Risk Factors for Hospital-Acquired Pressure Injury in Adult Critical Care Patients

Evaluation of the risk prediction model of pressure injuries in hospitalized patient: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The main aim of this study is to synthesize the prevalent predictive models for pressure injuries in hospitalized patients, with the goal of identifying common predictive factors linked to pressure injuries in hospitalized patients. This endeavour holds the potential to provide clinical nurses with a valuable reference for providing targeted care to high-risk patients.

BACKGROUND

Pressure injuries (PIs) are a frequently occurring health problem throughout the world. There are mounting studies about risk prediction model of PIs reported and published. However, the prediction performance of the models is still unclear.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis: The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science and Chinese databases including CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), Wanfang Database, Weipu Database and CBM (China Biology Medicine).

METHODS

This systematic review was conducted following PRISMA recommendations. The databases of Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and CNKI, Weipu Database, Wanfang Database and CBM were searched for all studies published before September 2023. We included studies with cohort, case-control designs, reporting the development of risk model and have been validated externally and internally among the hospitalized patients. Two researchers selected the retrieved studies according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and critically evaluated the quality of studies based on the CHARMS checklist. The PRISMA guideline was used to report the systematic review and meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Sixty-two studies were included, which contained 99 pressure injuries risk prediction models. The AUC (area under ROC curve) of modelling in 32 prediction models were reported ranged from .70 to .99, while the AUC of verification in 38 models were reported ranged from .70 to .98. Gender (OR = 1.41, CI: .99 ~ 1.31), age (WMD = 8.81, CI: 8.11 ~ 9.57), diabetes mellitus (OR = 1.64, CI: 1.36 ~ 1.99), mechanical ventilation (OR = 2.71, CI: 2.05 ~ 3.57), length of hospital stay (WMD = 7.65, CI: 7.24 ~ 8.05) were the most common predictors of pressure injuries.

CONCLUSION

Studies of PIs risk prediction model in hospitalized patients had high research quality, and the risk prediction models also had good predictive performance. However, some of the included studies lacked of internal or external validation in modelling, which affected the stability and extendibility. The aged, male patient in ICU, albumin, haematocrit, low haemoglobin level, diabetes, mechanical ventilation and length of stay in hospital were high-risk factors for pressure injuries in hospitalized patients. In the future, it is recommended that clinical nurses, in practice, select predictive models with better performance to identify high-risk patients based on the actual situation and provide care targeting the high-risk factors to prevent the occurrence of diseases.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

The risk prediction model is an effective tool for identifying patients at the risk of developing PIs. With the help of risk prediction tool, nurses can identify the high-risk patients and common predictive factors, predict the probability of developing PIs, then provide specific preventive measures to improve the outcomes of these patients.

REGISTRATION NUMBER (PROSPERO)

CRD42023445258.

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.

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

AIM

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

DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

CRD42024554497.

Complications of Wounds in the Acute Care Setting

There is a significant care burden on wound care patients in the acute care space. During hospitalization, additional risk factors can cause wounds to develop, particularly in the emergency room, operating room, and intensive care units. This article will highlight common wound types, their potential complications in the acute care setting, and implications for practice.

The relationship between arterial partial pressure of oxygen and pressure injuries in intensive care unit patients: A multi-center cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Pressure injuries significantly impact patients in intensive care units and the healthcare system. Hypoxia, a major contributor to pressure injury development, can be promptly identified by monitoring arterial partial pressure of oxygen. However, the dose-response relationship between arterial partial pressure of oxygen and pressure injuries remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To determine how mean arterial partial pressure of oxygen within 24 h before the appearance of a pressure injury influences pressure injury outcomes in ICU patients, elucidating the dose-response relationship, and underscoring the importance of including arterial oxygen pressure in routine pressure injury risk assessments.

METHODS

We conducted this multi-center cross-sectional study in Gansu province of China from April 2021 to July 2023. The incidence and influencing factors of pressure injuries were collected. Logistic and restricted cubic spline regression analyses were used to assess the association between pressure injuries and arterial partial pressure of oxygen. Subgroup analyses stratified by age and sex were conducted to explore potential correlations.

RESULTS

Among 6078 participants, the incidence of pressure injury was 2.34 %. After adjusting for all confounding factors, patients with low arterial partial pressure of oxygen were more likely to develop pressure injury than those with normal levels (OR 1.753, 95 %CI 1.142 ∼ 2.693). The dose-response relationship shows a significant non-linear dose-response correlation between arterial partial pressure of oxygen and pressure injury risk (P = 0.011). Layered analysis shows that the impact is more pronounced in older individuals and males.

CONCLUSIONS

As arterial partial pressure of oxygen decreases, the occurrence of pressure injuries gradually increases. Incorporating arterial partial pressure of oxygen into daily pressure injury risk assessments is crucial.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE

Our study results will offer targeted insights for the prevention and management of pressure injuries.

Implementing a Hospital-Acquired Pressure Injury Prevention Bundle in Critical Care

ABSTRACT

The emerging field of implementation science (IS) facilitates the sustainment of evidence-based practice in clinical care. This article, the third in a series on applying IS, describes how a nurse-led team at a multisite health system used IS concepts, methods, and tools to implement a hospital-acquired pressure injury (HAPI) prevention bundle on six critical care units, with the aim of decreasing HAPI incidence.

Explainable Artificial Intelligence for Early Prediction of Pressure Injury Risk

BACKGROUND

Hospital-acquired pressure injuries (HAPIs) have a major impact on patient outcomes in intensive care units (ICUs). Effective prevention relies on early and accurate risk assessment. Traditional risk-assessment tools, such as the Braden Scale, often fail to capture ICU-specific factors, limiting their predictive accuracy. Although artificial intelligence models offer improved accuracy, their "black box" nature poses a barrier to clinical adoption.

OBJECTIVE

To develop an artificial intelligence-based HAPI risk-assessment model enhanced with an explainable artificial intelligence dashboard to improve interpretability at both the global and individual patient levels.

METHODS

An explainable artificial intelligence approach was used to analyze ICU patient data from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care. Predictor variables were restricted to the first 48 hours after ICU admission. Various machine-learning algorithms were evaluated, culminating in an ensemble "super learner" model. The model's performance was quantified using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve through 5-fold cross-validation. An explainer dashboard was developed (using synthetic data for patient privacy), featuring interactive visualizations for in-depth model interpretation at the global and local levels.

RESULTS

The final sample comprised 28 395 patients with a 4.9% incidence of HAPIs. The ensemble super learner model performed well (area under curve = 0.80). The explainer dashboard provided global and patient-level interactive visualizations of model predictions, showing each variable's influence on the risk-assessment outcome.

CONCLUSION

The model and its dashboard provide clinicians with a transparent, interpretable artificial intelligence-based risk-assessment system for HAPIs that may enable more effective and timely preventive interventions.

Exploring body morphology, sacral skin microclimate and pressure injury development and risk among patients admitted to an intensive care unit: A prospective, observational study

OBJECTIVE

To determine the association between body morphology, sacral skin microclimate and their impact on the development and risk of pressure injuries among patients in an intensive care unit.

METHODOLOGY

A prospective observational exploratory study was conducted over 30 weeks. Repeat study observations occurred multiple times a week for 28 days or until discharge. Participant inclusion criteria were ≥ 18 years of age, expected intensive care length of stay > 24 h and intact skin over the sacrum region.

SETTING

The study was conducted in a 36-bed intensive care unit of a major metropolitan public hospital in Queensland, Australia.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Pressure injuries were staged and independently verified according to the international pressure injury classification system. Pressure injury risk was determined by the Braden scale score and subepidermal oedema, using a subepidermal moisture scanner at the sacrum.

RESULTS

Of the 93 participants recruited, an inverted triangle body shape (p =.049), a BMI > 25 kg/m2 (p =.008), a standard foam mattress type (p =.017) and increased length of stay (p <.001) were associated with an increased pressure injury risk according to subepidermal oedema. Participants with increased sacral skin temperature (p <.001), mechanical ventilation (p <.001), vasoactive drugs administered (p =.003), increased sequential organ failure assessment score (p =.047), neurovascular diagnosis (p =.031) and increased length of stay (p =.027) were associated with increased pressure injury risk according to the Braden scale score.

CONCLUSION

Body morphology and skin microclimate are associated with pressure injury risk during critical illness.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE

Subepidermal oedema was associated with a patient's shape, body mass index and mattress type, factors that directly influence the pressure loading and the skin, whereas the Braden scale was associated with sacral temperature and clinical measures of critical illness. Consideration of body morphology and skin microclimate in pressure injury risk assessment could lead to more specific prevention strategies targeting high risk patients.

Vasoconstrictor Agent Administration as a Risk Factor for Pressure Injury Development in Intensive Care Unit Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Significance: Pressure injury (PI) is a common critical presentation in intensive care units (ICU) and is an important clinical concern in critical care settings. Some developing data support the vasoconstrictor agent administration as a potential risk factor; however, synthesis of available evidence has not been completed. Recent Advances: Comprehensive tactics were employed to search electronic databases PubMed, Web of Science, and Ovid Embase for data on vasoconstrictor agent administration associated with PI in ICU patients. Extraction was limited to studies that matched the inclusion criteria. The pooled odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes. Critical Issues: Twenty-six studies were included, involving 50,192 patients who matched the selection criteria. Around 5.8% of patients (2,523/43,210) got PI in total. PI occurred in 10.9% (1,496/13,675) of the vasoconstrictor agent administration population and 3.5% (1,027/29,503) of the drug-free population. The pooled unadjusted odds ratio was 2.83 (95% CI = 2.21-3.64, p < 0.001). The adjusted odds ratio was 1.83 (95% CI = 1.26-2.68, p = 0.002). Subgroup analysis and meta-regression found that the risk of PI did not vary with research design, time of occurrence, patient age, or male proportion. Future Directions: Vasoconstrictor agent administration raised the risk of PI in critical care patients by nearly twofold. More emphasis should be placed on the timely prevention of PI in patients receiving vasoconstrictor agent administration in the ICU.