The Standardized Pressure Injury Prevention Protocol (SPIPP) Checklist 2.0: Content validation.

BACKGROUND: Pressure injury prevention is complex, and rates continue to rise. Checklists reduce human error, improve adherence and standardization with complex processes, focus attention on evidence-based practices derived from clinical practice guidelines and are arranged in a systematic manner to manage the entirety of a patient's risk for preventable outcomes. The original Standardized Pressure Injury Prevention Protocol was created to provide a checklist of pressure injury prevention measures but needed revision and validation. PURPOSE: This article describes the revision and content validity testing of the Standardized Pressure Injury Prevention Protocol Checklist 2.0 that took place in 2022. METHODS: Using the International 2019 Clinical Practice Guideline as a foundation, items were identified/revised, and expert review of the items was obtained. The Standardized Pressure Injury Prevention Protocol 2.0 underwent three rounds of revision by experts from the National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel. A panel of eight national experts completed the content validity survey. Individual item content validity index and total scale content validity index were used to summarize the content validity survey scores. RESULTS: The individual item content validity index scores ranged from 0.5 to 1.0. One item (using a mirror to look at heels) was rated as 0.5, three items were 0.75, 20 items were 0.875 and 23 items were 1.0. The item scoring 0.5 was deleted. Those items scoring 0.75 were revised using the content experts' recommendations. The total scale content validity index was 0.93. CONCLUSION: The Standardized Pressure Injury Prevention Protocol 2.0 provides a standardized checklist of evidence-based items that operationalize a rigorous clinical practice guideline for the prevention of pressure injuries. Early intervention using a standardized approach and evidence-based checklist that can be integrated into the workflow of the direct-care nurse and provider provides the best opportunity for successful and sustainable pressure injury prevention.

Best-practices for preventing skin injury beneath personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic: A position paper from the National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel.

COVID-19 has infected millions of patients and impacted healthcare workers worldwide. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) is a key component of protecting frontline clinicians against infection. The benefits of PPE far outweigh the risks, nonetheless, many clinicians are exhibiting skin injury caused by PPE worn incorrectly. These skin injuries, ranging from lesions to open wounds are concerning because they increase the susceptibility of viral infection and transmission to other individuals. Early into the COVID-19 pandemic (April 2020), the U. S. National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel (NPIAP) developed a series of position statements to improve wear-ability of PPE and protect healthcare professionals and their patients as safe from harm as possible under the circumstances. The NPIAP positions, which were formed by conducting a systematic review of what was known at the time, include: (a) Prepare skin before and after wearing PPE with skin sealants, barrier creams and moisturisers; (b) Frequent PPE offloading to relieve pressure and shear applied to skin; (c) treat visible skin injuries immediately caused by PPE to minimise future infection; (d) non-porous dressings may provide additional skin protection, but lack evidence; (e) health systems should take care to educate clinicians about placement and personal hygiene related to handling PPE. Throughout all of these practices, handwashing remains a top priority to handle PPE. These NPIAP positions provided early guidance to reduce the risk of skin injury caused by PPE based on available research regarding PPE injuries, a cautious application of evidence-based recommendations on prevention of device-related pressure injuries in patients and the expert opinion of the NPIAP Board of Directors. Clinicians who adhere to these recommendations reduce the prospects of skin damage and long-term effects (e.g. scarring). These simple steps to minimise the risk of skin injury and reduce the risk of coronavirus infection from PPE can help.

Deep Tissue Pressure Injuries: Identification, Treatment, and Outcomes Among Critical Care Patients.

Deep tissue pressure injury (DTPI) is a serious form of pressure injuries. The condition remains invisible for up to 48 hours and then progresses rapidly to full-thickness skin and soft tissue loss. Many other conditions that lead to purple skin can be misidentified as DTPI, making the diagnosis difficult at times. A thorough history exploring exposure to pressure is imperative.

Adverse Effects of the Medicare PSI-90 Hospital Penalty System on Revenue-Neutral Hospital-Acquired Conditions.

OBJECTIVE: Health systems are grappling with improving the quality and safety of health care. By setting clear expectations, there is an opportunity to configure care models to decrease the risk of adverse events and promote the quality of care. The US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have used Patient Safety Indicator 90 (PSI90), a composite rate of hospital-acquired conditions (HACs), to adjust payments and score hospitals on quality since 2015. However, PSI90 may be associated with adverse prioritization for preventing some conditions over others.Our objective was to evaluate the time-dependent rates of HACs between 2013 and 2016 to assess the association of funding models on adverse events, particularly pressure injury. METHODS: We analyzed a retrospective observational cohort of patients hospitalized in US Academic Medical Centers observed by the Vizient CDB/RM pre-post PSI90 implementation. Changes in HAC component rates of PSI90 between 2013 and 2016 were measured longitudinally using mixed-effects negative binomial regression modeling. RESULTS: Regardless of whether the composite measure of patient outcomes was PSI90 or all HACs, in general, there was significant decrease after PSI90 was implemented, reflecting an association between PSI90 and CMS reimbursement policy. However, pressure injury rates increased by 29.4% (SE = 0.08; P < 0.05) during this time frame, the only HAC observed to increase related to PSI90. CONCLUSIONS: Patient safety in hospitals will only thoroughly improve when hospitals are fully incentivized to practice prevention of all HACs rather than work around the harms that result from failed prevention efforts.

Root Cause Analysis for Hospital-Acquired Pressure Injury.

Root cause analysis (RCA) is a systematic process for identifying the causes of an adverse occurrence or combined with an approach for a response designed to prevent recurrences. This method may be used for continuous quality improvement in a facility or health system. Root cause analysis can aid nurses and hospital risk managers to determine how the system can improve to reduce the number and severity of pressure injuries. The process of RCA begins with being certain the wound is a pressure injury using differential diagnoses of similar appearing skin disease and injury, followed by an examination of the processes of care (human roots) for missed actions or inactions that are linked to development of a particular pressure injury. The final step of RCA is a critical examination of the system (including people and processes) to look for modifiable trends or patterns are identified that are used to prevent recurrences.

Use of Thermal Imaging to Identify Deep-Tissue Pressure Injury on Admission Reduces Clinical and Financial Burdens of Hospital-Acquired Pressure Injuries.

A deep-tissue pressure injury (DTPI) is a serious type of pressure injury that begins in tissue over bony prominences and can lead to the development of hospital-acquired pressure injuries (HAPIs). Using a commercially available thermal imaging system, study authors documented a total of 12 thermal anomalies in 9 of 114 patients at the time of admission to one of the study institution's ICUs over a 2-month period. An intensive, proven wound prevention protocol was immediately implemented for each of these patients. Of these 12 anomalies, 2 ultimately manifested as visually identifiable DTPIs. This represented a 60% reduction in the authors' institution's historical DTPIs/HAPI rate. Because these DTPIs were documented as present on admission using the thermal imaging tool, researchers avoided a revenue loss associated with nonreimbursed costs of care and also estimated financial benefits associated with litigation expenses known to be generated with HAPIs.Using thermal imaging to document DTPIs when patients present has the potential to significantly reduce expenses associated with pressure injury litigation. The clinical and financial benefits of early documentation of skin surface thermal anomalies in anatomical areas of interest are significant.

Changing the Perceptions of a Culture of Safety for the Patient and the Caregiver: Integrating Improvement Initiatives to Create Sustainable Change.

Evidence indicates that chances for a successful patient mobility program, prevention of pressure injury and falls, and safe patient handling are enhanced when an organization possesses an appropriate culture for safety. Frequently, these improvement initiatives are managed within silos often creating a solution for one and a problem for the others. A model of prevention integrating early patient mobility, preventing pressure injuries and falls while ensuring caregiver safety, is introduced. The journey begins by understanding why early mobility and safe patient handling are critical to improving overall patient outcomes. Measuring current culture and understanding the gaps in practice as well as strategies for overcoming some of the major challenges for success in each of these areas will result in sustainable change.

Revised National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel Pressure Injury Staging System: Revised Pressure Injury Staging System.

Our understanding of pressure injury etiology and development has grown in recent years through research, clinical expertise, and global interdisciplinary expert collaboration. Therefore, the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (NPUAP) has revised the definition and stages of pressure injury. The revision was undertaken to incorporate the current understanding of the etiology of pressure injuries, as well as to clarify the anatomical features present or absent in each stage of injury. An NPUAP-appointed Task Force reviewed the literature and created drafts of definitions, which were then reviewed by stakeholders and the public, including clinicians, educators, and researchers around the world. Using a consensus-building methodology, these revised definitions were the focus of a multidisciplinary consensus conference held in April 2016. As a result of stakeholder and public input, along with the consensus conference, important changes were made and incorporated into the new staging definitions. The revised staging system uses the term injury instead of ulcer and denotes stages using Arabic numerals rather than Roman numerals. The revised definition of a pressure injury now describes the injuries as usually occurring over a bony prominence or under a medical or other device. The revised definition of a Stage 2 pressure injury seeks to clarify the difference between moisture-associated skin damage and injury caused by pressure and/or shear. The term suspected has been removed from the Deep Tissue Pressure Injury diagnostic label. Each definition now describes the extent of tissue loss present and the anatomical features that may or may not be present in the stage of injury. These important revisions reflect the methodical and collaborative approach used to examine the available evidence and incorporate current interdisciplinary clinical expertise into better defining the important phenomenon of pressure injury etiology and development.

Differential diagnosis of suspected deep tissue injury.

Deep tissue injury (DTI) can be difficult to diagnose because many other skin and wound problems can appear as purple skin or rapidly appearing eschar. The diagnosis of DTI begins with a thorough history to account for times of exposure to pressure, such as 'time down' at the scene or time during which the patient was flat and could not respond. Patients with light skin tones present with classic skin discolouration of purple or maroon tissue, a defined border around the area of injury, and often surrounding erythema is evident. Persistent erythema and hyperpigmentation, rather than blanching, should be used to determine pressure injury in dark skin tone patients. Differential diagnosis includes stage 2 pressure ulcers, incontinence-associated dermatitis, skin tears, bruising, haematoma, venous engorgement, arterial insufficiency, necrotising fasciitis and terminal skin ulcers. Many skin problems can also have a purple hue or rapidly developing eschar, and a working knowledge of dermatology is needed.

MASD part 3: peristomal moisture- associated dermatitis and periwound moisture-associated dermatitis: a consensus.

Moisture-associated skin damage (MASD) occurs when excessive moisture in urine, stool, and wound exudate leads to inflammation of the skin, with or without erosion or secondary cutaneous infection. This article, produced by a panel of clinical experts who met to discuss moisture as an etiologic factor in skin damage, focuses on peristomal moisture-associated dermatitis and periwound moisture-associated dermatitis. The principles outlined here address assessment, prevention, and treatment of MASD affecting the peristomal or periwound skin.

MASD part 2: incontinence-associated dermatitis and intertriginous dermatitis: a consensus.

A consensus panel was convened to review current knowledge of moisture-associated skin damage (MASD) and to provide recommendations for prevention and management. This article provides a summary of the discussion and the recommendations in regards to 2 types of MASD: incontinence-associated dermatitis (IAD) and intertriginous dermatitis (ITD). A focused history and physical assessment are essential for diagnosing IAD or ITD and distinguishing these forms of skin damage from other types of skin damage. Panel members recommend cleansing, moisturizing, and applying a skin protectant to skin affected by IAD and to the perineal skin of persons with urinary or fecal incontinence deemed at risk for IAD. Prevention and treatment of ITD includes measures to ensure that skin folds are dry and free from friction; however, panel members do not recommend use of bed linens, paper towels, or dressings for separating skin folds. Individuals with ITD are at risk for fungal and bacterial infections and these infections should be treated appropriately; for example, candidal infections should be treated with antifungal therapies.

Moisture-associated skin damage: overview and pathophysiology.

Moisture-associated skin damage (MASD) is caused by prolonged exposure to various sources of moisture, including urine or stool, perspiration, wound exudate, mucus, saliva, and their contents. MASD is characterized by inflammation of the skin, occurring with or without erosion or secondary cutaneous infection. Multiple conditions may result in MASD; 4 of the most common forms are incontinence-associated dermatitis, intertriginous dermatitis, periwound moisture-associated dermatitis, and peristomal moisture-associated dermatitis. Although evidence is lacking, clinical experience suggests that MASD requires more than moisture alone. Instead, skin damage is attributable to multiple factors, including chemical irritants within the moisture source, its pH, mechanical factors such as friction, and associated microorganisms. To prevent MASD, clinicians need to be vigilant both in maintaining optimal skin conditions and in diagnosing and treating minor cases of MASD prior to progression and skin breakdown.

Pressure ulcers: avoidable or unavoidable? Results of the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel Consensus Conference.

Although pressure ulcer (PrU) development is now generally considered an indicator for quality of care, questions and concerns about situations in which they are unavoidable remain. Considering the importance of this issue and the lack of available research data, in 2010 the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (NPUAP) hosted a multidisciplinary conference to establish consensus on whether there are individuals in whom pressure ulcer development may be unavoidable and whether a difference exists between end-of-life skin changes and pressure ulcers. Thirty-four stakeholder organizations from various disciplines were identified and invited to send a voting representative. Of those, 24 accepted the invitation. Before the conference, existing literature was identified and shared via a webinar. A NPUAP task force developed standardized consensus questions for items with none or limited evidence and an interactive protocol was used to develop consensus among conference delegates and attendees. Consensus was established to be 80% agreement among conference delegates. Unanimous consensus was achieved for the following statements: most PrUs are avoidable; not all PrUs are avoidable; there are situations that render PrU development unavoidable, including hemodynamic instability that is worsened with physical movement and inability to maintain nutrition and hydration status and the presence of an advanced directive prohibiting artificial nutrition/hydration; pressure redistribution surfaces cannot replace turning and repositioning; and if enough pressure was removed from the external body the skin cannot always survive. Consensus was not obtained on the practicality or standard of turning patients every 2 hours nor on concerns surrounding the use of medical devices vis-à-vis their potential to cause skin damage. Research is needed to examine these issues, refine preventive practices in challenging situations, and identify the limits of prevention.

Medical device related pressure ulcers in hospitalized patients.

Most pressure ulcers occur over bony prominences such as heels and the sacrum. However, the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel recognises that pressure ulcers can also occur on any tissue under pressure and thereby can develop beneath medical devices. This article reports on results from a secondary analysis of existing data collected by The Nebraska Medical Center on pressure ulcer quality improvement initiatives and outcomes. The purpose of this study was to quantify the extent of the problem and identify risk factors for medical device related (MDR) pressure ulcer development in hospitalised patients. A subset of data collected during eight quarterly pressure ulcer incidence and prevalence studies (N = 2178) was created and analysed. The overall rate of hospital-acquired pressure ulcers was 5·4% (113 of 2079). The proportion of patients with hospital-acquired ulcers related to medical devices was 34·5% (39 of 113). Findings indicate that if a patient had a medical device, they were 2·4 times more likely to develop a pressure ulcer of any kind. Numerous risk factors for pressure ulcer development were identified; however, none differentiated between those with MDR and traditional pressure ulcers.