Overlooked Pain Assessment Records in Patients with Pressure Injuries During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Retrospective Data Analysis.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare professionals focused on identifying the cause of hemodynamic instability in patients and may have neglected to assess pressure injury (PI)-related pain. Although pain is an early indicator of PI development, there has been no systematic evaluation of PI-related pain in patients. OBJECTIVE: To review nurses' records of PI-related pain in patients who developed PIs during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This retrospective, descriptive study included data from 510 patients at one hospital. Collected data included patient demographics (age, sex, diagnosis, and comorbidities), PI classification, and assessment of PI-related pain. Assessment data regarding PI-related pain included the characteristics of the pain, the type of analgesia (pharmacologic/nonpharmacologic) administered before and after PI management (debridement, dressing change, etc), the route of administration, and the frequency of pain assessment before and after analgesia. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients (60.4% men) was 28.96 (SD, 5.82) years, and the mean length of hospital stay was 26.15 (SD, 16.1) days. Overall, 43.1% of the patients were treated in the ICU, 68.0% were conscious, and 18.6% tested positive for COVID-19. Deep-tissue injuries occurred in 57.5% of patients, with 48.6% developing stage 2 PI. The sacral region was the most common area for PI development (44.8%). The mean duration of repositioning in patients with PI was 23.03 (SD, 5.4) hours. Only 0.40% of patients (n = 2) were evaluated for pain, and only one patient was assessed for pain before and after analgesia was administered. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest a lack of comprehensive evaluation and records concerning PI-related pain in patients with COVID-19.

Translation and validation of the ELPO for Turkish population: Risk assessment scale for the development of pressure injuries due to surgical positioning.

AIM OF THE STUDY: This study was conducted to translate the ELPO risk assessment scale for the development of pressure injuries due to surgical positioning to Turkish and to test its validity and reliability in the Turkish Population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The data were collected using the patient identification form, the risk assessment scale for the prevention of injuries due to surgical positioning, and the Braden Scale. This scale consisted of a total of seven items, each of which contained five sub-items. It is rated between 1 and 5 in the Likert type. The total score of the scale ranges between 7 and 35. The risk of developing pressure injuries increases in patients as the score increases. RESULTS: A total of 184 patients were included in the study sample. The mean age of the group was 55.96 ± 17.90, and the content validity index was 0.944. The sensitivity of the test was 60%, the specificity was 66%, and the accuracy was 66%. There was a negative, weak, statistically significant correlation between the total scores of the risk assessment scale for the prevention of injuries due to surgical positioning and the Braden scale. The mean total score of the scale was 18.45 ± 2.96 (12-26) and 35.9% (n = 66) of the group were at high risk. CONCLUSIONS: The ELPO, which includes the risks specific to patients during surgery, can be used as an assessment scale for the development of pressure injury due to surgical positioning for Turkish population.