Pressure ulcer prevalence and perceptions on prevention: a hospital-wide survey of health professionals.

OBJECTIVE: Hospital-acquired pressure ulcers (HAPUs) remain a problem despite numerous prevention initiatives. To understand why, it is necessary to know health professionals' perceptions regarding the importance of prevention, and the usability of current initiatives. We hypothesised that positive perceptions of existing initiatives would not be correlated with low HAPU prevalence, and that health professionals would perceive the initiatives to have a low usability. METHOD: A two-part, online survey was developed and distributed electronically to nurses, in-training physicians and attending physicians, across all inpatient and perioperative departments of an academic hospital. Part one of the survey was the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Staff Attitude Scale on beliefs regarding PU prevention; part two was additional questions on the usability of existing preventative initiatives. The results of the survey were compared with quarterly HAPU prevalence data by hospital unit. RESULTS: In total, 839 health professionals completed the survey (579 nurses, 131 residents, 119 attending physicians). The mean score for the AHRQ survey was 42.5 (≥40 denoting positive perceptions). There was a moderate correlation between AHRQ scores and prevalence of HAPUs (r=-0.60, p=0.402). For usability, repositioning was felt to be the most effective intervention (mean: 4.54, standard deviation (SD): 0.64), while educational posters were felt to be the least effective (mean: 3.31, SD: 0.99). Respondents generally rated satisfaction much lower, with no single initiative significantly better than the others (range: 3.21-3.79). Perceived effectiveness and satisfaction were all positively correlated. CONCLUSION: High HAPU prevalence, despite position perceptions, suggests that prevention methods are not as effective as thought, or they are not being used as widely as they should. Further research should take advantage of positive attitudes by prospectively investigating the usability of novel interventions.

Efficacy of Monitoring Devices in Support of Prevention of Pressure Injuries: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

GENERAL PURPOSE: To present a systematic review of the literature assessing the efficacy of monitoring devices for reducing the risk of developing pressure injuries. TARGET AUDIENCE: This continuing education activity is intended for physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and nurses with an interest in skin and wound care. LEARNING OBJECTIVES/OUTCOMES: After participating in this educational activity, the participant should be better able to:1. Explain the methodology of the literature review and its results.2. Discuss the scope of the problem and the implications of the research. ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of monitoring devices for reducing the risk of developing pressure injuries (PIs). DATA SOURCES: The authors systematically reviewed the literature by searching PubMed/MEDLINE and CINAHL databases through January 2016. STUDY SELECTION: Articles included clinical trials and cohort studies that tested monitoring devices, evaluating PI risk factors on patients in acute and skilled nursing settings. The articles were scored using the Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies. DATA EXTRACTION: Using a standardized extraction form, the authors extracted patient inclusion/exclusion criteria, care setting, key baseline, description of monitoring device and methodology, number of patients included in each group, description of any standard of care, follow-up period, and outcomes. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of the identified 1866 publications, 9 met the inclusion criteria. The high-quality studies averaged Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies scores of 19.4 for clinical trials and 12.2 for observational studies. These studies evaluated monitoring devices that measured interface pressure, subdermal tissue stress, motion, and moisture. Most studies found a statistically significant decrease in PIs; 2 studies were eligible for meta-analysis, demonstrating that use of monitoring devices was associated with an 88% reduction in the risk of developing PIs (Mantel-Haenszel risk ratio, 0.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.41; I = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: Pressure injury monitoring devices are associated with a strong reduction in the risk of developing PIs. These devices provide clinicians and patients with critical information to implement prevention guidelines. Randomized controlled trials would help assess which technologies are most effective at reducing the risk of developing PIs.

Increased Incidence of Symptomatic Venous Thromboembolism following Pedicled Lower Extremity Flap Harvest for Abdominal and Perineal Reconstruction in Patients Receiving Mechanical Prophylaxis and Chemoprophylaxis: A Case for Heightened Awareness.

BACKGROUND: Postsurgical venous thromboembolism remains a leading cause of hospital morbidity. Data to support venous thromboembolism prophylaxis guidelines in lower extremity flap surgery are lacking. The purpose of this study was to explore the effect of pedicled lower extremity flap harvest on venous thromboembolism development in the setting of abdominal or perineal reconstruction. METHODS: One hundred twenty-six patients undergoing unilateral lower extremity flap harvest for abdominal or perineal reconstruction were included. The contralateral leg served as an internal control. Sixty comorbidity-matched patients who underwent abdominal/perineal resection without flap reconstruction provided an external control. Bivariate analyses included chi-square and t tests; logistic regression adjusted for confounding variables on venous thromboembolism development. RESULTS: All patients underwent flap reconstruction for an oncologic defect of the abdomen or perineum, with 80 percent undergoing perineal reconstruction. Most patients underwent anterolateral thigh (41 percent) or gracilis flap (40 percent) harvest. Eleven patients developed deep venous thromboses in one or more legs (9 percent): 10 of 11 (90.9 percent) in the donor extremity and five (45.5 percent) contralaterally (p = 0.022). Patients who underwent flap harvest had a 10-fold higher odds of venous thromboembolism formation when compared to comorbidity-matched controls without flap reconstruction (OR, 10.64; 95 percent CI, 1.11 to 102.34; p = 0.041). CONCLUSIONS: The rate of venous thromboembolism is higher than previously appreciated for reconstructive procedures of the abdomen and/or perineum that use pedicled lower extremity flaps-particularly in the operative extremity. Additional research can clarify the role for further prophylaxis or screening. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Tissue Expander Placement: A Clinical and Quality of Life Outcomes Study.

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, tissue expanders (TEs) for breast reconstruction have been placed beneath the pectoralis major muscle with or without acellular dermal matrix. More recently, full acellular dermal matrix coverage has been described for prepectoral TE placement. Our study aims to explore differences in clinical and quality-of-life (QOL) outcomes for prepectoral versus subpectoral TE breast reconstruction. METHODS: We identified patients who underwent postmastectomy breast reconstruction with prepectoral or subpectoral TE placement between 2011 and 2015 and completed QOL surveys. Primary outcomes were postoperative pain and QOL scores. Secondary outcomes were clinical outcomes. We used Wilcoxon rank-sum test, chi-square test, and linear regression to compare outcomes. Postoperative follow-up for each patient was at least 60 days, except that of pain scores, which were at least 30 days. Mean age was 49 ± 10 years. RESULTS: Twenty-six prepectoral TE patients and 109 subpectoral TE patients met inclusion criteria. Pain scores were significantly lower at 12 hours, 1 day, 7 days, and 30 days postoperatively for the prepectoral group, compared with the subpectoral group, even after adjusting for confounding variables [PO12H: Sub-Pectoral (SP) median (interquartile range), 7 (5-8), Pre-Pectoral (PP), 5 (2.5-7.5), P value = 0.004; PO1D: SP, 5 (4-6), PP 3 (2-4), P value = < 0.001; PO7D: SP, 2 (0-4), PP, 0 (0-2), P value = 0.004; PO30D: SP, 0 (0-2), PP, 0 (0-0), P value = 0.039)]. Breast-Q scores were not significantly different between study groups. RAND-36 Physical Health scores were lower among prepectoral TE patients. CONCLUSIONS: Prepectoral TE breast reconstruction presents an opportunity to improve upon current reconstructive methods and does result in significantly lower pain scores. The associated risks have yet to be fully described and are important considerations, as these prepectoral patients had lower physical health outcome scores.