CALCULATE and Braden Scales

OBJECTIVE

Identify both the risk of developing pressure injuries (PIs) by applying the CALCULATE (CriticAL Care pressure ULcer Assessment Tool made Easy) and Braden Scales and the incidence of PIs in adult patients in intensive care.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study was conducted from March 2016 to February 2017 in an adult ICU. The Braden and CALCULATE scales were applied every 48 hours until medical discharge, death, or PI development.

RESULTS

The sample included 100 patients. The investigators obtained 818 evaluations (409 Braden and 409 CALCULATE) with an average of 4.1 observations per patient. According to the CALCULATE scale, 49 participants (49%) were classified as very high risk, compared with 40 participants (40%; P = .204) according to the Braden Scale. Thirty-five patients developed 37 PIs, with a total incidence of 35%. The mean age of patients who developed PIs was 60.3 (SD, 13.7) years, and they averaged 9.2 (SD, 6.8) days of hospitalization, with diagnoses related to cardiorespiratory and neurologic diseases and associated comorbidities of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and smoking. The most affected site was the sacral region; 64.9% of the injuries were classified as stage 1.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients in intensive care were high risk according to both PI scales, and many developed PIs. It is evident that even when preventive measures are used, they are insufficient without the implementation of preventive protocols.

Heterogeneity hampers the identification of general pressure injury risk factors in intensive care populations: A predictive modelling analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine risk factors for pressure injury in distinct intensive care subpopulations according to admission type (Medical; Surgical elective; Surgery emergency; Trauma/Burns).

METHODOLOGY/DESIGN

Predictive modelling using generalised linear mixed models with backward elimination on prospectively gathered data of 13 044 adult intensive care patients.

SETTINGS

1110 intensive care units, 89 countries worldwide.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Pressure injury risk factors.

RESULTS

A generalised linear mixed model including admission type outperformed a model without admission type (p = 0.004). Admission type Trauma/Burns was not withheld in the model and excluded from further analyses. For the other three admission types (Medical, Surgical elective, and Surgical emergency), backward elimination resulted in distinct prediction models with 23, 17, and 16 predictors, respectively, and five common predictors only. The Area Under the Receiver Operating Curve was 0.79 for Medical admissions; and 0.88 for both the Surgical elective and Surgical emergency models.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk factors for pressure injury differ according to whether intensive care patients have been admitted for medical reasons, or elective or emergency surgery. Prediction models for pressure injury should target distinct subpopulations with differing pressure injury risk profiles. Type of intensive care admission is a simple and easily retrievable parameter to distinguish between such subgroups.

Exploring medical device-related pressure injuries in a single intensive care setting: A longitudinal point prevalence study

OBJECTIVES

To report longitudinal prevalence rates of device-related pressure injuries in critically ill adult patients in the intensive care unit and to explore the patient characteristics associated with the development of device related pressure injuries.

RESEARCH DESIGN

A prospective observational design where observations of patients' skin integrity were conducted on one day each week for 52 weeks.

SETTING

The study was conducted in the 36-bed ICU of a major metropolitan tertiary referral hospital in Queensland, Australia. The sample included all patients aged 18 years or older admitted to the intensive care unit before midnight on the day preceding the observation, with a medical device in situ.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was device related pressure injuries identified at the weekly observations and defined as a pressure injury found on the skin or mucous membrane with a history of medical device in use at the location of the injury. Patient demographic and clinical characteristics were recorded.

RESULTS

Over the study period, 11.3% (71/631) of patients developed at least one hospital-acquired DRPI. The most common devices associated with injury were nasogastric/nasojejunal tubes (41%) and endotracheal tubes (27%). Significant predictors of device related pressure injuries were the total number of devices (OR 1.230, 95% CI 1.09-1.38, p < 0.001), the length of time in the ICU (OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.02-1.09, p = 0.003), male sex, (OR 2.099, 95% CI 1.18-3.7, p = 0.012), and increased severity of illness score on admission (OR 1.044, 95% CI 1.01-1.09, p = 0.013).

CONCLUSION

Device related pressure injuries are an all-too-common iatrogenic problem for this vulnerable patient cohort.

Pressure injury prevalence and risk factors in Chinese adult intensive care units: A multi-centre prospective point prevalence study

Despite increasing preventive efforts, pressure injury still occurs in intensive care patients. This study was aimed to describe pressure injury prevalence, risk factors, and prevention practices in adult intensive care patients. This was a multi-centre, one-day, prospective point prevalence study in which a total of 198 intensive care units from 21 provinces in China participated. Overall and ICU-acquired prevalence in intensive care patients were 12.26% and 4.31%, respectively. Consistent with earlier reports, almost half of the ICU-acquired pressure injuries were at stage I, one-fourth were at stage 2, and the most common body sites for pressure injuries were sacral and heel region. Risk factors identified were consistent with prior studies. Repositioning was the most commonly used pressure injury prevention strategy, followed by alternating pressure mattresses/overlays, floating heels, and air-filled mattresses/overlays. These reflect a good level of adherence to recommended international pressure injury prevention clinical practice guidelines. The results provide a baseline reference for overall and ICU-acquired prevalence among adult intensive care patients in China. Future research on what contributed to the lower pressure injury incidence in China needs to be conducted to inform healthcare organisations on their future preventive strategies for pressure injury prevention.

Complications of prone positioning in patients with COVID-19: A cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

To determine the prevalence of complications in patients with COVID-19 undergone prone positioning, focusing on the development of prone-related pressure ulcers.

METHODS

Cross-sectional study conducted in the hub COVID-19 centre in Milan (Italy), between March and June 2020. All patients with COVID-19 admitted to intensive care unit on invasive mechanical ventilation and treated with prone positioning were included. Association between prone-related pressure ulcers and selected variables was explored by the means of logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 219 proning cycles were performed on 63 patients, aged 57.6 (10.8) and predominantly obese males (66.7%). The main complications recorded were: prone-related pressure ulcers (30.2%), bleeding (25.4%) and medical device displacement (12.7%), even if no unplanned extubation was recorded. The majority of patients (17.5%) experienced bleeding of upper airways. Only 15 prone positioning cycles (6.8%) were interrupted, requiring staff to roll the patient back in the supine position. The likelihood of pressure ulcers development was independently associated with the duration of prone positioning, once adjusting for age, hypoxemic level, and nutritional status (OR 1.9, 95%CI 1.04-3.6).

CONCLUSION

The use of prone positioning in patients with COVID-19 was a safe and feasible treatment, also in obese patients, who might deserve more surveillance and active prevention by intensive care unit staff.