Pressure injury risk assessment and prescription of preventative interventions using a structured tool versus clinical judgement: An interrater agreement study.

AIM: To assess agreement of pressure injury risk level and differences in preventative intervention prescription between nurses using a structured risk assessment tool compared with clinical judgement. DESIGN: Interrater agreement study. METHODS: Data were collected from November 2019 to December 2022. Paired nurse-assessors were allocated randomly to independently assess pressure injury risk using a structured tool (incorporating the Waterlow Score), or clinical judgement; then prescribe preventative interventions. Assessments were conducted on 150 acute patient participants in a general tertiary hospital. Agreement of risk level was analysed using absolute agreement proportions, weighted kappa and prevalence-adjusted and bias-adjusted kappa. RESULTS: Ninety-four nurse assessors participated. Absolute agreement of not-at-risk versus at-risk-any-level was substantial, but absolute agreement of risk-level was only fair. Clinical judgement assessors tended to underestimate risk. Where risk level was agreed, prescribed intervention frequencies were similar, although structured tool assessors prescribed more interventions mandated by standard care, while clinical judgement assessors prescribed more additional/optional interventions. Structured tool assessors prescribed more interventions targeted at lower-risk patients, whereas assessors using clinical judgement prescribed more interventions targeted at higher-risk patients. CONCLUSION: There were clear differences in pressure injury risk-level assessment between nurses using the two methods, with important differences in intervention prescription frequencies found. Further research is required into the use of both structured tools and clinical judgement to assess pressure injury risk, with emphasis on the impact of risk assessments on subsequent preventative intervention implementation. IMPACT: The results of this study are important for clinical practice as they demonstrate the influence of using a structured pressure injury risk assessment tool compared to clinical judgement. Whilst further research is required into the use of both structured tools and clinical judgement to assess pressure injury risk and prescribe interventions, our findings do not support a change in practice that would exclude the use of a structured pressure injury risk assessment tool. REPORTING METHOD: This study adhered to the GRRAS reporting guideline. PATIENT/PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public involvement in this study. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: Educators and researchers can use the findings to guide teaching about pressure injury risk assessment and preventative intervention and to direct future studies. For clinical nurses and patients, a change in clinical practice that would exclude the use of a structured risk assessment tool is not recommended and further work is needed to validate the role of clinical judgement to assess risk and its impact on preventative intervention.

Use of a risk-based intervention bundle to prescribe and implement interventions to prevent pressure injury: An observational study.

AIM: To explore the relationship between the prescription and implementation of pressure injury preventative interventions following risk assessment combined with a risk-stratified intervention bundle. DESIGN: Single-centre, cross-sectional, observational, prospective. METHODS: The charts and bedsides of 341 adult inpatients were examined. Data collection included pressure injury risk level, prescribed preventative interventions and evidence of intervention implementation. RESULTS: Most patients (68.6%) were at risk of pressure injury, and most interventions were prescribed according to their risk level. However, evidence from direct observation and/or documentation indicated intervention implementation rates were relatively poor. Of nine interventions mandated for all patients, compliance with three patient-/carer-focused interventions was particularly poor, with evidence indicating they had been implemented for 3%-10% of patients. Also, nutritional screening-related interventions were implemented poorly. Clinically indicated implementation of heel-elevation devices and bariatric equipment was low for at-risk patients, and the implementation of interventions for patients with existing pressure injuries was suboptimal. Significant proportions of several interventions that were observed as having been implemented were not documented as such. CONCLUSION: While most interventions were prescribed according to patient risk level, the overall implementation of interventions was poor. However, the results may in part be due to failure to document interventions as opposed to omitting them. IMPLICATIONS FOR PATIENT CARE: Documentation of interventions is crucial as it provides evidence of the care provided. An increased focus on documentation of pressure injury preventative interventions is required, with a clear distinction between prescription and implementation. IMPACT: The results highlighted several deficiencies in care, particularly relating to evidence of implementation, patient involvement and nutritional screening. The results from this study will be used to inform and improve future pressure injury prevention practice within the study hospital and should be used to inform and benchmark pressure injury preventative practices in other hospitals. REPORTING METHOD: The study adheres to STROBE guidelines. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: None.

Healing rate of hospital-acquired skin tears using adhesive silicone foam versus meshed silicone interface dressings: A prospective, randomized, non-inferiority pilot study.

BACKGROUND: A skin tear is a traumatic wound that occurs in up to one in five hospitalized patients. Nursing care includes application of a dressing to create a moist wound healing environment. AIM: To compare the effectiveness of two standard dressings (adhesive silicone foam vs. meshed silicone interface) to heal hospital-acquired skin tear. METHODS: An intention-to-treat pilot study was designed using a randomized, non-inferiority trial in an Australian tertiary hospital setting. Consenting participants (n = 52) had acquired a skin tear within the previous 24 h and had agreed to a 3-week follow-up. Data were collected between 2014 and 2020. The primary outcome measure was wound healing at 21 days. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar in both arms. Per protocol, 86% of skin tears were fully healed at 3 weeks in the adhesive silicone foam group, compared to 59% in the meshed silicone interface group. Greater healing was observed across all skin tear categories in the adhesive silicone foam dressing group. In the intention-to-treat sample, healing was 69% and 42%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest the adhesive silicone foam dressing may be superior, as it produced clinically significant healing of skin tears at 3 weeks compared to the meshed silicone interface dressing. Accounting for potential loss to follow-up, a sample of at least 103 participants per arm would be required to power a definitive study.

Critical care nursing policy, practice, and research priorities: An international cross-sectional study.

PURPOSE: To examine the status of critical care nursing internationally, assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and identify research priorities by surveying professional critical care nursing organizations (CCNOs) worldwide. DESIGN: A descriptive survey methodology was used. This study is the sixth worldwide quadrennial review to assess international critical care nursing needs and provide evidence to inform critical care nursing policy, practice and research priorities globally. METHODS: The sixth World Federation of Critical Care Nurses survey of CCNOs was emailed to potential participants from countries with CCNOs or known critical care nurse leaders. Data were collected online using Survey Monkey™. Responses were entered into SPSS version 28 software (IBM Corp.) and analyzed by geographical region and national wealth group. FINDINGS: Ninety-nine national representative respondents participated in the survey (70.7% response rate). The most important issues identified were working conditions, teamwork, staffing levels, formal practice guidelines, wages, and access to quality education programs. The top five CCNO services that were of most importance were providing national conferences, local conferences, workshops and education forums, practice standards and guidelines, and professional representation. Important pandemic-related services and activities provided by CCNOs included addressing emotional and mental well-being of nurses, providing guidance related to nurse staffing/workforce needs, assisting to coordinate efforts to obtain personal protective equipment supplies, serving as a country liaison with the World Health Organization's COVID-19 response activities, and assisting in the development and implementation of policies regarding standards of care. The most important contributions expected from the World Federation of Critical Care Nurses were standards for professional practice, standards for clinical practice, website resources, professional representation, and providing online education and training materials. The top five research priority areas were: stress levels (inclusive of burnout, emotional exhaustion and compassion fatigue); critical care nursing shortage, skill mix and workforce planning; recruitment, retention, turnover, working conditions; critical care nursing education and patient outcomes; and adverse events, staffing levels, patient outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The results highlight priority areas for critical care nursing internationally. The COVID-19 pandemic impacted critical care nurses as direct care providers. As a result, addressing the ongoing needs of critical care nurses remains a priority area of focus. The results also highlight important policy and research priorities for critical care nursing globally. Results of this survey should be incorporated into strategic action plans at the national and international levels. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Issues of importance to critical care nurses including research and policy priorities during and following COVID-19 are now clarified through this survey. The impact and importance that COVID-19 has had on critical care nurses and their preferences and priorities are provided. Clear guidance to leaders and policy makers on where critical care nurses would like to see greater focus and attention to help strengthen the contribution of critical care nursing practice to the global healthcare agenda.

Reporting accuracy of pressure injury categorisation in an acute tertiary hospital: A four-year analysis.

AIM: To determine the reporting accuracy of pressure injury categorisation by bedside clinicians, compared with nurse experts. BACKGROUND: Pressure injuries are an enduring complication of hospitalisation. The categorisation of pressure injury affects treatment and management decision-making and use of resources, and severe hospital-acquired pressure injury incidence is used to benchmark quality of care. However, it is unclear how accurately pressure injuries are categorised by clinicians in practice. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of hospital pressure injury incident and validation data. METHODS: All pressure injuries reported in adults between 2016 and 2019 that were subsequently validated by nurse experts were analysed. Absolute agreement is reported using percentages, with inter-rater agreement reported using Kappa measure of agreement. The GRRAS reporting guideline was followed. RESULTS: Of 6186 pressure injuries that were analysed, the category was reported correctly in 67.3% (n = 4163), with an overall moderate level of inter-rater agreement by category (Κ = .567, p < .001). Of those found to be non-pressure injuries when validated (18.3%, n = 1129), most were reported originally as stage II (41.2%, n = 465) or stage I (30.5%, n = 344), and 13.4% (n = 151) were categorised initially as unstageable. The majority reported initially as stage I, stage II, suspected deep tissue injury or mucosal pressure injury were validated, whereas half of those reported initially as stage III or IV were validated and less than a third of those reported initially as unstageable pressure injuries were validated. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides important insight into the accuracy of pressure injury categorisation. Whilst moderate agreement of categorisation was found between reporting clinicians and nurse experts, pressure injury differential diagnosis and categorisation of severe injuries were inadequate. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: These results may be used for benchmarking and provide a focal point for future education and practice improvement efforts. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Neither patients nor the public were directly involved in the project.

Incidence and characteristics of hospital-acquired mucous membrane pressure injury: A five-year analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pressure injuries on mucous membranes are caused by pressure from medical devices at the site of injury and differ to those on the skin. Intensive care patients, who have multiple devices in situ, are particularly vulnerable. There is a significant knowledge gap regarding mucous membrane pressure injury (MMPI) incidence in acute hospital settings. AIM: To analyse MMPI incidence and characteristics in a tertiary acute general hospital. METHODS: A secondary data analysis of hospital clinical incident reports was conducted. The sample included all adults with MMPIs between 2015 and 2019. The STROBE reporting guideline was followed. RESULTS: There were 414 reports of MMPI. Most (91.5%, n = 379) were hospital-acquired with the majority found in intensive care patients (74.4%, n = 282). Hospital-acquired MMPI incidence was 0.1% (11 MMPI per 10,000 hospital episodes). In intensive care, the incidence was 2.4% (235 MMPI per 10,000 intensive care episodes). The median time from device insertion until reporting of an MMPI was 3 days. The most common sites of mucosal injury were the lips (35.6%) and mouth (28.8%). In all cases except one, MMPI was associated with medical device use at the site of injury. Five device types were identified (oral endotracheal tube-related 70.3%; urinary catheter 15.5%; gastric tube 8.3%; nasal prongs 3.5%; tracheostomy tube 2.4%). In intensive care, oral endotracheal tube-related devices were most often associated with MMPI (84.8%), whereas in non-intensive care MMPI it was the urinary catheter (51.4%). CONCLUSIONS: While hospital-acquired MMPI incidence is relatively low, it is considerably higher in intensive care patients compared to those in non-intensive care settings. The most common sites are the lips and mouth. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Mucous membrane pressure injuries represent a significant proportion of all hospital-acquired pressure injuries. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Neither patients nor the public were directly involved in this project.

Patient and carer experience of living with a pressure injury: A meta-synthesis of qualitative studies.

INTRODUCTION: Pressure injuries are a significant cause of harm, contributing to increased mortality and financial burden on the healthcare system. Significant research on pressure injury risk assessment, prevention and treatment exists, but limited research exploring the patient and carer experience of living with pressure injury. AIMS: The aim of this meta-synthesis was to describe the patient and carer experience of living with a pressure injury. DESIGN: Meta-synthesis. METHODS: A prospective review protocol was registered, and systematic search conducted across five electronic databases. The PRISMA 2020 checklist for reporting systematic reviews was used. Two reviewers independently undertook screening and review of articles, using the CASP checklist for evaluating qualitative research. A meta-synthesis using thematic content analysis was undertaken. RESULTS: Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria. Meta-synthesis led to the construction of three primary themes: loss of autonomy and independence, psychological effects, and adjustment. Within these primary themes, sub-themes of dependence, social isolation and social avoidance behaviours, feelings and emotions, loss, managing, physical consequences, service provision, and functional challenges, were identified. CONCLUSION: The psychology and mindset of those involved, and support to navigate the challenges that arise are two unique and clinically relevant categorisations to guide provision of pressure injury care. Adaptation to a pressure injury is multi-faceted and contextual, challenges to adaptation create additional psychological burden. Interventions encompassing all facets of the experience are necessary. Current research into experiences is limited, and further research to support interventions is necessary.

State-wide prevalence of pressure injury in intensive care versus acute general patients: A five-year analysis.

AIM: The aim of this study was to analyse prevalence of pressure injury in intensive care versus non-intensive care patients. BACKGROUND: Hospital-acquired pressure injury is an enduring problem. Intensive care patients are more susceptible due to multiple risk factors. Several studies have indicated that intensive care patients are more likely than general patients to develop pressure injuries. DESIGN: Secondary data analysis. METHODS: Eighteen general hospitals with intensive care units were included. The sample included all consenting patients. Logistic regression modelling was used to derive prevalence and effect estimates. STROBE reporting guidelines were followed. RESULTS: The sample comprised 15,678 patients; 611 were in intensive care. The crude prevalence estimate of hospital-acquired pressure injury was 9.6% in intensive care and 2.1% in non-intensive care patients. The ≥Stage II hospital-acquired prevalence estimate in was 8.6% intensive care and 1.2% in non-intensive care patients. Intensive care patients were at markedly increased risk of hospital-acquired pressure injury compared with non-intensive care patients, with risk persisting after adjusting for pressure injury risk score. Risk of ≥ Stage II hospital-acquired pressure injury was further elevated. Intensive care patients had a higher pressure injury risk level and developed a greater proportion of severe hospital-acquired pressure injuries than non-intensive care patients. In intensive care, most hospital-acquired pressure injuries were found on the sacrum/coccyx and heels. CONCLUSIONS: There were significant differences between the hospital-acquired pressure injury prevalence of intensive care versus non-intensive care patients, which is consistent with previous studies. Overall, the prevalence of hospital-acquired pressure injury in intensive care is relatively high, indicating that their prevention should remain a high priority within the intensive care setting. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: These results may be used for benchmarking and provide a focus for future education and practice improvement efforts. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Neither patients nor the public were directly involved in the project.

Comparison of pressure injury risk assessment outcomes using a structured assessment tool versus clinical judgement: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Whilst performing a pressure injury risk assessment is not in itself preventive, risk status identification is critical to inform the judicious implementation of prevention strategies. Risk assessment is mostly undertaken using a structured tool informed by clinical judgement, though there is a perception that use of clinical judgement alone may be sufficient. OBJECTIVES: Within acute hospital settings, to identify differences in outcomes (risk status, preventive interventions) following nursing assessment of pressure injury risk when using a structured assessment tool compared to clinical judgement. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: EBSCO CINAHL Complete, EBSCO MEDLINE Complete, Scopus, Web of Science, Ovid EMBASE. METHODS: Primary research relevant to the objectives was eligible for inclusion. Databases were searched in February 2021 (limits: date 2010-2020, English language, adults). Two reviewers undertook the review process, with a third as arbitrator. Appraisal was undertaken using Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools. Included studies are synthesised narratively. Reporting is in accordance with the PRISMA Statement. RESULTS: Five moderate to high-quality studies were included. Synthesis was limited by heterogeneity. Several risk assessment tools and methods of clinical judgement were used. Three studies reported pressure injury risk status using both assessment approaches, but in only one did nurses undertake both. Risk status, as identified by each method, varied and was sometimes contradictory. Three studies reported some elements of preventive intervention prescription and/or implementation following risk assessment, but comparison between approaches was limited. CONCLUSIONS: Some research suggests that risk status varies across different methods of pressure injury risk assessment, but it is unclear what impact this has on preventive intervention use. Risk status was not well linked to preventive interventions. Research is warranted to examine the influence that each approach to risk assessment alone and combined has on identified risk and preventive intervention prescription and implementation. REGISTRATION: A protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021224747).

Pressure injury prevention practice in Australian intensive care units: A national cross-sectional survey.

INTRODUCTION: Pressure injury (PI) is an ongoing problem for patients in intensive care units (ICUs). The aim of this study was to explore the nature and extent of PI prevention practices in Australian adult ICUs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An Australian multicentre, cross-sectional study was conducted via telephone interview using a structured survey instrument comprising six categories: workplace demographics, patient assessment, PI prevention strategies, medical devices, skin hygiene, and other health service strategies. Publicly funded adult ICUs, accredited with the College of Intensive Care Medicine, were surveyed. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and chi-square tests for independence to explore associations according to geographical location. RESULTS: Of the 75 eligible ICUs, 70 responded (93% response rate). PI was considered problematic in two-thirds (68%) of all ICUs. Common PI prevention strategies included risk assessment and visual skin assessment conducted within at least 6 h of admission (70% and 73%, respectively), a structured repositioning regimen (90%), use of barrier products to protect the skin (94%), sacrum or heel prophylactic multilayered silicone foam dressings (88%), regular PI chart audits (96%), and PI quality improvement projects (90%). PI prevention rounding and safety huddles were used in 37% of ICUs, and 31% undertook PI research. Although most ICUs were supported by a facility-wide skin integrity service, it was more common in metropolitan ICUs than in rural and regional ICUs (p < 0.001). Conversely, there was greater involvement of occupational therapists in PI prevention in rural or regional ICUs than in metropolitan ICUs (p = 0.026). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: This is the first study to provide a comprehensive description of PI prevention practices in Australian ICUs. Findings demonstrate that PI prevention practices, although nuanced in some areas to geographical location, are used in multiple and varied ways across ICUs.

Use of a Sacral Foam Dressing to Prevent Pressure Injury in At-Risk Subacute Hospitalized Older Adults: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this pilot study was to inform a future trial aimed at comparing the effectiveness of a prophylactic sacral dressing plus standard care to standard care only to reduce sacral pressure injuries (PIs) in at-risk older adults admitted to a subacute hospital setting. DESIGN: A pilot study with a pragmatic, open-label, randomized controlled trial design. SAMPLE AND SETTING: One hundred thirty participants were randomized (intervention n = 66, 50.8%; control n = 64, 49.2%). Protocol violations occurred in 48 participants (intervention n = 33, 68.8%; control n = 15, 31.3%). The study setting was a subacute hospital inpatient care unit located in Queensland, Australia. METHODS: Participants were randomly allocated 1:1 to the intervention (prophylactic dressing plus standard care) or control group (standard care). Standard care included regular PI risk and skin assessments, and selection and implementation of preventive interventions (eg, support surfaces and increased repositioning) from a PI prevention care plan. The sacral dressing was applied for intervention participants immediately following recruitment. Ward and research staff collected data and assessed skin integrity daily; participants were followed up until onset of a PI or up to 28 days without PI occurrence. In addition, retrospective chart reviews were undertaken to verify PI occurrences. Patient comfort and dressing utility were also evaluated. RESULTS: Two (3.0%) participants in the intervention group and 1 (1.6%) in the control group developed a sacral PI. The difference was not statistically significant. Only 1 PI was recorded prospectively, while 2 PIs were identified via retrospective chart review. Participants rated dressing comfort highly, particularly during the first 2 weeks, and nurses rated utility highly. Based on the intention-to-treat results, a sample size of 1799 per arm would be required in a definitive trial. CONCLUSIONS: A definitive trial is feasible and warranted. However, the large sample size required in a definitive trial indicates the need for multiple sites.

Systematic review: Incidence and prevalence of mucous membrane pressure injury in adults admitted to acute hospital settings.

Mucous membrane pressure injury (MMPI) is associated with a history of medical device use at the site of injury. The current international guideline recommends they should be reported in incidence and prevalence studies. The aim of this systematic review was to analyse the incidence and prevalence of hospital-acquired MMPI in adults admitted to acute hospital settings. Database searches (EBSCO CINAHL Complete, EBSCO Medline Complete, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science) were undertaken between October 2019 and February 2021, using search terms related to hospital-acquired, mucosal and device-related pressure injury/ulcer incidence and prevalence. Searches were limited to the English language. Articles published between 2008 and 2020, reporting incidence or prevalence of mucous membrane or medical device-related pressure injury in non-interventional samples were selected. Two authors assessed study bias and extracted data, with a third reviewer as arbitrator. Twenty-one studies met inclusion criteria; most provided incidence data. No studies were found that specifically reported MMPI incidence or prevalence. It was possible to calculate incidence or prevalence from four studies; all were in intensive care settings. MMPI incidence of 0.8% and 30.4%, and prevalence of 1.7% and 3.7% were found. One study provided data that enabled calculation of prevalence of 0.1% in a non-intensive care sample. Only one other study provided specific data about MMPI. It is concluded that there is insufficient evidence available to enable estimation of MMPI incidence or prevalence in either acute hospital or intensive care settings.

Skin tear prevalence in an Australian acute care hospital: A 10-year analysis.

Hospital-acquired skin tear prevalence is under-reported; thus, the aim of this study was to analyse skin tear point prevalence and characteristics in a tertiary acute care hospital in Queensland, Australia, over a 10-year period. All consenting adult inpatients received a full skin inspection and skin tear category, site, cause, treatment, and whether it was documented as hospital- or community-acquired were recorded. Eleven prevalence audits were analysed with a total sample of 3626 patients. An overall pooled prevalence of 8.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 7.5-10.4) with an associated hospital-acquired pooled prevalence of 5.5% (95% CI 4.5-6.7) was found. In total, 616 skin tears were reported, of which 374 (60.7%) were hospital-acquired. Over a third of patients (38.7%) had multiple skin tears and most patients (84.8%) with at least one skin tear were aged ≥70 years. The largest proportion of skin tears (40.1%) was those with no skin flap. Of those documented, most were caused by falls or collisions, suggesting combined skin tear and falls prevention strategies may be effective. Over a decade, there was a downward trend in hospital-acquired skin tear, which is encouraging. Skin tear prevalence is recommended as a measure of care quality with an emphasis on good quality documentation.

Effectiveness of interventions to prevent pressure injury in adults admitted to intensive care settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to investigate the effectiveness of interventions to prevent pressure injury in adults admitted to intensive care settings. REVIEW METHOD USED: This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: Five databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase) were searched in mid-2019. Searches were updated (in April 2020) to year end 2019. REVIEW METHODS: From an overarching systematic review and meta-analysis examining the effectiveness of pressure injury preventative interventions in adults admitted to acute hospital settings, trials conducted in intensive care were separated for an intensive care-specific synthesis. Two reviewers, with a third as an arbitrator, undertook study selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment. Included trials were grouped by intervention type for narrative synthesis and for random-effects meta-analysis using intention-to-treat data where appropriate. RESULTS: Overall, 26 trials were included. Ten intervention types were found (support surfaces, prophylactic dressings, positioning, topical preparations, continence management, endotracheal tube securement, heel protection devices, medication, noninvasive ventilation masks, and bundled interventions). All trials, except one, were at high or unclear risk of bias. Four intervention types (endotracheal tube securement, heel protection devices, medication, and noninvasive ventilation masks) comprised single trials. Support surface trials were limited to type (active, reactive, seating, other). Meta-analysis was undertaken for reactive surfaces, but the intervention effect was not significant (risk ratio = 0.24, p = 0.12, I2 = 51%). Meta-analyses demonstrated the effectiveness of sacral (risk ratio = 0.22, p < 0.001, I2 = 0%) and heel (risk ratio = 0.31, p = 0.02; I2 = 0%) prophylactic dressings for pressure injury prevention. CONCLUSIONS: Only prophylactic sacral and heel dressings demonstrated effectiveness in preventing pressure injury in adults admitted to intensive care settings. Further intensive care-specific trials are required across all intervention types. To minimise bias, we recommend that all future trials are conducted and reported as per relevant guidelines and recommendations.

Implementation and evaluation of multilayered pressure injury prevention strategies in an Australian intensive care unit setting.

BACKGROUND: Pressure injuries are a ubiquitous, yet largely preventable, hospital acquired complication commonly seen in critically ill patients in the intensive care unit. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to implement targeted evidence-based pressure injury prevention strategies and evaluate their effect through measurement of patient pressure injury observations. METHODS: A prospective multiphased design was used in the intensive care unit of an Australian tertiary referral hospital using three study periods (period 1, weeks 1-18; period 2, weeks 19-28; and period 3, weeks 29-52). The interventions included staff-focused interventions and patient-focused interventions, with the latter defined in a work unit guideline. Weekly visual observations of critically ill patients' skin integrity were conducted by trained research nurses over 52 weeks from November 2015 to November 2016. The primary outcome measure was a pressure injury of any stage, identified at the weekly observation, and the effect of the intervention was evaluated through logistic regression. Reporting rigour has been demonstrated using the Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence checklist. RESULTS: Over the whole study, 15.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 12.6, 18.2%, 97/631) of patients developed a pressure injury, with the majority of these injuries (73.2%, 95% CI = 64.4%, 82.0%, 71/97) caused by medical devices. After adjustment for covariates known to influence hospital-acquired pressure injury development, pressure injury rates for period 3 compared with period 1 were reduced (odds ratio = 0.41, 95% CI = 0.20-0.97, p = 0.0126). CONCLUSIONS: We found the use of defined pressure injury prevention strategies targeted at both staff and patients reduced pressure injury prevalence.

The Fifth International Survey of Critical Care Nursing Organizations: Implications for Policy.

PURPOSE: To examine the activities, concerns, and expectations of critical care nurses and professional critical care nursing organizations worldwide. DESIGN: A descriptive survey methodology was used. This study is the fifth worldwide quadrennial review of its type to monitor variations in critical care nursing needs and provide robust evidence to inform policy related to critical care nursing practice. METHODS: The fifth World Federation of Critical Care Nurses international survey of critical care nursing organizations was emailed to potential participants from countries with critical care nursing organizations or known critical care nurse leaders. Data were collected online. Responses were entered into SPSS version 23 software (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) and analyzed by geographical region and national wealth group. FINDINGS: Eighty-two national representative respondents participated in the survey, of whom two thirds (n = 56, 68%) had an established critical care nursing organization in their country. The five most important issues identified were working conditions, teamwork, staffing levels, the need for formal practice guidelines and competencies, and wages. The top five critical care nursing organization services that were considered to be of most importance were professional representation, as well as provision of workshops and education forums, national conferences, practice standards and guidelines, and local conferences. The most important contributions expected from the World Federation of Critical Care Nurses were standards for clinical practice and professional practice, international conferences, professional representation, and study and education grants. CONCLUSIONS: The results highlight priority areas for critical care nursing and reinforce the need to address factors that can inform critical care nursing policy and practice. Results of this survey should be incorporated into strategic action plans at the national and international levels. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Nursing leaders, policymakers, and other interested stakeholders should consider these findings when planning critical care workforce requirements. Interested parties should work collaboratively to inform recommendations for further policy and action.

International consensus on pressure injury preventative interventions by risk level for critically ill patients: A modified Delphi study.

The aim of this modified Delphi study was to determine a minimum pressure injury preventative intervention set for implementation relative to critically ill patients' risk level. Preventative interventions were identified via systematic review, risk levels categorised by an intensive-care-specific risk-assessment-scale (COMHON Index), and panel members (n = 67) identified through an international critical care nursing body. Round 1: panel members were asked to rate implementation of 12 interventions according to risk level (low, moderate, high). Round 2: interventions were rated for use at the risk level which received greatest round 1 support. Round 3: interventions not yet achieving consensus were again rated, and discarded where consensus was not reached. Consensus indicated all patients should receive: risk assessment within 2-hours of admission; 8-hourly risk reassessment; and use of disposable incontinence pads. Additionally, moderate- and high-risk patients should receive: a reactive mattress support surface and a heel off-loading device. High-risk patients should also receive: nutritional supplements if eating orally; preventative dressings (sacral, heel, trochanteric); an active mattress support surface; and a pressure-redistributing cushion for sitting. Repositioning is required at least 4-hourly for low-risk, and 2-hourly for moderate- and high-risk patients. Rigorous application of the intervention set has the potential to decrease pressure injuries in intensive care.

Relationship Between Prescription and Documentation of Pressure Injury Prevention Interventions and Their Implementation: An Exploratory, Descriptive Study.

BACKGROUND: Formal assessment by nurses of a patient's pressure injury (PI) risk level is often highlighted as being key to PI prevention. However, if no action is taken to address the determined risk (i.e., if appropriate preventative interventions are not implemented), the patient remains vulnerable to PI development, and the assessment process is rendered pointless. AIM: To explore the relationship between the prescription (planning) and implementation of PI preventative interventions by nurses following formal risk assessment. METHODS: Using an exploratory, descriptive design, the charts and bedside areas of 200 adult patients admitted across four hospital wards were examined. Data collected included PI risk level, documented prescribed preventative interventions, and interventions for which there was evidence of implementation. RESULTS: Of the final sample (n = 187), 66.8% of cases were categorized as being "at-risk" or above. As the risk category of patients increased, proportionately more patients in each category were prescribed each intervention. However, in most cases, significantly fewer interventions were actually implemented than were prescribed, except for several interventions that were implemented in more cases than were prescribed. There were 14 cases, including four at-risk and three high-risk patients, in which no preventative interventions were prescribed, while 88.7% of not at-risk patients had (unnecessary) preventative interventions prescribed. DISCUSSION: These results indicate that intervention prescription increased relative to assessed level of risk; however, the rates of intervention prescription and actual implementation were suboptimal. The results indicate a significant mismatch between these two steps of PI prevention. LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: These results indicate that intervention prescription increased relative to assessed level of risk; however, the rates of intervention prescription and actual implementation were suboptimal. A significant mismatch between these two steps of PI prevention was evident. Following patient risk assessment, there should be a greater focus on appropriate preventative intervention prescription (planning) with regular review and audit to help ensure that interventions are implemented as prescribed. Improved implementation of preventative interventions should, in turn, help to reduce hospital-acquired pressure injuries.

Australian Nurses' Knowledge of Pressure Injury Prevention and Management: A Cross-sectional Survey.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess nurses' knowledge of pressure injuries in order to gather benchmark data, identify knowledge gaps, and based on results, implement educational strategies to improve practice. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SUBJECTS AND SETTING: The study setting was a large Australian tertiary general hospital employing approximately 2500 nurses in both full-time and part-time roles. A proportional sample (25%) stratified by experience, preparation, and facility-generated categories (nursing grade) was generated. The sample included nursing students and nursing assistants. Three hundred six participants completing the survey. INSTRUMENT: The Pieper-Zulkowski Pressure Ulcer Knowledge Test (PZPUKT) version 2, comprising 72 statements, with 3 subscales (prevention/risk, staging, and wound description) was used to measure pressure injury knowledge. Item responses are "True," "False," and "Don't know." For the purpose of analyses, correct responses were scored 1, and incorrect or "don't know" responses were scored 0. Generally accepted ranges of scoring for the original PZPUKT specify less than 70% as unsatisfactory, 70% to 79.9% as satisfactory, 80% to 89.9% as good, and 90% and greater as very good knowledge of pressure injury prevention. METHODS: The survey was advertised throughout the hospital by strategically placed posters, computer screen savers within the hospital, and e-mails. Respondents completed paper-based questionnaires and data were manually entered online. Data were collected between September 2015 and October 2016. Descriptive and nonparametric inferential statistical tests (Mann-Whitney U, Kruskal-Wallis H) were used to analyze within sample differences in scores. RESULTS: The overall mean knowledge score was 65%; approximately two-thirds of the sample (68%) scored 60% and greater, reflecting an unsatisfactory knowledge level of pressure injury prevention according to the original PZPUKT scores. The lowest mean scores were found in the "wound description" subscale. Participants who sought pressure injury information via the Internet or had read pressure injury guidelines scored significantly higher than those who did not (P = .001 and P < .001, respectively). Seventeen items were answered incorrectly by over half of participants, identifying important knowledge deficits, particularly within the wound description subscale. CONCLUSIONS: When compared with results from studies using the PZPUKT, we contend that a cutoff score of 60% and greater (instead of ≥70%) should be used to indicate an overall satisfactory score. Our results identified deficits in pressure injury knowledge related to seating support and seated individuals and wound dressings as areas where nurses would benefit from focused education strategies.

Prevalence of pressure injury in adults presenting to the emergency department by ambulance.

INTRODUCTION: Pressure injuries are harmful, painful, and potentially preventable. Although hospital-acquired pressure injury prevalence is decreasing, it is unclear if some pressure injuries develop before hospital admission. The objective of this study was to investigate the prevalence of pressure injury in adults on arrival by ambulance to the emergency department (ED). METHODS: An observational, cross-sectional descriptive study design was used. Participants (n = 212) were recruited from the EDs of two Australian tertiary hospitals. Full skin inspection and pressure injury risk assessment, using Braden and Waterlow scores, were undertaken within 1 h of presentation. RESULTS: Pressure injuries were identified in 11 of 212 participants, giving a prevalence of 5.2% at presentation. Nearly all were admitted to hospital, giving a prevalence of 7.8% at this entry point. Participants with pressure injury and those at high risk of injury were found to have spent longer in the ambulance and within the ED. During ambulance transport and in the first hour of presentation to the ED, it was rare that pressure-relieving interventions were implemented, even for those with an identified pressure injury and those at high risk. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that early pressure injury surveillance and risk assessment are merited at the point of presentation to the ED, so that prevention and treatment can be implemented at the earliest possible opportunity. Although it is more challenging to manage pressure injuries within the ambulance and ED, the use of pressure-relieving devices should be considered for those at greatest risk. Further research is recommended.