Consistent pressure ulcer prevention practice: The effect on PU prevalence and PU stages, and impact on PU prevention-A quasi-experimental intervention study.

This study evaluates the effect of nursing staff's renewed consistent pressure ulcer (PU) prevention practice on PU prevalence and the PU prevention implemented for residents. A quasi-experimental intervention study was conducted. The data were collected from 232 residents (n = 115 in intervention and 117 in comparison group) in two public long-term older people care (LOPC) facilities in Finland using the Pressure Ulcer Patient instrument (PUP-Instrument). The facilities were chosen with convenience sampling, after which they were randomly allocated as either intervention or comparison facility. Based on international guidelines for PU prevention, the renewed, consistent PU prevention practice with six areas was developed and implemented using the operational model for evidence-based practices (OMEBP). After the intervention, a significant difference between the intervention and the comparison facility was seen in the prevalence of PUs and in the residents' highest stage of PUs in the sacrum, buttock and hip areas, and heels. Between the facilities, a significant difference was seen in the use of PU and nutrition risk assessment instruments and nutritional supplements, time used for repositioning in the daytime and at night-time, lifting belt use, and avoiding shearing or stretching residents' skin. The successful intervention improved skin integrity in LOPC facilities.

Consistent practice for pressure ulcer prevention in long-term older people care: A quasi-experimental intervention study.

BACKGROUND: Consistent practice, an agreed clinical practice based on evidence, has been considered as a base for effective provision of quality and safety of care. As a result, patients have an equal quality of care regardless of the organisation or worker. However, despite the international guidelines, pressure ulcer prevention practices vary in long-term older people care. AIM: To develop, implement and evaluate the impact of renewed, consistent practice for pressure ulcer prevention, in long-term older people care. DESIGN: A quasi-experimental intervention study. METHODS: Two long-term older people care facilities chosen with convenience sampling were randomly allocated to intervention or comparison group. Registered and practical nurses, in total 141/112, participated in the study. The renewed consistent practice based on international guidelines for pressure ulcer prevention was developed and implemented using the Operational Model for Evidence-Based Practices (OMEBP). Frequencies and agreement of PU prevention practices in line with international guidelines in the care facilities were measured using the PUPreP instrument. RESULTS: In the intervention facility, improvement in line with international guidelines was seen in the frequency of PU prevention practices in risk assessment, nutrition, pressure-relieving devices and documentation. Furthermore, improvement was seen in the intervention facility in all six areas of agreement on practices. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study support the implementation of PU prevention guidelines in long-term older people care (LOPC) and more widely in healthcare settings for older people to promote consistent practice, and safety and equal quality of care.

Preventive interventions for pressure ulcers in long-term older people care facilities: A systematic review.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To explore the effectiveness of interventions aimed at pressure ulcer (PU) prevention in long-term older people care facilities (LOPC). BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers cause suffering for patients and constitute a major financial burden. Although most PUs could be prevented, their number has remained high. To avoid unnecessary suffering and costs, PU prevention must be effective. DESIGN: A systematic review. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in six electronic databases PubMed (MEDLINE), CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, Cochrane Wounds Group Specialized Register and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The inclusion criteria were: (a) study published in 2005-2017, (b) intervention with pre- and post-tests, focusing on PU prevention, (c) implemented in LOPC facilities, (d) persons >65 years as study population, and (e) outcomes reported as PU incidence or prevalence or healing time. The PRISMA guidelines were followed. The methodological quality of the studies was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute's MAStARI critical appraisal checklist. The data were analysed with narrative synthesis. RESULTS: The review included eighteen studies. The study designs were RCTs (n = 10), comparable cohort or case-control studies (n = 3), and descriptive or case series (n = 5). PU incidence in LOPC facilities decreased by using computerised decision-making support systems, PU prevention programmes, repositioning or advanced cushions. PU prevalence decreased with PU prevention programmes, by using advanced mattresses and overlays, or by adding protein and energy supplements to diet. CONCLUSIONS: There are many ways to prevent PUs in LOPC facilities; no single effective way can be identified. One-third of the preventive interventions in LOPC facilities were effective. However, systematic evidence from randomised trials on preventive interventions of PUs in LOPC settings is still lacking. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The findings can be used in practice for selecting and in research for developing effective preventive interventions of PUs in LOPC facilities.