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.

End-user perceptions of sub-epidermal moisture scanning (SEMS) acceptability: A descriptive qualitative study.

AIMS: To assess patients' and nurses' perceptions and experiences of subepidermal moisture scanning acceptability. DESIGN: Descriptive, qualitative, sub-study, embedded within a pilot randomized control trial. METHODS: Ten patients who were in the intervention arm of the pilot trial and 10 registered nurses providing care for these patients on medical-surgical units participated in individual semi-structured interviews. Data were collected from October 2021 to January 2022. Interviews were analysed using inductive qualitative content analysis, and perspectives (patient and nurse), were triangulated. RESULTS: Four categories were found. The first category 'Subepidermal moisture scanning is acceptable as part of care' showed that patients and nurses were willing to use subepidermal moisture scanning and viewed subepidermal moisture scanning as non-burdensome. The category 'Subepidermal moisture scanning may improve pressure injury outcomes' demonstrated that although subepidermal moisture scanning was believed to prevent pressure injuries, more research evidence about its benefits was required. 'Subepidermal moisture scanning augments existing pressure injury prevention practices', the third category, highlighted that subepidermal moisture scanning aligns with current pressure injury prevention practices while making these practices more patient-centred. In the final category, 'Important considerations when making subepidermal moisture scanning routine practice', practical issues were raised relating to training, guidelines, infection control, device availability and patient modesty. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates that using subepidermal moisture scanning is acceptable for patients and nurses. Building the evidence base for subepidermal moisture scanning and then addressing practical issues prior to implementation, are important next steps. Our research suggests that subepidermal moisture scanning enhances individualized and patient-centred care, persuasive reasons to continue investigating subepidermal moisture scanning. IMPACT: For an intervention to be successfully implemented it must be both effective and acceptable, however, there is limited evidence of patients' and nurses' views of SEMS acceptability. SEM scanners are acceptable to use in practice for patients and nurses. There are many procedural aspects that need to be considered when using SEMS such as frequency of measurements. This research may have benefit for patients, as SEMS may promote a more individualized and patient-centred approach to pressure injury prevention. Further, these findings can assist researchers, providing justification to proceed with effectiveness research. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: A consumer advisor was involved in study design, interpretation of data and preparation of manuscript.

The effect of sub-epidermal moisture on pressure injury prevention strategies and incidence of pressure injuries: A feasibility pilot randomised controlled trial.

AIM: Sub-epidermal moisture scanning (SEMS) is a novel point-of-care technology that measures localised oedema and detects early tissue damage that may develop into a pressure injury (PI). It provides objective data that may assist PI prevention (PIP) decision making. This study aimed to determine the feasibility of undertaking a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) to test the effectiveness of SEMS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This pilot RCT recruited medical and surgical patients at risk of developing a PI in one Australian hospital. All participants received routine PIP care and daily visual skin assessment to determine the presence of a PI. The intervention group also received daily SEMS. Clinical staff were told if the sub-epidermal moisture (SEM) value was abnormal but were not given advice for PIP. Blinding of patients, care staff and outcome assessors was not practical. Feasibility outcomes included recruitment, retention, intervention fidelity, and patient outcomes. RESULTS: Of 1185 patients screened prior to eligibility, 950 were excluded (80%); 235 were then assessed for eligibility and 160 met the inclusion criteria (68.1%); 100 were recruited (70.0%) and randomised and 99 completed the trial (intervention n = 50; control n = 49) with one person withdrawn due to inappropriate recruitment (100% retention). Of the 657 expected SEMS observations, 598 were completed (91% intervention fidelity). Only 34 of 454 (7.4%) patient outcome data points were missing. CONCLUSIONS: Most feasibility criteria were met, indicating a definitive trial to assess the effectiveness of SEMS in a medical-surgical patient population is realistic. However, recruitment may be resource intensive and require specific strategies.

Bariatric Space, Technology, and Design: A Round Table.

BACKGROUND: Planning and executing healthcare for the patient or resident living with obesity can be a challenging task that has implications to the occupational health professional. METHODS: Leading global experts in the areas of occupational health, ergonomics, bariatrics, technology, and patient care were identified and invited to participate in a round table discussion. Questions posed to experts were based on literature that addressed patient handling and mobility, architectural design recommendations, clinical care of the person with obesity, and ergonomic guidelines. FINDINGS: Experts agreed that special considerations must be in place to care for the person who is obese. These special considerations should address not only clinical care of the patient, but ways to protect workers from occupational injury associated with clinical care. Experts suggested that, in some situations, a bariatric training suit may be helpful in better understanding space and design challenges, as well as a better understanding of the physical limitations associated with a larger body habitus (although simulated). Further, experts agreed that insensitivities often stem from failure to have proper space, technology and design accommodations in place. Conclusions/Application to Practice: The occupational health professional is a key resource to teams charged with planning and executing healthcare for the patient or resident living with obesity. Interprofessional understanding and communication can lead to a more comprehensive approach to space, design and technology that not only addresses the patient, but the worker providing direct care.

The association of malnutrition with falls and harm from falls in hospital inpatients: Findings from a 5-year observational study.

BACKGROUND: Inpatient falls continue to be a significant clinical issue, and while malnutrition is a known risk factors for falls, few studies have investigated its association with inpatient falls. This study aimed to explore the independent association between malnutrition and fall risk as well as harm from falls in hospital inpatients. METHODS: Malnutrition identified in annual malnutrition audits was combined with inpatient fall data captured through the electronic patient incident reporting system in the 12 months following audit days. Audit data were available for 1,849 inpatients across 2011-2015, and covariate associations between age, gender, BMI, malnutrition, falls and harmful falls were analysed. The reporting of this paper is in accordance with the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations (see Appendix S1). RESULTS: The prevalence of malnutrition was 32.4% (n = 543), and 171 (9.2%) inpatients experienced a fall with 0.7% (n = 13) categorised as harmful. In bivariate analysis, patients who fell were more likely to be older (median 79.0 vs. 70.0 years; p < .0001) or malnourished (40.9% vs. 31.5%; p = .021). Malnutrition (p < .0001) and having a lower BMI (p = .026) were significant predictors of harmful falls. Regression modelling demonstrated that only increasing age increased the likelihood of having an inpatient fall (OR 1.022 95% CI 1.021-1.046; p < .0001). Malnourished inpatients were almost 8 times more likely to have a harmful fall than those not malnourished (OR 7.94 95% CI 1.457-43.338; p = .017), independent of age and BMI. CONCLUSIONS: Malnourished patients are more likely to experience a harmful fall. Assessment of malnutrition should be incorporated into fall risk assessments as a way of highlighting those patients at greater risk and to link to nutritional care pathways.

Are pressure injuries related to skin failure in critically ill patients?

BACKGROUND: Pressure injuries contribute significantly to patient morbidity and healthcare costs. Critically ill patients are a high risk group for pressure injury development and may suffer from skin failure secondary to hypoperfusion. The aim of this study was to report hospital acquired pressure injury incidence in intensive care and non-intensive care patients; and assess the clinical characteristics and outcomes of ICU patients reported as having a hospital acquired pressure injury to better understand patient factors associated with their development in comparison to ward patients. METHODS: The setting for this study was a 630 bed, government funded, tertiary referral teaching hospital. A secondary data analysis was undertaken on all patients with a recorded PI on the hospital's critical incident reporting systems and admitted patient data collection between July 2006 to March 2015. RESULTS: There were a total of 5280 reports in 3860 patients; 726 reports were intensive care patients and 4554 were non-intensive care patients, with severe hospital acquired PI reported in 22 intensive care patients and 54 non-intensive care patients. Pressure injury incidence increased in intensive care patients and decreased in non-intensive care patients over the study period. There were statistically significant differences in the anatomical location of severe hospital acquired pressure injuries between these groups (p=0.008). CONCLUSION: Intensive care patients have greater than 10-fold higher hospital acquired pressure injury incidence rates compared to other hospitalised patients. The predisposition of critically ill patients leaves them susceptible to pressure injury development despite implementation of pressure injury prevention strategies. Skin failure appears to be a significant phenomenon in critically ill patients and is associated with the use of vasoactive agents and support systems such as extra corporeal membrane oxygenation and mechanical ventilation.

Pressure injury prevention: continence, skin hygiene and nutrition management.

To prevent pressure injuries research indicates the importance of focusing on three key areas of practice: continence, skin hygiene and nutrition. These are a synergistic trio and many patients require considered management in all three areas. In addition to targeting specific aspects of nursing care in these areas, it is also crucial that there is organisational buy-in for strategic initiatives. Some of the ways that we achieved this are outlined below: Support from managerial level by presenting evidence and education to senior nurses and directors. Nurse unit managers completed individual ward action plans outlining their individual commitments to reducing pressure injuries. Providing support and education to staff to choose and use continence products effectively. Support from allied health colleagues in prevention of pressure injuries. After implementing the actions described above, pressure injury prevalence at the Prince Charles Hospital in Brisbane decreased from 13.78% in 2008 to 5.15% in 2010, representing a 62% reduction overall. Of these pressure injuries, 53% were stage one.

Changing the mindset: an inter-disciplinary approach to management of the bariatric patient.

Obesity is a major health issue throughout the world. Modern nomenclature has replaced the word obesity with bariatric-related terminology. A bariatric person is defined as one who has health limitations due to their physical size, lack of mobility and environmental access. Obese people are often characterised by society as being lazy and unattractive, and this perception is prevalent among healthcare professionals also. This paper describes an innovative approach to obesity management in a large Australian health district in Queensland.