Co-design of an intervention to improve patient participation in discharge medication communication.

Patients can experience medication-related harm and hospital readmission because they do not understand or adhere to post-hospital medication instructions. Increasing patient medication literacy and, in turn, participation in medication conversations could be a solution. The purposes of this study were to co-design and test an intervention to enhance patient participation in hospital discharge medication communication. In terms of methods, co-design, a collaborative approach where stakeholders design solutions to problems, was used to develop a prototype medication communication intervention. First, our consumer and healthcare professional stakeholders generated intervention ideas. Next, inpatients, opinion leaders, and academic researchers collaborated to determine the most pertinent and feasible intervention ideas. Finally, the prototype intervention was shown to six intended end-users (i.e. hospital patients) who underwent usability interviews and completed the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability questionnaire. The final intervention comprised of a suite of three websites: (i) a medication search engine; (ii) resources to help patients manage their medications once home; and (iii) a question builder tool. The intervention has been tested with intended end-users and results of the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability questionnaire have shown that the intervention is acceptable. Identified usability issues have been addressed. In conclusion, this co-designed intervention provides patients with trustworthy resources that can help them to understand medication information and ask medication-related questions, thus promoting medication literacy and patient participation. In turn, this intervention could enhance patients' medication self-efficacy and healthcare utilization. Using a co-design approach ensured authentic consumer and other stakeholder engagement, while allowing opinion leaders and researchers to ensure that a feasible intervention was developed.

Prevalence and incidence of pressure injuries among nursing home residents with darker skin tones: A prospective cohort study.

AIM: To measure the prevalence and incidence of nursing home-acquired pressure injuries in older adults residing in Sri Lankan nursing homes. BACKGROUND: Pressure injury prevalence and incidence are indicators of safety and quality of care. A significant portion of the global population has a skin color dominated by the presence of melanin. Yet, the number of nursing home residents with darker skin tones who develop pressure injuries in nursing homes is relatively unknown. DESIGN: Prospective multisite cohort study conducted in nine nursing homes in Sri Lanka. The sample comprised 210 residents aged ≥60 years old. METHODS: Semi structured observations and chart audits were used to gather data from July to October 2023. Head-to-toe visual skin assessment to check for nursing home- acquired pressure injuries, Braden pressure injury risk scale and Fitzpatrick skin tone assessments were conducted on all recruited residents at baseline. All recruited residents were followed-up weekly for 12 weeks until detection of a new pressure injury, death, discharge, or transfer. RESULTS: Pressure injury point prevalence at baseline was 8.1% (17/210). Cumulative incidence was 17.1% (36/210). Incidence density was 15.8 per 1000 resident weeks. Most nursing home-acquired pressure injuries were located on the ankle at baseline (29.4%; 5/17) and in the follow-up period (27.8%; 10/36). Stage I pressure injuries were most common: 58.8% (10/17) and 44.4% (16/36) at baseline and during follow-up respectively. CONCLUSIONS: About one in six nursing home residents developed a new pressure injury over the 12-week follow-up period. Despite staff and resource constraints, there remains a need to focus on the prevention of pressure injuries in Sri Lankan nursing homes. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Studies on the burden of pressure injuries among darker skin tone nursing home residents are lacking and the current evidence available are predominantly from Western countries. The findings of this study highlight the need of targeted preventive measures for nursing home residents with darker skin tones.

Prophylactic dressings to prevent sacral pressure injuries in adult patients admitted to intensive care units: A three-arm feasibility randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Pressure injuries in intensive care patients are a safety issue. Specialized foam sacral prophylactic dressings prevent pressure injuries with several products available for clinicians to choose from. OBJECTIVES: Assess the feasibility of conducting a multisite trial to test the effectiveness of two dressings versus usual care in preventing sacral pressure injuries in intensive care patients. METHODS: Using a three-arm pilot randomized trial design, adult intensive care unit patients at risk for pressure injuries were randomly allocated to the Mepilex® Sacrum dressing, the Allevyn™ Life Sacrum dressing or the control group. Daily pressure injury data were collected including a de-identified sacral photograph, which the blinded outcome assessor used to determine the study end point: a new sacral pressure injury. Pre-determined feasibility criteria were measured in terms of eligibility, recruitment, retention, intervention fidelity and missing data. RESULTS: From May-September 2021, we screened 602 intensive care unit adult patients for eligibility with 93 % (n = 558) excluded. Forty-four (7 %) were eligible, and all were recruited and randomized (100 %). After receipt of the intervention two participants withdrew from the study. Our final sample of 42 participants were randomly allocated to the Mepilex® (n = 12), Allevyn™ (n = 14) or control (n = 16) group. The interventions were delivered as intended and there were 11 (6 %) cases of missing outcome data. Five participants (12 %) developed a sacral pressure injury, four of whom received a sacral dressing. CONCLUSIONS: A larger trial is feasible with minor refinement to the length of stay eligibility criterion. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Prophylactic sacral dressings are recommended for pressure injury prevention. Determining the feasibility of a larger trial to test the effectiveness of two dressings versus usual care in preventing sacral pressure injuries in intensive care patients can provide evidence to aid clinicians, policy makers and managers make value-based care decisions.

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.

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.