Collecting pressure ulcer prevention and management outcomes: 2

Pressure ulcers in four Indonesian hospitals: prevalence, patient characteristics, ulcer characteristics, prevention and treatment

The objective of this article was to study characteristics of pressure ulcer patients and their ulcers, pressure ulcer preventive and treatment measures in four Indonesian general hospitals. A multicentre cross-sectional design was applied to assess pressure ulcers and pressure ulcer care in adult patients in medical, surgical, specialised and intensive care units. Ninety-one of the 1132 patients had a total of 142 ulcers. Half (44·0%) already had pressure ulcers before admission. The overall prevalence of category I-IV pressure ulcers was 8·0% (95% CI 6·4-9·6), and the overall nosocomial pressure ulcer prevalence was 4·5% (95% CI 3·3-5·7). Most pressure ulcer patients had friction and shear problems, were bedfast, had diabetes and had more bedridden days. Most ulcers (42·3%) were category III and IV. One third of the patients had both pressure ulcers and moisture lesions (36·3%) and suffered from pain (45·1%). The most frequently used prevention measures were repositioning (61·5%), skin moisturising (47·3%), patient education (36·3%) and massage (35·2%). Most pressure ulcer dressings involved saline-impregnated or antimicrobial gauzes. This study shows the complexities of pressure ulcers in Indonesian general hospitals and reveals that the quality of pressure ulcer care (prevention and treatment) could be improved by implementing the recent evidence-based international guideline.

Retrospective versus prospective cohort study designs for evaluating treatment of pressure ulcers: a comparison of 2 studies

The effect of interventions designed to help prevent or treat pressure ulcers can be assessed through a number of study designs including retrospective and prospective cohort studies. This article highlights the strengths and weaknesses of these 2 approaches to data collection and analysis. Retrospective studies provide for analysis of large amounts of data with less investment, while prospective cohorts may capture clinically relevant variables missing from retrospective data sets. Prospective studies may also gather data in a more consistent and accurate manner. However, ensuring comparability between the various study groups (patient groups managed with different products or interventions) remains a challenge for both prospective and retrospective cohort studies. In retrospective cohort studies, allocation may be based on arbitrary reimbursement decisions, while prospective cohort designs may mask unequal distribution of key risk factors.

Cost-effectiveness of pressure-relieving devices for the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers

Objectives:The cost-effectiveness of alternating pressure-relieving devices, mattress replacements, and mattress overlays compared with a standard hospital (high-specification foam mattress) for the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers in hospital patients in the United Kingdom was investigated.

Methods:A decision-analytic model was constructed to evaluate different strategies to prevent or treat pressure ulcers. Three scenarios were evaluated: the prevention of pressure ulcers, the treatment of superficial ulcers, and the treatment of severe ulcers. Epidemiological and effectiveness data were obtained from the clinical literature. Expert opinion using a rating scale technique was used to obtain quality of life data. Costs of the devices were obtained from manufacturers, whereas costs of treatment were obtained from the literature. Uncertainty was explored through probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

Results:Using £30,000/QALY (quality-adjusted life year) as the decision-maker's cut off point (the current UK standard), in scenario 1 (prevention), the cost-effective strategy was the mattress overlay at 1, 4, and 12 weeks. In scenarios 2 and 3, the cost-effective strategy was the mattress replacement at 1, 4, and 12 weeks. Standard care was a dominated intervention in all scenarios for values of the decision-maker's ceiling ratio ranging from £5,000 to £100,000/QALY. However, the probabilistic sensitivity analysis results reflected the high uncertainty surrounding the choice of devices.

Conclusions:Current information suggests that alternating pressure mattress overlays may be cost-effective for the prevention of pressure ulcers, whereas alternating pressure mattress replacements appears to be cost-effective for the treatment of superficial and severe pressure ulcers.

Risk, prevalence and prevention of pressure ulcers in three Swedish healthcare settings

OBJECTIVE

This cross-sectional survey set out to delineate risk, prevalence and prevention of pressure ulcers in a university hospital, a general hospital and a nursing home in Sweden. It also looked at the differences in risk factors and preventive strategies between patients with and without pressure ulcers.

METHOD

The one-day survey followed the methodology developed by the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (EPUAP). It was conducted on Tuesday 5 February 2002. Each patient was visited by two registered nurses, their skin was inspected and any pressure ulcer classified according to the EPUAP grading system. A total of 695 patients were included: 612 from the university hospital, 38 from the general hospital and 45 from the nursing home.

RESULTS

The prevalence of pressure ulcers was 23.9% (university hospital), 13.2% (general hospital) and 20.0% (nursing home). Most (60-66%) of the pressure ulcers in the hospitals were assessed as grade I. Only half of the patients at risk or with pressure ulcers were placed on a pressure-reducing mattress and a third of these patients had a plan for repositioning. Significant variables associated with pressure ulcers were old age, geriatric care, low Braden score and incontinence.

CONCLUSION

Prevalence of pressure ulcers was higher than expected. Results relating to both prevalence of pressure ulcers (grade I excluded) and the preventive care given to patients at risk or with pressure ulcers accord with those of a larger Dutch study. Attention must focus on the appropriate risk-assessment skills, highlighting grade I as pressure damage, and the use of appropriate preventive strategies, based on the level of risk.