Pressure injuries in Australian public hospitals: A cost of illness study

A national cross-sectional study on the knowledge and attitude of nurses towards prevention of pressure injury and their relationship with its prevalence

BACKGROUND

Pressure injuries can greatly affect a patient's health, safety, and quality of life. The knowledge and attitudes of nurses towards preventing pressure injuries are vital for providing safe, high-quality healthcare. Nursing in Kuwait suffers from a research gap on this topic.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study conducted in the public general hospitals of Kuwait to assess nurses' knowledge and attitudes and to measure the point prevalence of pressure injuries and prevention measures. An online form, a Modified Pieper's Pressure Ulcer Knowledge Test and the Moore and Price scale were used to gather data, covering variables related to hospitals, nurses, patients, pressure injuries, and prevention practices. We processed and analysed data using Microsoft Excel and SPSS 23.

RESULTS

The median score of nurses' knowledge on preventing pressure injuries was 73.2% (IQR: 68.3-78.0), and only 31.7% of the knowledge test items were answered correctly by 90% of participants or more. The median attitude score was 41.0 (IQR: 37.0-44.0). There were statistically significant strong positive correlations between nurses' age, years of work experience, attitude score, and the percentage of trained staff complying with measures against pressure injury. Attitude score had a statistically significant and strongly negative correlation with the rate of hospital-acquired pressure injury. The predictors of knowledge score were age, sex, and years since the most recent training was undertaken. Knowledge and a nurse's highest level of education were predictors of attitude scores.

CONCLUSIONS

This study offers inestimable insights into the field. The study's results reveal that nurses' knowledge is unsatisfactory to borderline satisfactory, whereas attitudes are positive. Despite this, the positive attitude is neither reflected in staff compliance with practices aimed at preventing pressure injury nor the rate of hospital-acquired pressure injury. We recommend implementing effective training programmes to bridge these gaps.

CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER

Not applicable.

Nurses' Perspectives on the Use of Prophylactic Dressings to Prevent Pressure Injury: A Qualitative Study

AIM

To understand, from a nursing perspective, factors affecting the use of prophylactic dressings to prevent pressure injuries in acute hospitalised adults.

BACKGROUND

Pressure injury causes harm to patients and incurs significant costs to health services. Significant emphasis is placed on their prevention. Relatively recently, prophylactic dressings have been promoted to reduce pressure injury development. However, in the acute care setting, information about the clinical use of these dressing is lacking.

DESIGN

Qualitative, descriptive.

METHODS

Nineteen medical and surgical nurses participated. Semi-structured interviews were conducted and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was performed using an inductive approach using NVivo software.

RESULTS

Three themes were identified, reflecting factors that influenced and perpetuated indiscriminate use of prophylactic dressings: False sense of security; Convenience and task prioritisation; and Navigating challenges in evidence-based pressure injury prevention.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings indicate inconsistent prevention practices, with prophylactic dressings often applied without justification or referral to research-based evidence to guide clinical decision-making. There was a prevailing attitude of 'job done' when a prophylactic dressing was applied.

IMPACT

This study has identified several factors that perpetuate the inappropriate use of prophylactic dressings for pressure injury prevention that may be amenable to organisational change. The findings indicate that nurses often rely on these dressings as a shortcut due to time constraints, which led to missed skin assessments and low-value care. The research can be used to inform the development of clear guidelines on dressings within hospital settings which encourage assessment-based selection for their use, and process-based guidance for their application, skin surveillance, dressing inspection and removal.

REPORTING METHOD

The Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) reporting guideline was followed.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Neither patients nor the public were directly involved in this study.

Incidence and characteristics of device-related pressure injuries in intensive care: A four-year analysis

OBJECTIVES

To describe and analyse the incidence and characteristics of intensive care-acquired device-related pressure injuries.

DESIGN

Secondary data analysis of intensive care-acquired pressure injuries during 2019-2022.

SETTING

Single general intensive care unit in Brisbane, Australia.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Intensive care-acquired pressure injury incidence, device-related pressure injury incidence, non-device-related pressure injury incidence, pressure injury category and location, device associated with pressure injury.

RESULTS

During the 4-year period, there were 7343 intensive care admissions of whom 413 (5.6 %) patients developed an intensive care-acquired pressure injury. The incidence of device-related pressure injury was 4.0 % compared to 2.7 % non-device-related pressure injury. In total there were 461 device-related pressure injuries, which were mostly (55 %) associated with endotracheal tubes or the methods used to secure them. Consequently, the majority of injuries were found on the mucous membranes (lips, mouth and tongue). The other main devices associated with injuries were high-flow nasal prongs (9.3 %), indwelling urinary catheters (6.7 %), nasogastric tubes (6.5 %) and oxygen masks (5.0 %). Overall, device-related pressure injuries were less severe than non-device-related pressure injuries, however they occurred in a shorter time frame (median 4 days versus 6 days). A range of factors was associated with device-related pressure injuries but overall, their presence or duration was less than with non-device-related pressure injuries.

CONCLUSION

The study results provide rigorous evidence of the incidence and characteristics of device-related pressures injuries, that can be used to benchmark with other intensive care units nationally and internationally.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE

Endotracheal tube-associated pressure injuries were the most common type of device-related injury, providing a clear focus for preventative intervention. Given the high proportion of these device-related injuries, effective interventions would have a significant impact on overall reduction of intensive care-acquired pressure injuries. Since most injuries occur within three days of device insertion, early preventative intervention is time-critical.

The effectiveness of plant-based topical agents for the prevention of pressure injuries: Systematic review of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Pressure injuries (PIs) are a major global health challenge. As PI-related healthcare costs continue to rise and patient safety is increasingly impacted, nurses are actively working to design and implement effective prevention strategies, particularly focusing on skin care, to prevent PIs in high-risk patients. Recent advances in incorporating plant-based topical agents into comprehensive care bundles for PI prevention have shown promising potential, though the results remain somewhat variable.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate effectiveness of plant-based topical agents in preventing PIs and their impact on PI incidence, time to PI formation and adverse events.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed and reported according to the PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PROQUEST Health Research Premium Collection, Clinical Key, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Google Scholar, and Airiti Library from database inception to May 2024.Two researchers independently screened randomised controlled trials published in Chinese and English. Screening, data extraction, and quality evaluation were independently performed by two reviewers using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool and GRADE to assess the strength of evidence. Disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. Due to the heterogeneity of the intervention, a meta-analysis was not feasible; consequently, the findings were synthesised narratively.

RESULTS

Ten randomised controlled trials were included, consisting of 2364 patients without PI and no sensitivity to plant-based topical agents. The plant-based topical agents used in the interventions included olive oil (n = 6), sweet almond oil (n = 1), aloe vera gel (n = 2), aloe vera gel-olive oil compound (n = 1), peppermint oil gel (n = 1), and henna paste (n = 1). PI incidence was lower in the intervention groups compared to control groups, but the time to PI formation was inconsistent. No or mild adverse events were reported. The overall risk of bias was categorised as 'some concerns' (n = 5) and 'high risk' (n = 5).

CONCLUSIONS

This review found that different plant-based topical agents can be effective in preventing PI and can be an option for PI prevention. Higher-quality studies are needed to validate effectiveness of plant-based topical agents in preventing PI and to clarify their mechanisms of action. We suggest incorporating plant-based topical agents into PI care protocols and in-service education to ensure consistent usage. Implementation can start with high-risk PI patients in critical/home care settings to prevent PI occurrence.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO Registration Number CRD42024567522.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

Plant-based topical agents like olive oil and aloe vera show potential in preventing pressure injuries in high-risk patients, but more high-quality research is needed to validate their effectiveness and mechanisms.

Evaluation methods of pressure injury stages: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pressure injury is prevalent in clinical settings and demands precise staging for optimal care. Subjectivity and imprecision in traditional visual assessments have sparked the creation of advanced technology-based evaluation tools.

AIMS

To systematically assess pressure injury staging methods, analyze their evaluation results, and provide reference for clinical practice.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CINAHL, and manual searches of academic journals and conference proceedings were utilized.

METHODS

The study conducted a systematic search of databases in April 2024, utilizing Endnote X9 to document findings. Two reviewers independently extracted data and evaluated its quality using the QUADAS-2 tool. The meta-analysis, conducted in Meta-disc, focused on metrics such as AUC, sensitivity, and specificity. Heterogeneity among the studies was assessed using Cochran's Q and I2 tests.

RESULTS

This review screened 15312 articles and ultimately included 15 studies. These studies described methods for pressure injury staging, including visual assessment, 29 machine learning models, and human-model integrated evaluation. The accuracy of traditional visual assessment was relatively low and showed significant variability. Eight studies involving 24 machine learning models were included in the meta-analysis, demonstrating significantly high accuracy, with an AUC of 0.93, and the combined sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio were 0.81, 0.87, and 20.48, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The review underscores the advantages of machine learning in diagnosing pressure injuries, offering higher accuracy over traditional methods. Integrating clinical expertise with machine learning enhances medical service quality and efficiency.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42023462951. PROSPERO REGISTRATION LINK: crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023462951.

Comparative Effectiveness of Active and Reactive Mattresses in Pressure Injury Healing for Older People in Their Own Homes: A Pragmatic Equivalence Randomised-Controlled Study

Background: Pressure injuries are an ongoing problem commonly managed with the prescription of pressure mattresses. There is conflicting research about the comparable effectiveness of the two types of pressure mattresses, active and reactive. This, coupled with technological advances and an updated understanding of pressure aetiology, means decision-making when prescribing pressure mattresses is complicated. Objective/Design: A pragmatic approach was used to design an equivalence randomised-controlled trial investigating the comparative effectiveness of active and reactive pressure mattresses in a community setting from a wound healing perspective as well as from a user acceptability perspective. Methods: Participants with an existing pressure injury were provided with an active or reactive mattress for wound healing, with wound stages assessed using photography. Usual clinical care was provided based on the protocols of the health care service, including nursing and occupational therapy input. Participants were monitored for the healing of their existing pressure injuries, using the Revised Photographic Wound Assessment Tool. User acceptability feedback was provided through surveys, including impact on comfort, pain levels and bed mobility. An equivalence design was used for data analysis to determine if the surfaces were comparable. Results: Twelve participants completed the study, which found that people on active mattresses healed 11.71 days (95% CI -55.97-31.78 days) quicker than people on reactive mattresses; however, the small sample size meant that a definitive determination could not be made. Users found bed mobility more challenging, and pain levels decreased, regardless of mattress type. Conclusions: A pragmatic methodology is imperative for research in this field due to the complexity of pressure injury healing. Researchers exploring multi-faceted conditions should consider a pragmatic design to ensure transferability of results to the clinical setting. The results from this study were inconclusive when determining the equivalence of active and reactive mattresses due to the small sample size. When choosing a mattress, prescribers need to consider user preferences and mattress features to ensure user acceptability.

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.

Cost of Illness of Pressure Injuries in the Inpatient Area of a Socio-Health Center in Spain

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the increase in length of stay and cost of illness of pressure injuries (PIs) in the inpatient area of a socio-health center.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study that included a consecutive sampling of patients admitted to the inpatient programs of a socio-healthcare center between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2018. Data were retrospectively extracted from patients' electronic health records.

RESULTS

During the study period 4,062 patients were admitted to the different hospitalization programs. The patients' mean age was 75.34 ± 13.69 years, and 51.2% of them were men. Of these, 1,421 patients had PIs, and 318 patients had to prolong their hospital stay due to PIs. These 318 patients were admitted 12,089 days longer (mean of 38.01 ± 41.49 days per patient) than patients without a PI, representing an expense of €1,381,006 (US $1,430,722). The cost of illness in the period under study was estimated at €1,922,049 (US $1,991,212). The average cost of PI treatment per patient was €1,352.60 ± €3,351.43 (US $1,401.29 ± $3,472.08), and the average cost of treatment until complete resolution of a PI was €2,064.65 ± €4,282.48 (US $1,470.79 ± $4,436.65). The cost of treatment ranged from €1,419.68 ± €3,100.47 (US $2,138.98 ± $3,212.09) for stage 1 PIs to €6,299.31 ± €10,000.57 (US $6,526.08 ± $10,360.59) for stage 4 PIs.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the significant health and economic impacts of PIs in the inpatient area of a socio-health center. The findings emphasize the necessity of effective prevention strategies to mitigate the occurrence of PIs and their associated costs. By understanding the financial burden of PIs, healthcare providers and policymakers can make informed decisions to improve resource allocation, enhance patient care, and reduce financial strain on the healthcare system.

Barriers and Facilitators to Implementing Pressure Injury Guidelines for Nutrition Assessment and Alternating Pressure Air Mattress Allocation: A Qualitative Study

AIMS

To investigate clinicians' views on barriers and facilitators to implementing pressure injury prevention guideline recommendations for nutrition assessment and treatment, and de-implementing inappropriate alternating pressure air mattress allocation.

DESIGN

A qualitative descriptive study adhering to the COnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative research (COREQ) guidelines.

METHODS

We conducted face-to-face or videoconference focus groups and semi-structured individual interviews with clinicians recruited from a metropolitan tertiary hospital. Participants were purposively sampled according to their years of clinical practice. Interview transcripts were thematically analysed inductively to derive barriers and facilitators to guideline uptake. These were then mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework and behaviour change techniques to inform an evidence-based implementation intervention development to improve guideline uptake.

RESULTS

Thirteen nurses, four occupational therapists and three dietitians were interviewed. Six themes illustrate three guideline-specific barriers and three common facilitators influencing nutrition- and mattress-related guideline uptake. The three barriers were: (1) nurses devalue the use of validated tools in nutrition screening; (2) nurses prioritise vital-sign-related nursing duties over feeding assistance according to clinical urgency; and (3) nurses consider air mattresses a preventative strategy irrespective of patient PI risks. Facilitators to improve guideline uptake were: (1) nurse-led interdisciplinary collaboration, (2) carer involvement and (3) easily accessible updated guidelines. Different Theoretical Domains Framework domains and behaviour change techniques were mapped to the identified nutrition- and mattress-related barriers.

CONCLUSION

The findings highlight three key nurses' attitudinal barriers to nutrition- and mattress-related guideline uptake, which inform the development of theory- and end-user-informed implementation interventions in pressure injury prevention.

IMPLICATIONS

An implementation strategical plan that addresses attitudinal barriers to improving guideline uptake for nutrition assessment and treatment and reducing air mattress overprescription appears critical in developing an intervention to enhance value-based practice, which will need to be evaluated in future trials.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

No Patient or Public Contribution.

The Role of Medical Student Quality Improvement Projects in Health Care: A Scoping Review

INTRODUCTION

Across Australia, there is considerable variation in the quality of health care and the risk of associated complications. Hence, many patients are receiving poor-quality care. This may be exacerbated in rural and remote areas where the availability of health care is relatively limited. Addressing this requires a multipronged approach that supports the workforce. Involving medical practitioners in medical students' quality improvement (QI) scholarly projects may be one strategy to assist with bridging this gap. The aim of this review was to synthesise the evidence relating to medical students' compulsory curriculum-based quality improvement projects and associated practice outcomes.

METHOD

Scoping review of peer-reviewed literature (January 2000-June 2024).

RESULTS

Of the 239 articles, six empirical studies from Australia, New Zealand, the UK and the USA were included. Half of these were based in community settings and the rest in hospitals. Only one was in a rural setting. The time allocated to projects was between 5 and 12 weeks. Five of the six studies reported that student project recommendations had been implemented. One study reported that the process enhanced doctors' adherence to best practice guidelines.

DISCUSSION

Much of the research about the outcomes of medical student curriculum-based projects focuses on research outputs. These relatively short student QI projects are one strategy to improve evidence-based practice while upskilling clinicians. Further work is needed to examine their impact, particularly in rural areas.

CONCLUSION

Integrating medical students into 'real-world' QI health service projects can enhance the quality of health care whilst building the skills of the medical workforce.

Nurses' Clinical Decision-Making About Pressure Injury Prevention in Hospital Settings: A Scoping Review

AIM

To systematically explore research on nurses' clinical decision-making and factors influencing pressure injury prevention in hospitalised patients.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

Medline full text, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature Plus with full text, and Scopus.

METHODS

Arksey and O'Malley's five-step framework guided this scoping review. Studies published prior to 11 July 2024 were included.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight studies were included. The factors influencing nurses' decision-making in pressure injury prevention included: 'support systems', 'knowledge and attitudes', 'barriers to implementing prevention practices' and 'risk assessment tools and clinical judgement'. Limited research was conducted on nurses' clinical decision-making about implementation of pressure injury prevention interventions.

CONCLUSION

More research on nurses' clinical decision-making related to pressure injury prevention is needed to enhance education, support effective care and reduce the incidence of pressure injuries.

IMPACT

Nurses recognise the importance of preventing pressure injuries, however implementation of pressure injury prevention interventions are inconsistent, and pressure injuries remain common in hospitals. Limited research exists on the processes nurses use to make clinical decisions about pressure injury prevention for hospitalised adults at risk of pressure injury.

REPORTING METHOD

This scoping review adhered to the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

No patient or public contribution.

Transformative Insights into Community-Acquired Pressure Injuries Among the Elderly: A Big Data Analysis

PURPOSE

To investigate community-acquired pressure injuries (CAPIs) in older people by utilizing big data.

DESIGN

Retrospective data curation and analysis of inpatient data from two general medical centers between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2018.

METHODS

Nursing assessments from 44,449 electronic medical records of patients admitted to internal medicine departments were retrieved, organized, coded by data engineers, and analyzed by data scientists. Potential explanatory patient characteristics tested were gender, age, admission indices, nursing assessments including CAPIs, CAPI type and location, vital signs, and the results of lab tests within the first 36 h of admission.

FINDINGS

Most CAPIs were located in the buttocks (56.9%), followed by the sacrum (11.8%), ankle (10.8%), trochanter (5.1%), and leg (3.9%). Tissue associated with CAPIs was described as necrotic, serotic, bloody, granolithic, epithelial, and infected. There were 31% of first-degree CAPIs, 41% second-degree, and 18% third-degree. Previously unacknowledged patient characteristics associated with CAPIs are as follows: age, oxygen use, intestinal function, the touch senses of heat and pain, albumin, RDW (red cell distribution width), and systolic blood pressure.

CONCLUSIONS

The novel indicators for CAPIs underscore the importance of data-driven approaches in detecting and preventing CAPIs in community care. These markers can detect and prevent pressure ulcers in the community, particularly among the elderly.

RELEVANCE FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE

Nursing management is called upon to integrate information about novel patient characteristics associated with CAPI into clinical practice. Assimilating the insights from this hospital nursing-led study into community nursing will enhance the safety and quality of care for the elderly.

Impact of pressure injuries on health-related quality of life: A systematic review

The objective of this systematic review was to synthesise the evidence of the impact of pressure injuries (PIs) on the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of adults aged 18 years and older. Electronic databases (Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, CINAHL EBSCO, Scopus and Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched for eligible studies published between January 2019 and April 2024. All identified articles were reviewed by two reviewers against the eligibility criteria. The risk of bias was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool. Data were narratively synthesised due to methodological heterogeneity. Twenty-two studies (12 quantitative; 9 qualitative;1 mixed methods) met the inclusion criteria. The qualitative studies were grouped into four impact areas: symptoms, physical function, psychological well-being and social functioning. Five instruments were used to assess HRQoL and identified low scores in people with PIs, with the lowest scores mostly reported in physical functioning and role physical and emotional concepts. A complexity of factors influenced theHRQoL of people with PI. This review synthesised both quantitative and qualitative evidence indicating PI was associated with low HRQoL scores and negatively affected all aspects of HRQoL. This review emphasised the complexity of factors related to PI and its impact on HRQoL. Further emphasis on the impact of the complexity of factors on HRQoL of people with PI should be considered in future studies.

Leaving Slings and Other Transfer Devices Under Patients: A Clinical Decision Support Quality Improvement Project

PURPOSE

The purpose of this quality improvement project was to develop guidance for safe patient handling and mobility efforts to prevent pressure injuries (PIs) within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) when slings and other transfer devices are left under patients.

PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING

Health care staff (n = 112) in patient safety and nursing at 77 unique VHA facilities responded to surveys between November and December 2019. Interviews (n = 24) were conducted using purposive sampling with VHA staff at facilities with highest and lowest PI rates (n = 9) between January and March 2021.

APPROACH

Feedback on practices and perceptions related to leaving slings and other transfer devices were evaluated using online cross-sectional surveys and interviews with VHA staff. Secondary data for VHA inpatient rates of PIs were used to examine associations with staff-reported sling and other transfer device practices.

OUTCOMES

Leaving slings under patients was associated with higher proportion of patients developing PIs in intensive care units (ICUs, P = .042) and medical-surgical care units ( P = .025). In addition, use of sliding boards for seated transfer among short-stay residents in Community Living Centers was associated with higher PI occurrences ( P = .017). Qualitative interviews found perceptions and guidance about PI risk related to slings and other transfer devices varied among staff who consider many factors when determining risk.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

There are perceived benefits and risks of leaving slings and other transfer devices under patients and limited knowledge of PI occurrences associated with this practice. Clinical decision support can help staff determine safe sling use. More work is needed to test the safety of common sling and transfer device practices and define best practices for communicating PI risk related to sling and transfer device use across the care continuum.

Pressure injury prevention in an intensive care unit: implementing the best practices

OBJECTIVE

to implement the best evidence in preventing pressure injuries in patients in the intensive care unit of a university hospital in the city of São Paulo/Brazil.

METHOD

a quasi-experimental study whose intervention was implementing evidence based on the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology, which includes auditing and feedback. Ten audit criteria were used, which were verified in patient records and training records of the teaching and quality service. The intervention was assessed by comparing the percentage of compliance with audited criteria before and after implementing the best practices. Pearson's chi-squared test was used.

RESULTS

2,677 days of baseline and follow-up audit records were evaluated, regarding 340 patients. Compliance baseline and follow-up audits differed for most criteria (p-value <0.001). The main barriers were the lack of records of essential information on pressure injuries in the medical records, and strategies for overcoming these barriers included a review of the pressure injury prevention protocol and training of the nursing team.

CONCLUSION

the intervention adopted contributed to improving practices regarding the prevention of pressure injuries, expressed by the increase in the rate of compliance with the criteria and the proposal of improvement strategies to overcome barriers.

Dressings and topical agents for preventing pressure ulcers

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers occur when people cannot reposition themselves to relieve pressure over bony prominences. They are difficult to heal, costly, and reduce quality of life. Dressings and topical agents (lotions, creams, and oils) for pressure ulcer prevention are widely used. However, their effectiveness is unclear. This is the third update of this review.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of dressings and topical agents on pressure ulcer prevention, in people of any age without existing pressure ulcers, but at risk of developing one, in any healthcare setting.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, two other databases, and two trial registers, together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify the studies that are included in the review. The latest search date was November 2022. We imposed no restrictions on language, publication date, or setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that enroled people at risk of developing a pressure ulcer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.

MAIN RESULTS

In this update, we added 33 new studies, resulting in a total of 51 trials (13,303 participants). Of these, 31 studies involved dressings, 16 topical agents, and four included both dressings and topical agents. All trials reported the primary outcome of pressure ulcer incidence. Dressings Pressure ulcer incidence We made a total of 13 comparisons with 9027 participants. We present seven prioritised comparisons in the summary of findings (SoF) tables, as follows: silicone foam dressing versus no dressing (18 trials, 5903 participants; risk ratio (RR) 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 0.77); foam dressing versus film dressing (3 trials, 569 participants; RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.67); hydrocellular foam dressing versus hydrocolloid dressing (1 trial, 80 participants; RR not estimable); silicone foam dressing type 1 versus silicone foam dressing type 2 (2 trials, 376 participants; RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.15); foam dressing versus fatty acid (2 trials, 300 participants; RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.49 to 5.72); polyurethane film versus hydrocolloid dressing (1 trial, 160 participants; RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.41); and hydrocolloid dressing versus no dressing (2 trials, 230 participants; RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.78). All low or very low-certainty evidence. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of dressings on pressure ulcer development. Pressure ulcer stage Three comparisons reported pressure ulcer (PU) stage. Silicone foam dressing versus no dressing: PU stage 1 (8 trials, 1823 participants; RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.79); PU stage 2 (10 trials, 2873 participants; RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.73); PU stage 3 (3 trials, 718 participants; RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.06 to 3.21); PU stage 4 (2 trials, 610 participants; RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.77); unstageable PU (1 trial, 366 participants; RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.09); deep tissue injury (3 trials, 840 participants; RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.08). Foam dressing versus film dressing: PU stage 1 (1 trial, 270 participants; RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.80); PU stage 2 (1 trial, 270 participants; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.82); deep tissue injury (1 trial, 270 participants; RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.93). Hydrocolloid dressing versus no dressing: PU stage 1 (1 trial, 108 participants; RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.94); PU stage 2 (1 trial, 108 participants; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.66). All low or very low-certainty evidence. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of dressings on different stages of pressure ulcer development. Adverse events One comparison reported adverse events: silicone foam dressing versus no dressing (3 trials, 2317 participants; RR not estimable; very low-certainty evidence). Silicone foam dressings may have little to no effect on the incidence of adverse events, but the evidence is very uncertain. Topical agents Pressure ulcer incidence We evaluated seven comparisons with 4276 participants. We present five prioritised comparisons in the SoF tables as follows: fatty acid versus placebo (6 trials, 2201 participants; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.36); fatty acid versus usual care (7 trials, 1058 participants; RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.84); cream versus fatty acid (1 trial, 120 participants; RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.32 to 28.03); cream versus placebo (3 trials, 513 participants; RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.36); and cream versus usual care (1 trial, 47 participants; RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.84 to 3.04). All very low-certainty evidence. It is very uncertain whether they make any difference to PU development. Pressure ulcer stage Two comparisons reported PU stage. Fatty acid versus usual care: PU stage 1 (2 trials, 180 participants; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.03); PU stage 2 (2 trials, 180 participants; RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.53). Cream versus placebo: PU stage 3 (1 trial, 258 participants; RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.34 to 4.55); PU stage 4 (1 trial, 258 participants; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.11). Both low or very low-certainty evidence. It is uncertain whether they make any difference to the stage of PU development. Adverse events One comparison reported adverse events: fatty acid versus placebo (3 trials, 967 participants; RR 4.38, 95% CI 0.50 to 38.30; very low-certainty evidence). Fatty acid may have little to no effect on the incidence of adverse events compared to placebo, but the evidence is very uncertain. Risk of bias and imprecision were the main reasons for downgrading the certainty of the evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The included studies tested a wide variety of dressings and topical agents. The evidence for all interventions is uncertain or very uncertain; thus, it is unclear whether any of the dressings or topical agents studied make any difference to pressure ulcer development. Future studies should engage with stakeholders to determine priority interventions.

The epidemiology of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation

Objective

To describe the epidemiology and clinical features of pressure injury (PI) development in adult patients supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

Design

Retrospective, observational, cohort study from January 2018 to May 2023.

Setting

A single-centre high-volume ECMO specialist intensive care unit (ICU).

Participants

All adults (aged 18 y or more) admitted to ICU for more than 24 h.

Main Outcome Measures

Any PI developing more than 24 h after ICU admission.

Results

Five-hundred ICU patients were supported with ECMO during the study period. Excluding those <18 years of age and with an ICU length of stay of <24 h, 466 patients were included in the analysis. One-hundred-thirty-five (29.0%) patients acquired at least one PI during their ICU stay, with PI occurring in 80 patients (17.2%) whilst supported on ECMO. The PI incidence rate was 1.7 per 100 ECMO patient-days (confidence interval: 1.3-2.0). Patients with a PI were mechanically ventilated for longer, received more renal replacement therapy, manifested more delirium, and stayed longer in the ICU and hospital. Conversely, crude ICU and in-hospital mortality was lower in the PI group. A longer ECMO run time and a higher proportion of veno-venous ECMO was also noted in those with a PI. Factors independently associated with the acquisition of a PI were male gender, oral dietary intake, renal replacement therapy, and prolonged mechanical ventilation. The majority of the PIs acquired during ECMO were stage-two and were most commonly located on the neck and head (n = 25/96 PIs, 26.0%) and sacral region (n = 31/96 PIs, 32.3%). Only three PIs were in relation to the ECMO cannula, circuit, or dressing.

Conclusion

A significant proportion of patients develop PIs while receiving ECMO. Vigilance on the prevention of medical device related PI is required. Gender, renal replacement therapy, oral diet, and length of mechanical ventilation were independent predictors for PI development in this population.

Community-Acquired Pressure Injuries: Prevalence, Risk Factors and Effect of Care Bundles-An Integrative Review

AIM AND OBJECTIVES

To summarise the evidence and present the state of the science on pressure injury care bundles in the community. Specifically, this review examined (i) the extent of pressure injury by studying its prevalence and incidence in the last 10 years, (ii) the risk factors associated with community-acquired pressure injury and (iii) the components and outcomes associated with effective pressure injury care bundles in the community.

BACKGROUND

PI care bundles have effectively reduced PI rates; however, there is limited evidence of care bundles used in community settings.

DESIGN

Integrative review.

METHODS

This integrative review is guided by the Whittemore and Knafl framework and follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines. Quality appraisal was applied to assess the quality of selected articles. Data relevant to the review aims were extracted, and findings were synthesised and presented. PubMed, Medline, CINAHL and Web of Science were searched. Studies published in the English language between 2012 and 2022 were retrieved.

RESULTS

A total of 89 articles were retrieved; 25 met the inclusion criteria. Most studies reported the point prevalence and period prevalence of community-acquired pressure injuries, and only one study reported the incidence of community-acquired pressure injuries. The point prevalence and period prevalence of community-acquired pressure injury were 0.02% to 10.8% and 2.7% to 86.4%, respectively, and the cumulative incidence was 1.3%. The risk factors for community-acquired pressure injury assessed vary between studies; older age, poor nutrition, immobility and multiple comorbidities are commonly reported. Socioeconomic and caregiving factors were not studied. Very few studies evaluated pressure injury care bundles in the community. Even so, the components of the pressure injury care bundle vary between studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Pressure injury development is associated with a complex interplay of factors. Socioeconomic and caregiving factors were not examined in any of the papers. There is a lack of understanding of the components and outcomes associated with effective pressure injury care bundles in the community.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Despite their prevalence, community-acquired pressure injuries (CAPIs) are often underreported due to inadequate follow-up and reporting mechanisms. Although the risk factors for CAPIs vary across studies, older age, impaired mobility, multiple comorbidities and malnutrition consistently emerge as key contributors. Pressure injury preventive care bundles are more commonly used in the acute care setting rather than the community setting.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

No Patient or Public Contribution.

Nurses' attitudes towards safety and their association with nurses' perceptions of adverse events and quality of care: a cross-sectional study

Aims

To explore nurses' attitudes towards safety and their association with nurses' perceptions of adverse events and quality of care in Saudi Arabian hospitals.

Design

A cross-sectional study using a web-based survey.

Methods

A web-based survey was administered to nurses working in five hospitals in Saudi Arabia. Nurses' attitudes regarding safety, nurses' perceptions of the frequency of seven adverse events, and nurses' views on quality of care were collected. Descriptive and predictive analyses were performed.

Results

Nurses' attitudes regarding safety (n = 653) were classified as less than positive, with an overall score of 68.96%. The highest subscale mean score was for safety behaviour (73.1%), which was followed by job satisfaction (72.6%); the lowest subscale mean score was for working conditions (61.7%). Positive attitudes towards safety were associated with a lower frequency of pressure injuries, patient falls, healthcare-associated infections and unexpected deaths due to deterioration; positive attitudes towards safety were also associated with higher quality of care.

Conclusion

Nurses' attitudes towards safety contribute to preventing avoidable adverse events and to improving quality of care. This study builds on the growing body of evidence that demonstrates fostering a strong safety culture is essential for improving patient outcomes.

Pressure injury risk assessment and prescription of preventative interventions using a structured tool versus clinical judgement: An interrater agreement study

AIM

To assess agreement of pressure injury risk level and differences in preventative intervention prescription between nurses using a structured risk assessment tool compared with clinical judgement.

DESIGN

Interrater agreement study.

METHODS

Data were collected from November 2019 to December 2022. Paired nurse-assessors were allocated randomly to independently assess pressure injury risk using a structured tool (incorporating the Waterlow Score), or clinical judgement; then prescribe preventative interventions. Assessments were conducted on 150 acute patient participants in a general tertiary hospital. Agreement of risk level was analysed using absolute agreement proportions, weighted kappa and prevalence-adjusted and bias-adjusted kappa.

RESULTS

Ninety-four nurse assessors participated. Absolute agreement of not-at-risk versus at-risk-any-level was substantial, but absolute agreement of risk-level was only fair. Clinical judgement assessors tended to underestimate risk. Where risk level was agreed, prescribed intervention frequencies were similar, although structured tool assessors prescribed more interventions mandated by standard care, while clinical judgement assessors prescribed more additional/optional interventions. Structured tool assessors prescribed more interventions targeted at lower-risk patients, whereas assessors using clinical judgement prescribed more interventions targeted at higher-risk patients.

CONCLUSION

There were clear differences in pressure injury risk-level assessment between nurses using the two methods, with important differences in intervention prescription frequencies found. Further research is required into the use of both structured tools and clinical judgement to assess pressure injury risk, with emphasis on the impact of risk assessments on subsequent preventative intervention implementation.

IMPACT

The results of this study are important for clinical practice as they demonstrate the influence of using a structured pressure injury risk assessment tool compared to clinical judgement. Whilst further research is required into the use of both structured tools and clinical judgement to assess pressure injury risk and prescribe interventions, our findings do not support a change in practice that would exclude the use of a structured pressure injury risk assessment tool.

REPORTING METHOD

This study adhered to the GRRAS reporting guideline.

PATIENT/PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

No patient or public involvement in this study.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE

Educators and researchers can use the findings to guide teaching about pressure injury risk assessment and preventative intervention and to direct future studies. For clinical nurses and patients, a change in clinical practice that would exclude the use of a structured risk assessment tool is not recommended and further work is needed to validate the role of clinical judgement to assess risk and its impact on preventative intervention.

Nurse knowledge, attitudes, and barriers to pressure injuries: A cross-sectional study in an Australian metropolitan teaching hospital

BACKGROUND

Pressure injuries are associated with significant clinical complications with negative effects on the patient's emotional, psychological, social and physical wellbeing. However, in Australia little is known about the knowledge and attitudes of nurses towards hospital-acquired pressure injuries.

OBJECTIVE

To determine nurse knowledge and attitudes towards hospital-acquired pressure injuries and to identify barriers towards prevention.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study following the STROBE statement was conducted between May to July in 2017. All nurses at a major metropolitan teaching hospital in Western Australia were invited to participate. Nurse knowledge and attitude to pressure injury were assessed using validated Pressure Ulcer Knowledge Assessment tool, and Attitude towards Pressure Ulcer Prevention tool. An open-ended question asked about the barriers to pressure injury prevention. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics and answers for the open-ended question were analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Data from 224 nurses (response rate 19.0 %) were analysed. While nurses displayed a satisfactory attitude towards hospital-acquired pressure injury prevention, most nurses lacked adequate knowledge of the stages, causes and prevention of pressure injuries. Thematic analysis of responses to the open-ended question yielded two main themes: modifiable barriers to pressure injury prevention were lack of knowledge, attitude of pressure injury prevention and the scarcity of resources. Non-modifiable barriers to pressure injury prevention were the nursing environment and patient characteristics.

CONCLUSION

Most nurses have satisfactory attitude towards pressure injury prevention, but inadequate knowledge about pressure injuries. Barriers to pressure injury prevention are attributed to nurse working environments, particularly impeded by staffing, time constraints and resources.

Implementing a Hospital-Wide Programme Using iPARiHS to Prevent and Manage Incontinence-Associated Dermatitis and Improve Hospital-Acquired Pressure Injuries

Incontinence-associated dermatitis poses a significant risk for sacral pressure injuries, infection and morbidity in healthcare settings. Despite the availability of best practice guidelines, implementation remains a challenge.

AIM

To outline the implementation of a hospital-wide programme using the Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework to prevent and manage incontinence-associated dermatitis and improve hospital-acquired pressure injuries.

DESIGN

This is an empirical research study using mixed methods.

METHOD

The study, conducted across surgical, medical and critical care wards between June and October 2023, aimed to address knowledge gaps, enhance clinical practice and evaluate the effectiveness of interventions. The implementation strategy included education modules, engagement of staff through focus groups and targeted interventions such as individualised toileting plans and structured skin care regimens. Data collection involved audits, incident reporting and clinician knowledge surveys.

RESULTS

Findings indicate a reduction in hospital-acquired incontinence-associated dermatitis and pressure injuries postimplementation, with observed improvements in clinician knowledge. However, challenges including workload, skill mix and resource limitations were identified as barriers to implementation. The sustainability and scalability of the programme were emphasised, with ongoing monitoring and evaluation essential for long-term success.

CONCLUSION

This study underscores the importance of evidence-based interventions, interdisciplinary collaboration and leadership support in improving patient outcomes and reducing healthcare costs associated with preventable skin injuries. Further research is needed to assess implementation in community settings and scale up interventions across healthcare networks.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE

Analysing a hospital-wide programme using the Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Service framework to prevent and manage incontinence-associated dermatitis and improve hospital-acquired pressure injuries, could help identify the challenges for delivering patient-centred care.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

No patient or public involvement.

REPORTING METHOD

To describe the implementation study, we referred to the StaRI Guideline.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This intervention study was applied to the whole population and was therefore not a trial and did not require trial registration. The study was considered low risk and the Human Research Ethics Application (HREA) was approved.

Effect of the "aSSKINg" Model in Reducing Pressure Ulcer Risk: A Comparative Study Using the Braden Risk Assessment Score

Pressure ulcer is considered a common and costly problem in the care of patients. Prevention and management of pressure ulcer are very important due to the high cost of treatment and the adverse consequences of pressure ulcer. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of implementing "aSSKINg" model in reducing pressure ulcer risk. This study used a before- and after-intervention quasi-experimental design. This study was performed on 60 patients who were not randomly selected and assigned in to control and study group. The data collection tool was a 3-part sheet (Braden scale, skin health assessment, and Pressure ulcer assessment). The incidence of pressure ulcer was 19 (60.0%) in the control group versus 9 (30.0%) in the study group with statistical significant differences. The most common site of pressure ulcer was coccyx (6 [31.6%]) in the control group and Heel (3 [33.3%]) in the study group. The application of "aSSKINg" model in the patients with pressure ulcers is effective in reducing the incidence and severity of pressure ulcers.

The pressure injury prevalence and practice improvements (PIPPI) study: A multiple methods evaluation of pressure injury prevention practices in an acute-care hospital

Pressure injuries are a significant problem for immobile patients in acute care and can have a profound impact on patients' health and well-being, putting pressure on healthcare systems and strain on the healthcare economy. Nurses play a pivotal role in preventing pressure injuries. A study using multiple methods was conducted to explore pressure injury prevention practices in four inpatient units within a tertiary-level Australian Hospital. Quantitative and qualitative methods were used to gather data across a 9-month period. Observations, audits, surveys and interviews were used to collect data across five time points. Statistical analysis of the quantitative data was undertaken, and thematic analysis was used to analyse qualitative data. Data were integrated using a realist evaluation framework. Ethical approval for the study was granted. The quantitative results demonstrated significant reductions in pressure injury prevalence from 11.5% at commencement to 4.8% at completion of the study. Hospital-acquired pressure injuries also reduced from 4.6% to 1.9%. These results were achieved even though nursing knowledge and attitudes did not increase during the study period. Three qualitative themes were identified: Making Nursing Care Visible, Understanding the 'Why' and Engagement is Key. This study demonstrates that pressure injuries can be prevented with improvements in nursing care processes. Nurses' knowledge and attitudes towards pressure injury prevention did not change throughout this study and further research is required on how nurses' knowledge and attitudes contribute towards pressure injury prevention practices.

A randomised controlled phase II trial to examine the feasibility of using hyper-oxygenated fatty acids (HOFA) to prevent facial pressure injuries from medical devices among adults admitted to intensive care-A research protocol

One in three patients admitted to intensive care will sustain a pressure injury (PI) from a medical device. These injuries are painful and when on the face, head or neck they can result in permanent disfigurement. Preliminary evidence of the efficacy of hyper-oxygenated fatty acids (HOFAs) to prevent facial pressure injuries from medical devices is promising; however, the feasibility of incorporating HOFAs into current standard care to prevent PI from a medical device of the face, head and neck has not been extensively explored. It is intended that the findings from this phase II feasibility study will inform the design of a larger phase III trial, by addressing two primary aims: (1) to assess the feasibility of incorporating HOFAs into standard care to prevent device-related pressure ulcers of the skin associated with the face, head and neck assess the feasibility and (2) efficacy preliminary effectiveness of HOFA. This feasibility study is an investigator-initiated mixed method study incorporating a multi-centre randomised controlled trial of using HOFAs as an adjunct to standard pressure injury prevention and care, compared with standard care alone to prevent facial, head or neck from medical devices among adults admitted to intensive care. The primary outcome of interest is the incidence of facial, head or neck pressure injuries during the first 14 days in intensive care. Secondary outcomes include PI staging, medical device exposure and intensive care and hospital outcomes. The primary analysis will be undertaken using Cox's Proportional Hazards model, and due to the exploratory nature of this phase II trial, efficacy will be based on a one-sided p-value for superiority set at 0.10. Type I and Type II error rates are set at 20%; therefore, a total sample size of 196 study participants is planned. To explore the feasibility of incorporating HOFA into usual care and to design a larger phase III trial, we will aim to interview between 10 and 20 nurses across participating intensive care unit sites. Pressure injuries of the face, head or neck from medical devices, among adults admitted to intensive care, are considered preventable. This phase II study will investigate the feasibility and efficacy of HOFAs as an adjunct to standard care. Importantly, we aim to inform the development of a larger phase III trial.

Incidence of medical device-related pressure injuries: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Medical device-related pressure injures (MDRPIs) are common in critically ill patients and associated with negative clinical outcomes and elevated healthcare expenses. We aim to estimate worldwide incidence of MDRPI and explore associated factors through systemic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

The PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Ovid EMBASE databases were systematically queried to identify relevant studies published from Jan 1, 2010 up until June 30, 2024. Studies were included if they provided data on the incidence or prevalence of MDRPI. Random-effect models were utilized to calculate the overall or domain-specific aggregated estimates of MDRPI. A meta-regression analysis was additionally performed to investigate the heterogeneity among studies.

RESULTS

We included 28 observational studies on 117,624 patients in the meta-analysis. The overall incidence of MDRPI was 19.3% (95% confidence interval (CI) 13.5-25.2%). The incidence of MDRPI in Europe, North America, Asia, South America, and Oceania was 17.3% (95% CI 12.7-21.9%), 3.6% (95% CI 0.0-8.5%), 21.9% (95% CI 14.3-29.6%), 48.3% (95% CI 20.8-75.7%), and 13.0% (95% CI 5.0-21.1%), respectively (p < 0.01). Multivariate meta-regressions revealed South America and special inpatient (critically ill patient, etc.) were independently associated with higher MDRPI incidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly, 20% of the patients in ICU suffered from MDRPI. The incidence of MDRPI in underdeveloped regions is particularly concerning, highlighting the importance of focusing on measures to prevent it, in order to reduce the medical burden and enhance the quality of life for affected patients.

Use of a risk-based intervention bundle to prescribe and implement interventions to prevent pressure injury: An observational study

AIM

To explore the relationship between the prescription and implementation of pressure injury preventative interventions following risk assessment combined with a risk-stratified intervention bundle.

DESIGN

Single-centre, cross-sectional, observational, prospective.

METHODS

The charts and bedsides of 341 adult inpatients were examined. Data collection included pressure injury risk level, prescribed preventative interventions and evidence of intervention implementation.

RESULTS

Most patients (68.6%) were at risk of pressure injury, and most interventions were prescribed according to their risk level. However, evidence from direct observation and/or documentation indicated intervention implementation rates were relatively poor. Of nine interventions mandated for all patients, compliance with three patient-/carer-focused interventions was particularly poor, with evidence indicating they had been implemented for 3%-10% of patients. Also, nutritional screening-related interventions were implemented poorly. Clinically indicated implementation of heel-elevation devices and bariatric equipment was low for at-risk patients, and the implementation of interventions for patients with existing pressure injuries was suboptimal. Significant proportions of several interventions that were observed as having been implemented were not documented as such.

CONCLUSION

While most interventions were prescribed according to patient risk level, the overall implementation of interventions was poor. However, the results may in part be due to failure to document interventions as opposed to omitting them.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PATIENT CARE

Documentation of interventions is crucial as it provides evidence of the care provided. An increased focus on documentation of pressure injury preventative interventions is required, with a clear distinction between prescription and implementation.

IMPACT

The results highlighted several deficiencies in care, particularly relating to evidence of implementation, patient involvement and nutritional screening. The results from this study will be used to inform and improve future pressure injury prevention practice within the study hospital and should be used to inform and benchmark pressure injury preventative practices in other hospitals.

REPORTING METHOD

The study adheres to STROBE guidelines.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

None.

The effect of pressure injury prevention care bundles on pressure injuries in hospital patients: A complex intervention systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Numerous interventions for pressure injury prevention have been developed, including care bundles.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the effectiveness of pressure injury prevention care bundles on pressure injury prevalence, incidence, and hospital-acquired pressure injury rate in hospitalised patients.

DATA SOURCES

The Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (via PubMed), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EMBASE, Scopus, the Cochrane Library and two registries were searched (from 2009 to September 2023).

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies with a comparison group published in English after 2008 were included. Studies reporting on the frequency of pressure injuries where the number of patients was not the numerator or denominator, or where the denominator was not reported, and single subgroups of hospitalised patients were excluded. Educational programmes targeting healthcare professionals and bundles targeting specific types of pressure injuries were excluded.

PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS

Bundles with ≥3 components directed towards patients and implemented in ≥2 hospital services were included.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

Screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessments were undertaken independently by two researchers. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted. The certainty of the body of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation.

RESULTS

Nine studies (seven non-randomised with historical controls; two randomised) conducted in eight countries were included. There were four to eight bundle components; most were core, and only a few were discretionary. Various strategies were used prior to (six studies), during (five studies) and after (two studies) implementation to embed the bundles. The pooled risk ratio for pressure injury prevalence (five non-randomised studies) was 0.55 (95 % confidence intervals 0.29-1.03), and for hospital-acquired pressure injury rate (five non-randomised studies) it was 0.31 (95 % confidence intervals 0.12-0.83). All non-randomised studies were at high risk of bias, with very low certainty of evidence. In the two randomised studies, the care bundles had non-significant effects on hospital-acquired pressure injury incidence density, but data could not be pooled.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS

Whilst some studies showed decreases in pressure injuries, this evidence was very low certainty. The potential benefits of adding emerging evidence-based components to bundles should be considered. Future effectiveness studies should include contemporaneous controls and the development of a comprehensive, theory and evidence-informed implementation plan.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42023423058.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

Pressure injury prevention care bundles decrease hospital-acquired pressure injuries, but the certainty of this evidence is very low.

Nurses' experiences of hospital-acquired pressure injury prevention in acute healthcare services in Victoria, Australia: A qualitative study using the Theoretical Domains Framework

We investigated nurses' experiences of hospital-acquired pressure injury (PI) prevention in acute care services to better understand how PI prevention may be optimised. We used the Theoretical Domains Framework to systematically identify barriers and enablers to evidence-based preventive practices as required by the International Guideline. This study was one element of a complex capacity building project on PI surveillance and prevention within the acute health service partners of Monash Partners Academic Health Science Centre, an accredited academic health partnership located in Melbourne, Australia. We adopted a qualitative descriptive design. We interviewed 32 nurses that provided care in intensive care units, general wards and COVID wards of four acute care services. Nurses were recruited from four large acute care services (three public, one private) located in Melbourne. Most of them worked with patients who were at high risk of hospital-acquired PI on a daily basis. Interview transcripts were coded and analysed using thematic analysis guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework. The domains referred to most frequently by all participants included: Knowledge, Skills, Social/Professional Role and Identity, Beliefs about Capabilities, and Environmental Context and Resources. The key barriers discussed by nurses included gaps in nurses' knowledge and skills related to identification and staging of PI, heavy nursing workload and inadequate staffing levels, stigma and self-blame related to PI identification, and exacerbating impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Main facilitators discussed were training programmes, nursing audits and feedback, and teamwork. Participants suggested improvements including accessible and tailored training, visual reminders, and addressing heavy workloads and emotional barriers nurses face. Investing in tailored training initiatives to improve nurses' knowledge and organisational changes to address low level staffing and heavy workloads are urgently needed to support nurses in delivering optimal care and preventing hospital-acquired PI.

Protocols and their effects for medical device-related pressure injury prevention among critically ill patients: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

A pressure injury refers to localized damage to the skin and/or tissue due to prolonged pressure, and it has recently been defined to include pressure injuries related to medical devices. Medical device-related pressure injuries occur in various sites and are difficult to detect. Even if it is detected, medical devices are essential to life for critically ill patients. Thus, it is difficult to remove or change the position of the medical device; therefore, prevention is essential. This study aims to integrate the literature on medical device-related pressure injury prevention protocols among critically ill patients.

METHODS

The literature inclusion criteria were (1) critically ill patients, (2) device-related pressure injury interventions, (3) randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental designs, and (4) written in Korean or English. The literature search and selection were performed following the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions with the support of the PRISMA Guidelines.

RESULTS

Twelve articles were finally selected. The incidence of medical device-related pressure injury decreased from 8.1-96.7% before intervention to 0.3-53.3% after intervention, respectively. Medical device-related pressure injury prevention was effective in reducing medical device-related pressure injury incidence when applied to patients of all ages, from neonates to adults, in a variety of intensive care units. Medical device-related pressure injury prevention strategies include nurse education, assessment, documentation, and interventions (hygiene, repositioning, emergent therapy such as protective dressing or designed equipment reducing pressure) of pressure injury. Pressure injury dressings primarily included hydrocolloid foam dressings, but transparent hydrocolloid formulations also effectively reduced medical device-related pressure injury incidence rates.

CONCLUSIONS

In the future, it is necessary to increase the level of evidence by applying specialized medical device-related pressure injury prevention methods for different medical devices and areas of pressure injuries, and verifying their effectiveness.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The review protocol was registered (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022346450).

Enhancing prone positioning and skin damage prevention education: A randomized controlled non-inferiority trial comparing a digital education hub (PRONEtect) and a traditional lecture on final-year nursing participants' confidence and knowledge

INTRODUCTION

The incidence of pressure ulcers remains high in patients with moderate to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome, ventilated in the prone position. A digital platform, dedicated to prone positioning and skin/tissue damage education was developed.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of the PRONEtect Education Hub versus a traditional lecture on final-year nursing students' confidence levels and knowledge in a non-inferiority study.

DESIGN

A multicenter, non-blinded, parallel-group, non-inferiority study with equal randomization (1:1 allocation) was conducted at two nursing schools in Belgium.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov (NCT05575869).

METHODS

Following baseline assessments, the control group received a 1-h classroom lecture, and the experimental group gained access to the PRONEtect website. Three weeks later, participants completed the knowledge, confidence, and visual knowledge assessment.

RESULTS

At baseline, 67 of the 80 participants completed the assessments and post-intervention, 28 and 27 participants respectively completed the confidence, knowledge, and visual knowledge assessments (dropout rate of 66.25%). Confidence levels: a mean ratio of relative change from baseline = 0.96 (Control (C)/Experimental (E)); 97.5% confidence interval (CI): 0.74 to 1.26; p = 0.74. Knowledge assessment: a mean difference in change from baseline = 1.58 (C-E); 97.5% CI: -0.58 to 3.75; p = 0.1. Although confidence and knowledge scores increased in both groups, the study cannot conclude non-inferiority.

CONCLUSIONS

The trade-off between the inability to conclude efficacy of the impact of the website and the benefit of having an accessible educational platform on prone positioning and skin damage prevention makes the PRONEtect Education Hub an acceptable adjunct to traditional lecturing.

Pressure injury education for older adults and carers living in community settings: A scoping review

Older adults are at increased risk of pressure injuries (PIs) due to age-related changes. Traditionally, PI knowledge and education have been delivered in hospitals and residential aged care facilities, however, there remains a critical gap in understanding how PI knowledge on prevention and management is shared with older adults and their carers living in the community. We aimed to describe the nature and characteristics of structured and unstructured PI education programs available to community-dwelling older adults and their carers. As coping review was undertaken. We searched five databases: CINAHL, Medline, Scopus, Cochrane Library and ProQuest from 2009 to August 2023. The review was guided by Arksey and O'Malley's six-step framework and adhered to the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. It included primary peer-reviewed papers published in English, which focus on PI education for older adults and/or their carers living in community settings. Data extraction was organised in a table, and findings presented as a narrative summary. One-hundred and thirty-six papers were screened and four included in the review. Results indicate that consideration was placed on literacy levels and cognitive status of older adults and their carers when designing PI education materials. Educational materials such as leaflets/brochures, in-person training sessions or a combination of both were used. However, duration of these interventions varied, lasting for 1-4 weeks while others were completed over 12 months. Some improvements in PI knowledge such as how to treat PI, dietary requirements and importance of mobility were noted. However, information retention and its translation into effective long-term behaviour change remained unclear. In conclusion, adopting a multifaceted educational approach increases the effectiveness of PI knowledge translation. Continuous education, support and reinforcement on PIs over time are necessary when interacting with older adults and caregivers to ensure long-term management and prevention success. Conversations on PIs should start at the primary care levels when older adults and carers are visiting their GP clinics and accessing support services for other healthcare needs. Understanding older adults' and carers' literacy levels, cognitive status and cultural background can assist clinicians in designing and delivering fit-for-purpose PI educational interventions that are accessible, relatable and effective in promoting knowledge transfer and behaviour change. Carers are vital conduits in the care continuum. These factors will lead to a more informed, collaborative and person-centred approaches to PI management and prevention.

Application of direct observation of operational skills in nursing skill evaluation of pressure injury: A randomized clinical trial

This was a non-blinded, single-centre, randomized, controlled clinical trial that compared the effectiveness of direct observation of procedural skills (DOPSs)with traditional assessment methods in pressure injury (PI) care skills. The study population included 82 nursing professionals randomly assigned to the study group (n = 41) and the control group (n = 41). Both groups of nurses underwent a 6-month training in PI care skills and were subsequently evaluated. The main outcome variables were the PI skill operation scores and theoretical scores. Secondary outcome variables included satisfaction and critical thinking abilities. Independent sample t-tests and chi-square tests were used to assess differences between the two groups of nurses. The results showed no statistically significant difference in PI skill operation scores between the two groups of nurses (p > 0.05). When comparing the PI theoretical scores, the study group scored higher than the control group, and this difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05). In terms of satisfaction assessment, the study group and the control group showed differences in improving self-directed learning, enhancing communication skills with patients, improving learning outcomes and increasing flexibility in clinical application (p < 0.05). When comparing critical thinking abilities between the two groups of nurses, there was no statistically significant difference at the beginning of the training, but after 3 months following the training, there was a statistically significant difference between the two groups (p < 0.01).The results indicated that the DOPS was effective in improving PI theoretical scores, increasing nurse satisfaction with the training and enhancing critical thinking abilities among nurses.

Validity and Reliability of the Pieper-Zulkowski Pressure Ulcer Knowledge Test for Use in Turkey

OBJECTIVE

To assess the validity and reliability of the Pieper-Zulkowski Pressure Ulcer Knowledge Test (PZ-PUKT) for use in Turkey.

METHODS

This methodological study was carried out at a state hospital from June to November 2022. The authors used the PZ-PUKT and nurse identification form for data collection. They assessed the validity and reliability of the PZ-PUKT for Turkish society by evaluating language validity, content validity index, exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, Cronbach α, Spearman-Brown Split-Half analysis, item-scale correlations, and test-retest correlations.

RESULTS

Item-level content validity indices ranged from .778 to 1.000 and the scale-level content validity index was .960. Factor loadings of the Turkish version of the PZ-PUKT ranged between .297 and .671. Cronbach α coefficients for the scale subsections were .838 for wounds, .851 for prevention, and .844 for staging; the Cronbach α coefficient was .936 for the total scale score.

CONCLUSIONS

The PZ-PUKT is valid and reliable for use with nurses in Turkey. The authors recommend using the Turkish version of the tool in education and research to assess nurses' pressure injury knowledge.

Inter-device agreement of sacral subepidermal oedema measurement in healthy adults during prolonged 60° head of bed elevation

AIM

To investigate the level of agreement between the SEM 200 and Provisio® subepidermal moisture sacral delta measurements, which may indicate increased pressure injury risk, in healthy adults during 120 min of prolonged 60° head of bed elevation. This position, which requires the elevation of the patient's upper body at a 60° angle above the horizontal plane for an extended period, is used by clinicians to prevent or manage a patient's medical or surgical conditions.

DESIGN

This prospective exploratory study recruited 20 healthy adults during October 2021 and collected sacral subepidermal moisture delta measurements using the SEM 200 and Provisio® devices.

METHODS

Delta measurements were taken at 20-min intervals over 120 min resulting in seven data collection timepoints. Descriptive statistics and a Bland Altman plot analysis were conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 280 sacral subepidermal moisture delta measurements were gathered or 140 per device. There were good levels of agreement between the two devices at baseline (T0) [mean 0.025; SD 0.137] and following 60- (T3) [mean 0.025; SD 0.111], 80- (T4) [mean -0.01; SD 0.177] and 100 min (T5) [mean 0.01; SD 0.129] of prolonged 60° head of bed elevation. Head of bed elevations can increase a patient's risk of sacral pressure injuries. In some countries, nurses have access to the SEM 200 and/or the Provisio® device, so our findings may increase nurses' confidence in the interchangeability of the device measurements, although further research is needed to confirm this. The SEM 200 and Provisio® subepidermal moisture scanners show promise in gathering similar objective pressure injury risk data which could prompt clinicians to implement prevention strategies.

IMPACT

Current pressure injury risk assessment is largely subjective in nature. This quantitative study on healthy human sacral tissue found a good level of agreement in the SEM 200 and Provisio® subepidermal moisture scanners, which may increase nurses' confidence in the interchangeability of the devices in clinical practice.

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.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

DESIGN

Multicenter prospective cohort study.

SETTING

33 tertiary hospitals in the Gansu Province, China.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE

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

Socio-economic and environmental factors associated with community-acquired pressure injuries: A mixed method study

AIMS

To: (1) report on the prevalence of community-acquired pressure injuries (CAPIs) in patients admitted into the acute care setting; (2) examine the socio-economic and home environment associated with CAPIs; and (3) understand the challenges of caring for patients with CAPIs at home.

METHODS

This mixed-method study recruited patients admitted with CAPIs in the acute care hospital between March 2021 to June 2022. The hospital's pressure injury (PI) database was used to screen patients admitted with CAPIs. A purposive sample of CAPI patients and their caregivers participated in this study. A cross-sectional survey study was first performed to examine the prevalence of CAPIs and the socio-economic and home environment factors. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to understand the caregivers' challenges in caring for patients with CAPIs at home.

RESULTS

The CAPI prevalence was reported at 1.1 % during the study period (1039 had CAPIs out of 97 912 patients admitted to the hospital). A total of 70 caregivers and patients consented to participate in the study. The mean age of patients was 84.2 (SD = 10.4) years old; 68.6 % (n = 48) were females. Majority presented with a deep tissue injury (DTI) (37.1 %; n = 26) or unstageable PI (31.4 %; n = 22). More than half of the patients had alternating air mattresses at home (54.3 %; n = 38), and only 10 % (n = 7) had positioning wedges and used a sliding sheet for turning. The mean age of the caregivers was 43.4 years old (SD = 13.1), and 84.3 % (n = 59) were female. Continuous data were summarised using means and standard deviations, and categorical data were summarised using frequencies and percentages. Logistic regression found no significant socio-demographic and clinical predictors of patients having PI stages 2, 3, and 4 compared to patients with DTI and unstageable PI. Challenges to caring for PI at home included high financial burden, physical limitations, and personal challenges in CAPIs management.

CONCLUSION

CAPIs are prevalent among older patients admitted to the acute care setting. Understanding the influence of socio-economic factors is crucial for developing comprehensive strategies to mitigate the occurrence and impact of PIs. Ongoing support and education to the caregivers in the community is essential to address the reported challenges in PI care.

Nursing Students' Knowledge on Pressure Injuries Following a Blended-Learning Unit: A Quasi-experimental Study

OBJECTIVE

To assess first-year bachelor's degree in nursing students' knowledge about pressure injury (PI) etiology, classification, prevention, and management following blended learning and clinical practice.

METHODS

A quasi-experimental design was used. Nursing students' PI knowledge was measured using the French version of the Pressure Ulcer Knowledge Assessment Tool (PUKAT) at three time points: baseline (before a blended-learning unit, consisting of 2 hours of e-learning and 3 hours of practical workshop), after the blended-learning unit, and after clinical practice.

RESULTS

A total of 21 students participated over the three time points. At baseline, the mean percentage of correct answers on the PUKAT was 45.8%. This score increased to 59.2% following the blended-learning unit and 65% after completing the clinical practice (F2,58 = 19.08; P = .00). Over the three time points, students scored highest on knowledge of risk assessment and lowest on knowledge of prevention.

CONCLUSIONS

Blended-learning units combining e-learning and practical workshops are valuable tools to increase students' knowledge about PIs. The PUKAT enables the evaluation of changes in students' knowledge following a teaching unit on PIs. However, more research is needed to assess the long-term evolution of knowledge and the impact of this teaching on clinical practice.

Prevalence and incidence of pressure injuries among older people living in nursing homes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pressure injuries are a fundamental safety concern in older people living in nursing homes. Recent studies report a disparate body of evidence on pressure injury prevalence and incidence in this population.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically quantify the prevalence and incidence of pressure injuries among older people living in nursing homes, and to identify the most frequently occurring PI stage(s) and anatomical location(s).

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

SETTING(S)

Nursing homes, aged care, or long-term care facilities.

PARTICIPANTS

Older people, 60 years and older.

METHODS

Cross-sectional and cohort studies reporting on either prevalence or incidence of pressure injuries were included. Studies published in English from 2000 onwards were systematically searched in Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and ProQuest. Screening, data extraction and quality appraisal were undertaken independently by two or more authors and adjudicated by another. Outcomes included pressure injury point prevalence, cumulative incidence, and nursing home acquired pressure injury rate. In meta-analyses, Cochrane's Q test and the I2 statistic were used to explore heterogeneity. Random effects models were used in the presence of substantial heterogeneity. Sources of heterogeneity were investigated by subgroup analyses and meta-regression.

RESULTS

3384 abstracts were screened, and 47 full-text studies included. In 30 studies with 355,784 older people, the pooled pressure injury prevalence for any stage was 11.6 % (95 % CI 9.6-13.7 %). Fifteen studies with 5,421,798 older people reported the prevalence of pressure injury excluding stage I and the pooled estimate was 7.2 % (95 % CI 6.2-8.3 %). The pooled incidence for pressure injury of any stage in four studies with 10,645 older people was 14.3 % (95 % CI 5.5-26.2 %). Nursing home acquired pressure injury rate was reported in six studies with 79,998 older people and the pooled estimate was 8.5 % (95 % CI 4.4-13.5 %). Stage I and stage II pressure injuries were the most common stages reported. The heel (34.1 %), sacrum (27.2 %) and foot (18.4 %) were the three most reported locations of pressure injuries. Meta-regression results indicated a reduction in pressure injury prevalence over the years of data collection.

CONCLUSION

The burden of pressure injuries among older people in nursing homes is similar to hospitalised patients and requires a targeted approach to prevention as is undertaken in hospitals. Future studies using robust methodologies focusing on epidemiology of pressure injury development in older people are needed to conduct as the first step of preventing pressure injuries.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42022328367.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

Pressure injury rates in nursing homes are comparable to hospital rates indicating the need for targeted programmes similar to those in hospitals.

Perceived barriers and facilitators to preventing hospital-acquired pressure injury in paediatrics: A qualitative analysis

AIM

This qualitative study aimed to identify nurses' and allied health professionals' perceptions and experiences of providing hospital-acquired pressure injury (HAPI) prevention in a paediatric tertiary hospital in Australia, as well as understand the perceived barriers and facilitators to preventing HAPI.

DESIGN

A qualitative, exploratory study of hospital professionals was undertaken using semi-structured interviews between February 2022 and January 2023.

METHODS

Two frameworks, the Capability, Opportunity and Motivation Model of Behaviour (COM-B) and the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), were used to give both theoretical and pragmatic guidance. Participants included 19 nursing and allied health professionals and data analysis was informed by the framework approach.

RESULTS

Analysis revealed nine core themes regarding professionals' beliefs about the barriers and facilitators to HAPI prevention practices across seven TDF domains. Themes included HAPI prevention skills and education, family-centred care, automated feedback and prompts, allocation and access to equipment, everybody's responsibility, prioritizing patients and clinical demands, organizational expectations and support, integrating theory and reality in practice and emotional influence.

CONCLUSION

These findings provide valuable insights into the barriers and facilitators that impact paediatric HAPI prevention and can help identify and implement strategies to enhance evidence-based prevention care and prevent HAPI in paediatric settings.

IMPACT

Overcoming barriers through evidence-based interventions is essential to reduce HAPI cases, improve patient outcomes, and cut healthcare costs. The findings have practical implications, informing policy and practice for improved preventive measures, education, and staffing in paediatric care, ultimately benefiting patient well-being and reducing HAPIs.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

No patient or public contribution. The focus of the study is on healthcare professionals and their perspectives and experiences in preventing HAPIs in paediatric patients. Therefore, the involvement of patients or the public was not deemed necessary for achieving the specific research objectives.

The effect of prolonged 60° head of bed elevation on sacral subepidermal oedema in healthy adults: A quantitative prospective exploratory study

Head of bed elevation is used to manage some medical and surgical conditions however this may increase a patient's risk of sacral pressure injuries. Novel point-of-care technologies that measure subepidermal moisture can identify changes in localised subepidermal oedema and potential pressure injury risk. This prospective exploratory study investigated variations in sacral subepidermal oedema in healthy adults during 120-min of 60° head of bed elevation. Sacral subepidermal oedema was measured at 20-min intervals using the Provisio® subepidermal moisture scanner. Descriptive analysis, one-way repeated measures analysis of variance and an independent t-test were conducted. Slightly more male volunteers (n = 11; 55%) were recruited and the sample mean age was 39.3 years (SD 14.7) with an average body mass index of 25.8 (SD 4.3). Little variation in the mean sacral subepidermal moisture of healthy adults was observed. There was a statistically significant difference in the mean sacral subepidermal moisture measurements between males and females (Mean difference 0.18; 95% confidence intervals: 0.02 to 0.35; P = .03). Healthy adults can tolerate prolonged 60° head of bed elevation without developing increased subepidermal sacral oedema. This warrants further investigation in other populations, in various positions and over different time periods.

Medical and surgical nurses' approach to patient pressure injury prevention education: An integrative review

AIMS

Identify and synthesise the published literature on the approaches and practices nurses use during the delivery of pressure injury prevention (PIP) education to hospitalised medical and surgical patients.

DESIGN

An integrated review.

METHODS

Whitmore and Knaff's (2005) five-stage methodology guided this review: (1) research problem identification; (2) literature search; (3) data evaluation; (4) data analysis; and (5) results. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (2020) Statement was followed. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool (2018). Extracted data were analysed using inductive content analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Journal publication dates from 1992 to 2022. Systematic searches of CINAHL (Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature) complete, Embase, PsycINFO (via Ovid) and Scopus databases were undertaken.

RESULTS

A total of 3892 articles were initially identified, four quantitative and two qualitative studies were included. Articles were published between 2013 and 2022.Two themes were identified: responsibility and workplace culture determine nurses' approach to PIP education delivery; and nurses tailor education strategies to address challenges and opportunities for PIP education delivery.

CONCLUSION

Nurses require resources to facilitate approaches to PIP education with medical and surgical patients. In the absence of clear instruction to support nurses' practice, PIP education for patients is at best delivered in an informal and ad hoc manner. Nurses require accessible education resources to enable them to tailor the content and frequency of PIP education to patients in med-surg settings.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

No patient or public contribution.

Incidence, prevalence and risk factors of device-related pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit: A meta-analysis of 10,084 patients from 11 countries

Device-related pressure injuries (DRPIs) prevail in the intensive care unit (ICU) and have much to do with medical devices and patients' conditions. This meta-analysis aims to systematically assess the incidence, prevalence and risk factors related to DRPIs among adults in ICU. Web of Science, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, PubMed and CINAHL were searched from inception to March 2023. Observational studies were included, and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) was used to assess literature quality. The primary outcomes were the incidence, prevalence and risk factors regarding DRPIs among adults in ICU. The 19 studies conformed to the criteria for inclusion in the review. The estimated pooled incidence of DRPIs was 14.7% (95% CI: 9.7%-19.6%) in 10 studies (4866 participants). The estimated pooled prevalence of DRPIs was 19.0% (95% CI: 13.6%-24.3%) in 9 studies (5218 participants). The most significant risk factor for DRPIs was using mechanical ventilation. The pooled analysis of the four studies showed that DRPIs were more likely to occur in patients who required mechanical ventilation compared with patients who did not use mechanical ventilation (OR: 9.67, 95% CI: 5.03-18.61, p < 0.001) and using vasopressors, age, length of ICU stays, APACHE II score, Braden score, fever, sex, oedema, diabetes and number of medical devices, SOFA score was also related to pressure injuries risk. The incidence and prevalence of DRPIs in adult ICU were high, and the most significant risk factor for DRPIs was using mechanical ventilation. It is imminent to identify patients of increased risk with DRPIs early.

Reporting accuracy of pressure injury categorisation in an acute tertiary hospital: A four-year analysis

AIM

To determine the reporting accuracy of pressure injury categorisation by bedside clinicians, compared with nurse experts.

BACKGROUND

Pressure injuries are an enduring complication of hospitalisation. The categorisation of pressure injury affects treatment and management decision-making and use of resources, and severe hospital-acquired pressure injury incidence is used to benchmark quality of care. However, it is unclear how accurately pressure injuries are categorised by clinicians in practice.

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of hospital pressure injury incident and validation data.

METHODS

All pressure injuries reported in adults between 2016 and 2019 that were subsequently validated by nurse experts were analysed. Absolute agreement is reported using percentages, with inter-rater agreement reported using Kappa measure of agreement. The GRRAS reporting guideline was followed.

RESULTS

Of 6186 pressure injuries that were analysed, the category was reported correctly in 67.3% (n = 4163), with an overall moderate level of inter-rater agreement by category (Κ = .567, p < .001). Of those found to be non-pressure injuries when validated (18.3%, n = 1129), most were reported originally as stage II (41.2%, n = 465) or stage I (30.5%, n = 344), and 13.4% (n = 151) were categorised initially as unstageable. The majority reported initially as stage I, stage II, suspected deep tissue injury or mucosal pressure injury were validated, whereas half of those reported initially as stage III or IV were validated and less than a third of those reported initially as unstageable pressure injuries were validated.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides important insight into the accuracy of pressure injury categorisation. Whilst moderate agreement of categorisation was found between reporting clinicians and nurse experts, pressure injury differential diagnosis and categorisation of severe injuries were inadequate.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

These results may be used for benchmarking and provide a focal point for future education and practice improvement efforts.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Neither patients nor the public were directly involved in the project.

Barriers and facilitators to implementing pressure injury prevention and management guidelines in acute care: A mixed-methods systematic review

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based pressure injury prevention and management is a global health service priority. Low uptake of pressure injury guidelines leads to compromised patient outcomes. Understanding clinicians' and patients' views on the barriers and facilitators to implementing guidelines and mapping the identified barriers and facilitators to the Theoretical Domains Framework and behaviour change techniques will inform an end-user and theoretically informed intervention to improve guideline uptake in the acute care setting.

OBJECTIVES

To synthesise quantitative and qualitative evidence on i) hospital clinicians' and inpatients' perceptions and experiences of evidence-based pressure injury practices and ii) barriers and facilitators to implementing guidelines.

DESIGN

A convergent integrated mixed-methods systematic review was conducted using the JBI approach.

DATA SOURCE

English language peer-reviewed studies published from 2009 to August 2022 were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Cochrane Central Library.

REVIEW METHODS

Included studies reported: i) acute care hospital clinicians' and patients' perceptions and experiences of evidence-based pressure injury practices and ii) barriers and facilitators to implementing guidelines. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used for critical appraisal. Quantitative data was transformed into qualitised data, then thematically synthesised with qualitative data, comparing clinicians' and patients' views. Barriers and facilitators associated with each main theme were mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework and allocated to relevant behaviour change techniques.

RESULTS

Fifty-five out of 14,488 studies of variable quality (29 quantitative, 22 qualitative, 4 mixed-methods) met the inclusion criteria. Four main themes represent factors thought to influence the implementation of evidence-based guidelines: 1) nurse-led multidisciplinary care, 2) patient participation in care, 3) practicability of implementation and 4) attitudes towards pressure injury prevention and management. Most barriers identified by clinicians were related to the third theme, whilst for patients, there were multiple barriers under theme 2. Barriers were mainly mapped to the Knowledge domain and Environmental Context and Resources domain and were matched to the behaviour change techniques of "instruction on how to perform a behaviour" and "restructuring the physical environment". Most facilitators mentioned by clinicians and patients were related to themes 1 and 2, respectively, and mapped to the Environmental Context and Resources domain. All patient-related attitudes in theme 4 were facilitators.

CONCLUSIONS

These review findings highlight the most influential factors related to implementing evidence-based pressure injury care from clinicians' and patients' views and mapping these factors to the Theoretical Domains Framework and behaviour change techniques has contributed to developing a stakeholder-tailored implementation intervention in acute care settings.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

CRD42021250885.

Use of point-of-care subepidermal moisture devices to detect localised oedema and evaluate pressure injury risk: A scoping review

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To map current literature on bedside clinicians' use of point-of-care subepidermal moisture devices to identify increased pressure injury risk.

BACKGROUND

Pressure injuries are a substantial healthcare burden. Localised oedema occurs before visible or palpable changes, and therefore is a biomarker of increased pressure injury risk. Novel bedside technologies that detect localised oedema may aid early pressure injury preventative practices.

DESIGN

A scoping review.

METHODS

Arksey and O'Malley's six-step framework and the PRISMA-ScR guidelines guided this scoping review. CINAHL Complete, Embase, SCOPUS, Cochrane (wounds) and PubMed databases were searched for primary research and quality improvement projects published in English between 2008-2022. Included studies focused on clinicians' bedside use of subepidermal moisture devices to quantify localised oedema and pressure injury risk. The PAGER framework supported narrative synthesis of the extracted data.

RESULTS

Nine studies were selected from 1676 sources. Two point-of-care subepidermal moisture devices were identified in clinical use, largely by nurses. Inconsistent use and interpretations revealed significant knowledge gaps in clinical practice. Additionally, no included studies engaged patients or the public in their design.

CONCLUSIONS

Nurses recognise the value of objective measures in determining the risk of pressure injury and are the primary end-users of point-of-care subepidermal moisture devices. However, standardising procedural instructions and interpretive criteria to guide preventative measures requires further research.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

International pressure injury clinical practice guidelines advocate for subepidermal moisture devices as an adjunct to routine clinical skin assessment, although little is known about bedside use. This scoping review reveals low adoption of such devices and the need to develop standardised procedures in their use and interpretation.

REGISTRATION

Open Science DOI https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/AB6Y5-7th of March 2022.

The ACCELERATE Plus (assessment and communication excellence for safe patient outcomes) Trial Protocol: a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial, cost-benefit analysis, and process evaluation

BACKGROUND

Nurses play an essential role in patient safety. Inadequate nursing physical assessment and communication in handover practices are associated with increased patient deterioration, falls and pressure injuries. Despite internationally implemented rapid response systems, falls and pressure injury reduction strategies, and recommendations to conduct clinical handovers at patients' bedside, adverse events persist. This trial aims to evaluate the effectiveness, implementation, and cost-benefit of an externally facilitated, nurse-led intervention delivered at the ward level for core physical assessment, structured patient-centred bedside handover and improved multidisciplinary communication. We hypothesise the trial will reduce medical emergency team calls, unplanned intensive care unit admissions, falls and pressure injuries.

METHODS

A stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial will be conducted over 52 weeks. The intervention consists of a nursing core physical assessment, structured patient-centred bedside handover and improved multidisciplinary communication and will be implemented in 24 wards across eight hospitals. The intervention will use theoretically informed implementation strategies for changing clinician behaviour, consisting of: nursing executive site engagement; a train-the-trainer model for cascading facilitation; embedded site leads; nursing unit manager leadership training; nursing and medical ward-level clinical champions; ward nurses' education workshops; intervention tailoring; and reminders. The primary outcome will be a composite measure of medical emergency team calls (rapid response calls and 'Code Blue' calls), unplanned intensive care unit admissions, in-hospital falls and hospital-acquired pressure injuries; these measures individually will also form secondary outcomes. Other secondary outcomes are: i) patient-reported experience measures of receiving safe and patient-centred care, ii) nurses' perceptions of barriers to physical assessment, readiness to change, and staff engagement, and iii) nurses' and medical officers' perceptions of safety culture and interprofessional collaboration. Primary outcome data will be collected for the trial duration, and secondary outcome surveys will be collected prior to each step and at trial conclusion. A cost-benefit analysis and post-trial process evaluation will also be undertaken.

DISCUSSION

If effective, this intervention has the potential to improve nursing care, reduce patient harm and improve patient outcomes. The evidence-based implementation strategy has been designed to be embedded within existing hospital workforces; if cost-effective, it will be readily translatable to other hospitals nationally.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ID: ACTRN12622000155796. Date registered: 31/01/2022.