Incontinence Management and Pressure Injury Rates in US Acute Care Hospitals: Analysis of Data From the 2018-2019 International Pressure Injury Prevalence™ (IPUP) Survey.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to identify and describe the prevalence of incontinence (urinary and/or fecal) and incontinence management practices among patients in US adult acute care settings, with and without hospital-acquired pressure injuries (HAPIs), using the data from the 2018/2019 International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence™ (IPUP) survey. DESIGN: Observational, cohort study with cross-sectional data collection and retrospective data analysis. SUBJECTS AND SETTING: The sample comprised 296,014 patients hospitalized in 1801 acute care facilities in the United States that participated in 2018 and/or 2019 IPUP survey. Of these, 192,852 (65%) patients had information recorded in the survey on incontinence status and were included in the analytical sample. METHODS: Data from the 2018/2019 IPUP database were analyzed to evaluate the prevalence of incontinence (urinary [UI], fecal [FI], and dual [DI]), and the use of incontinence and moisture management strategies. Incontinence prevalence was analyzed between 3 groups of patients: (1) those without pressure injuries; (2) patients with stage 1 and 2 HAPIs; and (3) those with severe HAPIs (stage 3, 4, unstageable, deep tissue pressure injury). Analysis of the subgroups within acute care was also undertaken and included medical-surgical, critical care, and step-down units. RESULTS: Incontinent patients were older (mean age 69-74 years depending on type of incontinence as compared to 62 years for continent patients) and had lower Braden Scale scores (range, 14.7-16.7, compared to 19.4 for continent patients). Half of the patients were female, 49.6% male, and 0.4% were unknown. Incontinence was identified in 32% of patients. Among patients with incontinence, 33% had UI, 12% had FI, and 55% had DI. Hospital-acquired pressure injuries were present in 27.4% of continent patients and 72.6% of incontinent patients, with DI having the highest rate of HAPIs. Analysis revealed a higher proportion of incontinent patients with unstageable HAPIs than continent patients (14.9% vs 9.6%, P = .00), as well as a higher proportion of incontinent patients with deep tissue HAPIs as compared to continent patients (27.0% vs 22.1%, P = .00). Significantly more incontinent patients regardless of HAPI status were using a bowel or bladder management system (P = .00). CONCLUSION: Results of this study support the importance of incontinence as a risk factor in HAPI development. The prevalence of all types of incontinence was 31.7% for the entire sample. Almost three-fourths (72.6%) of patients with HAPI had UF, FI, or DI. A standardized definition of both UI and FI is needed, given that over 70% of all critical care unit patients with a urinary catheter for incontinence management were still classified as urinary incontinent.

Pressure Injuries in Critical Care Patients in US Hospitals: Results of the International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence Survey.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this secondary analysis was to examine pressure injury (PI) prevalence, PI risk factors, and prevention practices among adult critically ill patients in critical care units in the United States using the International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence™ (IPUP) Survey database from 2018 to 2019. DESIGN: Observational, cohort study with cross-sectional data collection and retrospective data analysis. SUBJECTS AND SETTING: The sample comprised 41,866 critical care patients drawn from a sample of 296,014 patients in US acute care facilities who participated in the 2018 and/or 2019 IPUP surveys. The mean age among critical care patients was 63.5 years (16.3) and 55% were male. All geographic regions of the United States were represented in this sample, with the greatest percentages from the Southeast (47.5%) and Midwest (17.5%) regions. METHODS: Overall critical care PI prevalence and hospital-acquired PI (HAPI) rates were obtained and analyzed using the 2018/2019 IPUP survey database. Critical care PI risk factors included in the database were analyzed using frequency distributions. Prevention practices among critically ill patients were analyzed to evaluate differences in practices between patients with no PIs, superficial PIs (stage 1, stage 2), and severe PIs (stage 3, stage 4, unstageable, deep tissue pressure injury). RESULTS: The overall PI prevalence for critical care patients was 14.3% (n = 5995) and the overall HAPI prevalence was 5.85% (n = 2451). In patients with severe HAPIs, the most common risk factors were diabetes mellitus (29.5%), mechanical ventilation (27.6%), and vasopressor agents (18.9%). Significant differences between patients with no PIs as compared to those with superficial or severe HAPIs (P = .000) for all prevention practices were found. CONCLUSIONS: Study findings support the gaps elucidated in previous critical care studies on PI development in this population. The 2 most persistent gaps currently challenging critical care practitioners are (1) accurate risk quantification in this population and (2) the potential for unavoidability in PI development among critically ill patients.

Pressure Injury Prevalence in Acute Care Hospitals With Unit-Specific Analysis: Results From the International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence (IPUP) Survey Database.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine overall pressure injury (PI) prevalence and hospital-acquired pressure injury (HAPI) prevalence in US acute care hospitals. Additionally, analysis of patient characteristics associated with HAPIs will be presented. DESIGN: Observational, cross-sectional cohort study. SUBJECTS AND SETTING: An in-depth analysis of data was performed from the International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence™ (IPUP) Survey database for years 2018-2019 that included 296,014 patients. There were 914 participating US acute care facilities in 2018 and 887 in 2019. Overall PI prevalence and HAPI prevalence over time were also examined for 2006-2019 acute care data from 2703 unique facilities (1,179,108 patients). METHODS: Overall PI prevalence and HAPI prevalence were analyzed from the 2006-2019 IPUP survey database. Recent data for 2018-2019 PI prevalence are reported separately for medical-surgical, step-down, and critical care unit types. PI stages, anatomic locations, Braden score associated with HAPIs, and body mass index were analyzed. RESULTS: Overall PI prevalence and HAPI prevalence data declined between 2006 and 2019; however, the prevalence plateaued in the years 2015-2019. Data from 2018 to 2019 (N = 296,014) showed that 26,562 patients (8.97%) had at least one PI and 7631 (2.58%) had at least one HAPI. Patients cared for in medical-surgical inpatient care units had the lowest overall PI prevalence (7.78%) and HAPI prevalence (1.87%), while critical care patients had the highest overall PI prevalence (14.32%) and HAPI prevalence (5.85%). Critical care patients developed more severe PIs (stage 3,4, unstageable, and deep-tissue pressure injuries [DTPIs]), which were proportionally higher than those in the step-down or medical-surgical units. The sacrum/coccyx anatomic location had the highest overall PI prevalence and HAPI prevalence, except for DTPIs, which most common occurred on the heel. CONCLUSIONS: Overall and HAPI prevalence has plateaued 2015-2019. Prevalence of HAPIs, especially in critical care units, remain high. While medical advancements have improved survival rates among critically ill patients, survival may come with unintended consequences, including PI development.

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.

The impact of continuous lateral rotation therapy in overall clinical and financial outcomes of critically ill patients.

BACKGROUND: Significant pulmonary complications are prevalent in intubated and mechanically ventilated patients. OBJECTIVES: This study was conducted to determine the impact of continuous lateral rotation therapy (CLRT) on patients considered to be at high risk for pulmonary complications. Overall study objectives included hospital length of stay, critical care length of stay, ventilator days, and cost to treat. METHODS: Patients at risk for pulmonary complications as defined by Pao2/Fio2 ratio < 300, Fio2 > 50% for more than 1 hour, positive end-expiratory pressure > or = 8, or a Predicus score of > or = 5 were compared with a historical comparison group that met the high-risk criteria given above and did not receive CLRT. Patients who received CLRT were separated into 2 groups, early CLRT group (began therapy within 48 hours, n = 49) or late CLRT group (n = 46). RESULTS: The early CLRT group had a reduction in critical care LOS, (P = .04) as compared with the non-CLRT group. Total hospital costs were reduced (P = .01) in the early intervention group compared to the late intervention group, as well as ICU LOS (P = .02). Nonsignificant trends were seen in reduced ventilator days and hospital LOS. Reintubation rates and readmissions to critical care were also lower in the early intervention group. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous lateral rotation therapy, when introduced early in course of treatment of high-risk patients, reduces critical care LOS and cost to treat.