Respiratory rate monitoring and early detection of deterioration practices.

BACKGROUND: Growing evidence points to respiratory rate (RR) being the most important vital sign for early detection of patient deterioration. However, RR is the vital sign most likely to be inaccurate or missed. AIMS: To measure prevalence of early detection of deterioration protocols, examine whether RR was perceived as the leading indicator of deterioration, and understand RR monitoring practices used by nurses around the world. METHODS: A double-blinded survey of nurses in Asia Pacific, Middle East, and Western Europe. FINDINGS: 161 nurses responded. Most (80%) reported having an initiative for early detection of patient deterioration; 12% indicated RR was the most important indicator of deterioration, 27% captured RR for all medical/surgical patients, and 56% take 60 seconds or longer to measure RR. CONCLUSION: Nurses across all regions generally underestimated the importance of capturing an accurate RR for all patients' multiple times per day. This study reinforces the need to enhance international nursing education regarding the importance of RR.

Incontinence and Incontinence-Associated Dermatitis in Acute Care: A Retrospective Analysis of Total Cost of Care and Patient Outcomes From the Premier Healthcare Database.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the prevalence of incontinence and treatment of incontinence-associated dermatitis (IAD) and associations with outcomes including total cost of care, length of stay (LOS), 30-day readmission, sacral area pressure injuries present on admission and hospital acquired pressure injuries, and progression of all sacral area pressure injuries to a higher stage. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. SUBJECTS AND SETTINGS: Data were retrieved from the Premier Healthcare Database and comprised more than 15 million unique adult patient admissions from 937 hospitals. Patients were 18 years or older and admitted to a participating hospital between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2019. METHODS: Given the absence of an IAD International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) code, we categorized patients treated for IAD by selecting patients with a documented incontinence ICD-10-CM code and a documented charge for dermatology products used to treat IAD. The t test and χ2 tests determined whether incontinence and treatment for IAD were associated with outcomes. RESULTS: Incontinence prevalence was 1.5% for the entire sample; prevalence rate for IAD among incontinent patients was 0.7%. As compared to continent patients, incontinent patients had longer LOS (6.4 days versus 4.4 days), were 1.4 times more likely to be readmitted, 4.7 times more likely to have a sacral pressure injury upon admission pressure injury, 5.1 times more likely to have a sacral hospital-acquired pressure injury, and 5.8 times more likely to have a sacral pressure injury progress to a severe stage. As compared to incontinent patients without IAD treatment, those with IAD treatment had longer LOS (9.7 days versus 6.4 days), were 1.3 times more likely to be readmitted, and were 2.0 times more likely to have a sacral hospital-acquired pressure injury. Total index hospital costs were 1.2 times higher for incontinent patients and 1.3 times higher for patients with IAD treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Incontinence and IAD prevalence are substantially lower than past research due to underreporting of incontinence. The lack of an ICD-10-CM code for IAD further exacerbates the underreporting of IAD. Despite low prevalence numbers, our results show higher health care costs and worse outcomes for incontinent patients and patients with IAD treatment.

Factors associated with safe patient handling practice in acute care and its relationship with patient mobilization: A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Mobilizing hospital patients is associated with improved outcomes and shorter length of stay. Safe patient handling and mobility programs that include mechanical lift use facilitate mobilizing patients and reduce the likelihood of musculoskeletal disorders in staff. However, there is little information on the prevalence of lift use or why some patients are more likely to have a lift used than others. Such information is needed to inform public policy, benchmark lift use over time, and contextualize barriers for lift use. OBJECTIVE: To determine the percentage of patients that had a lift used during care in US acute care facilities, identify attributes related to the patient and their hospital stay that affect the lift use, examine whether state legislation increased lift use, and determine whether lift use was correlated with more frequent mobilization out of bed. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of the 2018 International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence ™ data. PARTICIPANTS: 40,856 patients in 642 US acute care hospitals over the age of 18 with complete data. METHODS: Lift use prevalence was calculated as the percentage of patients that met inclusion criteria that had a lift used for care. Prevalence was then analyzed by patient mobility level. A logistic regression examined the influence of patient and facility related attributes. For patients with limited mobility (that could not stand or turn themselves), a t-test of proportions evaluated whether lift use during a patient's stay was correlated with an increased likelihood of being out of bed at the time of the survey. RESULTS: 3.7% of patients had a lift used during their care. 11.1% of limited mobility patients had a lift used. Lift use was associated with higher body mass, longer length of stay, lower Braden score, pressure injury prevention methods in place, being in an intensive care unit, being in a smaller hospital, and being in a state with safe patient handling and mobility legislation. Limited mobility patients moved with lifts during their stay were more likely to be observed in a bedside chair and less likely to be observed in bed, as compared to patients that never had a lift used. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the benefits to patients and caregivers, US acute care facilities are largely not using lifts to safely mobilize patients. Results suggested that safe patient handling and mobility legislation has increased the rate of lift use. Finally, lift use was correlated with patients being mobilized out of bed.

Examining Prevalence and Risk Factors of Incontinence-Associated Dermatitis Using the International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence Survey.

PURPOSE: To evaluate prevalence and risk factors of incontinence-associated dermatitis (IAD). DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of 2016 International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence survey data. SUBJECTS AND SETTING: Adult patients who were in acute care, long-term acute care, long-term care, and rehabilitation facilities in the United States and Canada. METHODS: IAD prevalence was calculated among all patients surveyed, among the incontinent patients only, across multiple care settings, and by incontinence type. A logistic regression examined risk factors for IAD in the incontinent population. RESULTS: Nearly 1 in 5 incontinent patients had IAD documented. Incontinence-associated dermatitis prevalence in the entire patient population was 4.3% while incontinence prevalence was 18%. Of incontinent patients, prevalence of IAD ranged from 8.4% in long-term care facilities to 19% in acute care facilities. Facilities with higher rates of incontinence did not necessarily have higher prevalence of IAD. Incontinence-associated dermatitis prevalence by incontinence type ranged from 12% for patients with urinary incontinence to 26% for patients with fecal management systems. Regression results support the association of the following factors with an increased likelihood of IAD documented: all types of incontinence, fecal management systems, higher body weight, diminished mobility, additional linen layers, longer length of stay, and lower Braden Scale scores. CONCLUSIONS: Incontinence-associated dermatitis remains a concern in acute care settings. Risk factors associated with IAD were similar to risk factors previously reported for hospital-acquired pressure injuries, such as limited mobility, longer lengths of stay, and additional linen layers. By consistently documenting IAD as well as pressure injury prevalence, facilities may benchmark overall skin prevention models.

Predictors of superficial and severe hospital-acquired pressure injuries: A cross-sectional study using the International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence™ survey.

BACKGROUND: Prevalence of hospital-acquired pressure injuries has declined over time. However, it is unknown if this decline is consistent for different stages of pressure injuries. It is also unknown if risk factors differ between superficial (stage 1 and 2) and severe (stage 3, 4, deep tissue, and unstageable) pressure injuries. OBJECTIVE: To examine changes in prevalence of superficial and severe hospital-acquired pressure injuries from 2011 to 2016. To evaluate differences between risk factors associated with superficial versus severe hospital-acquired pressure injuries. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of the 2011-2016 International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence™ data. SETTING: Acute care hospitals in the USA. PARTICIPANTS: 216,626 patients had complete data. METHODS: Prevalence of all, superficial, and severe hospital-acquired pressure injuries was calculated annually from 2011 to 2016 and linear trendlines were generated. Two logistic regressions examined risk factors for superficial and severe hospital-acquired pressure injuries. RESULTS: Prevalence of superficial hospital-acquired pressure injuries declined significantly from 2011 to 2016. However, prevalence of severe pressure injuries did not show a reduction. Risk factors that significantly increased the risk of both superficial and severe pressure injuries were: increased age, male gender, unable to self-ambulate, all types of incontinence, additional linen layers, longer lengths of stay, and being in an intensive care unit. Body mass index (BMI) had a U-shaped relationship, where the likelihood of having either type of pressure injury was highest for low and high BMIs. CONCLUSIONS: A decline in superficial, but not severe, hospital-acquired pressure injuries suggests current prevention techniques might not adequately prevent severe pressure injuries. Generally, risk factors for superficial and severe pressure injuries were highly similar where all 14 of the risk factors were significant in both regression models. However, five risk factors in particular - ICU stay, presence of an ostomy, patient age, ambulatory status, and presence of a fecal management system - had substantially different effect sizes.

Prevalence and Analysis of Medical Device-Related Pressure Injuries: Results from the International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence Survey.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the prevalence and characteristics of medical device-related pressure injuries (MDR PIs) in a large, generalizable database. METHODS: This study is a retrospective analysis of the 2016 International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence data. Data were limited to US and Canadian facilities. Facilities included acute care, long-term care, rehabilitation, long-term acute care hospitals, and hospice. Analysis included 102,865 adult patients; 99,876 had complete data and were the focus of the analysis and are reported in the results below. RESULTS: The overall PI prevalence was 7.2% (n = 7189), and the facility-acquired prevalence was 3.1% (n = 3113). The prevalence of MDR PIs was 0.60% (n = 601), which included both mucosal and nonmucosal MDR PIs. In this study, 75% of MDR PIs were facility acquired, whereas non-MDR PIs were most commonly present on admission. Facility-acquired MDR PIs formed 3 days faster than facility-acquired non-MDR PIs (12 vs 15 days; P < .05). By stage, most MDR PIs were superficial (58% were Stage 1 or 2), 15% were deep-tissue PIs, and 22% were full-thickness PIs (Stage 3 or 4 or unstageable). The most common anatomic locations for MDR PIs were the ears (29%) and the feet (12%). The most common devices associated with MDR PIs were nasal oxygen tubes, 26%; other, 19%; cast/splints, 12%; and continuous positive airway pressure/bilevel positive airway pressure masks, 9%. CONCLUSIONS: Because MDR PIs form faster than non-MDR PIs, timely proactive assessment and prevention measures are critical. Most MDR PIs occurred at the face and head region, and the ears specifically. The most common devices linked with MDR PIs were oxygen tubing and masks, making assessment and prevention efforts critical for patients who require those devices.

Variability of Capillary Refill Time among Physician Measurements.

BACKGROUND: The assessment of capillary refill time (CRT) is a common physical examination technique. However, despite its importance and its widespread use, there is little standardization, which can lead to inaccurate assessments. OBJECTIVE: In this article, we assessed how different physicians estimate CRT. We hypothesized that when different physicians are presented with the same recordings of CRT, clinicians will, on average, provide different CRT estimates. METHODS: Using recordings of different fingertip compressions, physicians assessed and documented when capillary refill had returned to normal. Videos were recorded of the fingertips only, with no other identifying markers or subject characteristics provided. Videos were shown at one-quarter speed to allow time for recognition and response to the capillary refill. The primary outcome was physician estimates of CRT for each video recording. RESULTS: An analysis of variance regression revealed significant differences in physician estimates of CRT when examining the same CRT videos from 34 subjects. Further regression analyses reveal the importance of controlling for the physician that is examining the patient when predicting a patient's CRT. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that some physicians gave, on average, slower CRT estimates, whereas others gave, on average, faster CRT estimates. Objective approaches and innovations in assessment of capillary refill have the potential to increase the diagnostic accuracy of this important clinical examination finding.