Effect of supplements/intensive nutrition on pressure ulcer healing: a multicentre, randomised controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of an intensive nutrition intervention or use of wound healing supplements compared with standard nutritional care in pressure ulcer (PU) healing in hospitalised patients. METHOD: Adult patients with a Stage II or greater PU and predicted length of stay (LOS) of at least seven days were eligible for inclusion in this pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial (RCT). Patients with a PU were randomised to receive either: standard nutritional care (n=46); intensive nutritional care delivered by a dietitian (n=42); or standard care plus provision of a wound healing nutritional formula (n=43). Relevant nutritional and PU parameters were collected at baseline and then weekly or until discharge. RESULTS: Of the 546 patients screened, 131 were included in the study. Participant mean age was 66.1±16.9 years, 75 (57.2%) were male and 50 (38.5%) were malnourished at recruitment. Median length of stay was 14 (IQR: 7-25) days and 62 (46.7%) had ≥2 PUs at the time of recruitment. Median change from baseline to day 14 in PU area was -0.75cm2 (IQR: -2.9_-0.03) and mean overall change in Pressure Ulcer Scale for Healing (PUSH) score was -2.9 (SD 3.2). Being in the nutrition intervention group was not a predictor of change in PUSH score, when adjusted for PU stage or location on recruitment (p=0.28); it was not a predictor of PU area at day 14, when adjusted for PU stage or area on recruitment (p=0.89) or PU stage and PUSH score on recruitment (p=0.91), nor a predictor of time to heal. CONCLUSION: This study failed to confirm a significant positive impact on PU healing of use of an intensive nutrition intervention or wound healing supplements in hospitalised patients. Further research that focuses on practical mechanisms to meet protein and energy requirements is needed to guide practice.

Predicting the likelihood of venous leg ulcer recurrence: The diagnostic accuracy of a newly developed risk assessment tool.

The aim of this study was to validate a newly developed tool for predicting the risk of recurrence within 12 months of a venous leg ulcer healing. Performance of the tool to predict recurrence within a 12-month period was assessed using Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUC) analysis. Multi-site retrospective and prospective longitudinal studies were undertaken to validate a risk assessment tool for the recurrence of venous leg ulcers within 12 months. In the retrospective study (n = 250), 55% of venous leg ulcers recurred within 12 months, and the risk assessment total score had excellent discrimination and goodness of fit with an AUC of 0.83 (95% CI, 0.76-0.90, P < .001). The prospective study (n = 143) observed that 50.4% (n = 63) of venous leg ulcers recurred within 12 months of healing. Participants were classified using the risk assessment tool as being at low risk (28%), moderate risk (59%), and high risk (13%); the proportion of wounds recurring at 12 months was 15%, 61%, and 67% for each group, respectively. Validation results indicated good discrimination and goodness of fit, with an AUC of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.64-0.82, P < .001). Validation of this risk assessment tool for the recurrence of venous leg ulcers provides clinicians with a resource to identify high-risk patients and to guide decisions on adjunctive, tailored interventions to address the specific risk factors to decrease the risk of recurrence.

Predicting delayed healing: The diagnostic accuracy of a venous leg ulcer risk assessment tool.

The aim of this study was to validate a newly developed tool that can predict the risk of failure to heal of a venous leg ulcer in 24 weeks. The risk assessment tool was validated, and performance of the tool was assessed using Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUC) analysis. Retrospective and prospective validation was conducted through multi-site, longitudinal studies. In the retrospective study (n = 318), 30% of ulcers did not heal within 24 weeks, with the tool demonstrating an AUC of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.68-0.93, P < .001) for the total score. In the prospective study across 10 clinical sites (n = 225), 31% (n = 68) of ulcers did not heal within 24 weeks. Participants were classified with the RAT at enrolment as being at low risk (27%), moderate risk (53%) or high risk (20%) of delayed healing; the proportion of wounds unhealed at 24 weeks was 6%, 29% and 59%, respectively. Validation results of the total score indicated good discrimination and goodness of fit with an AUC of 0.78 (95% CI, 0.71-0.85, P < .001). Validation of this risk assessment tool offers assurance that realistic outcomes can be predicted for patients, and scores can guide early decisions on interventions to address specific risk factors for failing to heal, thus promoting timely healing.

Incidence and risk factors for surgically acquired pressure ulcers: a prospective cohort study investigators.

PURPOSE: To assess the incidence of hospital-acquired, surgery-related pressure injury (ulcers) and identify risk factors for these injuries. DESIGN: We used a prospective cohort study to investigate the research question. SUBJECTS AND SETTINGS: The study was conducted at a major metropolitan hospital in Brisbane, Australia. Five hundred thirty-four adult patients booked for any surgical procedure expected to last more than 30 minutes were eligible for inclusion. METHODS: Patients who provided informed consent for study participation were assessed for pressure ulcers, using the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel and National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel Guidelines, before entering the operating room and again in the post-anesthetic care unit (PACU). Research nurses and all PACU nurses were trained in skin assessment and in pressure ulcer staging. Patients were not assessed again after their discharge from the PACU. RESULTS: Seven patients (1.3%) had existing pressure injuries (ulcers) and a further 6 (1.3%) developed a surgery-related pressure ulcer. Risk factors associated with surgery-related pressure injuries were similar to non-surgically related risks and included older age, skin condition, and being admitted from a location other than one's own home. Length of surgery was not associated with pressure ulcer development in this cohort. CONCLUSION: Perioperative nurses play an important role in identifying existing or new pressure injuries. However, many of these nurses are unfamiliar with pressure ulcer classification, so education in this area is essential. Although the incidence of surgically acquired pressure ulcers was low in this cohort, careful skin inspection before and after surgery provides an opportunity for early treatment and may prevent existing lesions progressing to higher stages.

Pressure ulcers: effectiveness of risk-assessment tools. A randomised controlled trial (the ULCER trial).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of two pressure-ulcer screening tools against clinical judgement in preventing pressure ulcers. DESIGN: A single blind randomised controlled trial. SETTING: A large metropolitan tertiary hospital. PARTICIPANTS: 1231 patients admitted to internal medicine or oncology wards. Patients were excluded if their hospital stay was expected to be 2 days or less. INTERVENTIONS: Participants allocated to either a Waterlow (n=410) or Ramstadius (n=411) screening tool group or to a clinical judgement group (n=410) where no formal risk screening instrument was used. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Incidence of hospital acquired pressure ulcers ascertained by regular direct observation. Use of any devices for the prevention of pressure ulcers, documentation of a pressure plan and any dietetic or specialist skin integrity review were recorded. RESULTS: On admission, 71 (5.8%) patients had an existing pressure ulcer. The incidence of hospital-acquired pressure ulcers was similar between groups (clinical judgement 28/410 (6.8%); Waterlow 31/411 (7.5%); Ramstadius 22/410 (5.4%), p=0.44). Significant associations with pressure injury in regression modelling included requiring a dietetic referral, being admitted from a location other than home and age over 65 years. CONCLUSION: The authors found no evidence to show that two common pressure-ulcer risk-assessment tools are superior to clinical judgement to prevent pressure injury. Resources associated with use of these tools might be better spent on careful daily skin inspection and improving management targetted at specific risks. STUDY REGISTRATION: The trial was registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinicat Trials Registry (ACTRN 12608000541303).

Validity of the Waterlow scale and risk of pressure injury in acute care.

AIM: To assess the validity of the Waterlow screening tool in a cohort of internal medicine patients and to identify factors contributing to pressure injury. METHOD: A longitudinal cohort study design was used. A total of 274 patients (mean age 65.3 years) admitted through the emergency department or outpatient clinics of a tertiary hospital in Brisbane, Australia, and expected to remain in hospital for at least 3 days were screened on admission using the Waterlow screening tool. Their pressure ulcer status was monitored and recorded every second day. The main outcome measure was pressure ulcer incidence. RESULTS: Fifteen participants (5.5%) had an existing pressure ulcer and a further 12 (4.4%) developed a pressure ulcer during their hospital stay. Sensitivity of the Waterlow scale was 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.35-0.88), specificity was 0.79 (95% CI: 0.73-0.85), positive predictive value was 0.13 (95% CI: 0.07-0.24) and negative predictive value was 0.98 (95% CI: 0.94-0.99). CONCLUSION: This study provides further evidence of the poor predictive validity of the Waterlow scale. A suitably powered, randomized controlled trial is urgently needed to provide definitive evidence about the usefulness of the Waterlow scale compared with other screening tools and with clinical judgment.