Pressure injury risk assessment and prescription of preventative interventions using a structured tool versus clinical judgement: An interrater agreement study.

AIM: To assess agreement of pressure injury risk level and differences in preventative intervention prescription between nurses using a structured risk assessment tool compared with clinical judgement. DESIGN: Interrater agreement study. METHODS: Data were collected from November 2019 to December 2022. Paired nurse-assessors were allocated randomly to independently assess pressure injury risk using a structured tool (incorporating the Waterlow Score), or clinical judgement; then prescribe preventative interventions. Assessments were conducted on 150 acute patient participants in a general tertiary hospital. Agreement of risk level was analysed using absolute agreement proportions, weighted kappa and prevalence-adjusted and bias-adjusted kappa. RESULTS: Ninety-four nurse assessors participated. Absolute agreement of not-at-risk versus at-risk-any-level was substantial, but absolute agreement of risk-level was only fair. Clinical judgement assessors tended to underestimate risk. Where risk level was agreed, prescribed intervention frequencies were similar, although structured tool assessors prescribed more interventions mandated by standard care, while clinical judgement assessors prescribed more additional/optional interventions. Structured tool assessors prescribed more interventions targeted at lower-risk patients, whereas assessors using clinical judgement prescribed more interventions targeted at higher-risk patients. CONCLUSION: There were clear differences in pressure injury risk-level assessment between nurses using the two methods, with important differences in intervention prescription frequencies found. Further research is required into the use of both structured tools and clinical judgement to assess pressure injury risk, with emphasis on the impact of risk assessments on subsequent preventative intervention implementation. IMPACT: The results of this study are important for clinical practice as they demonstrate the influence of using a structured pressure injury risk assessment tool compared to clinical judgement. Whilst further research is required into the use of both structured tools and clinical judgement to assess pressure injury risk and prescribe interventions, our findings do not support a change in practice that would exclude the use of a structured pressure injury risk assessment tool. REPORTING METHOD: This study adhered to the GRRAS reporting guideline. PATIENT/PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public involvement in this study. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: Educators and researchers can use the findings to guide teaching about pressure injury risk assessment and preventative intervention and to direct future studies. For clinical nurses and patients, a change in clinical practice that would exclude the use of a structured risk assessment tool is not recommended and further work is needed to validate the role of clinical judgement to assess risk and its impact on preventative intervention.

Healing rate of hospital-acquired skin tears using adhesive silicone foam versus meshed silicone interface dressings: A prospective, randomized, non-inferiority pilot study.

BACKGROUND: A skin tear is a traumatic wound that occurs in up to one in five hospitalized patients. Nursing care includes application of a dressing to create a moist wound healing environment. AIM: To compare the effectiveness of two standard dressings (adhesive silicone foam vs. meshed silicone interface) to heal hospital-acquired skin tear. METHODS: An intention-to-treat pilot study was designed using a randomized, non-inferiority trial in an Australian tertiary hospital setting. Consenting participants (n = 52) had acquired a skin tear within the previous 24 h and had agreed to a 3-week follow-up. Data were collected between 2014 and 2020. The primary outcome measure was wound healing at 21 days. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar in both arms. Per protocol, 86% of skin tears were fully healed at 3 weeks in the adhesive silicone foam group, compared to 59% in the meshed silicone interface group. Greater healing was observed across all skin tear categories in the adhesive silicone foam dressing group. In the intention-to-treat sample, healing was 69% and 42%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest the adhesive silicone foam dressing may be superior, as it produced clinically significant healing of skin tears at 3 weeks compared to the meshed silicone interface dressing. Accounting for potential loss to follow-up, a sample of at least 103 participants per arm would be required to power a definitive study.

A short multi-factor screening tool to assess falls-risk in older people presenting to an Australian emergency department: A feasibility study.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate use of a short multi-factor falls-risk screening tool for older people within the emergency department, to enable rapid identification of falls-risk and triggers for multidisciplinary referral for further falls-specific assessment. METHODS: Older people, aged ≥70 years, presenting to the emergency department with a fall-related injury or disease (n = 137) were recruited by a research nurse following randomisation. A short multi-factor screening tool was completed, comprised of 14 falls-risk-related assessment components. RESULTS: Only one participant did not generate any referrals. Participants generated most referrals for medications (85.4%), social and housing (84.6%), vision (67.2%), podiatry (66.9%), or function and mobility (54.7%). Based on our results, the screening tool could be reduced to eleven components. The median time-to-screen was 11 min (IQR 9-15), with 736 triggers generated for referral and further assessment of falls-risk. CONCLUSION: Falls are a major cause of ED presentation for older people. A short multi-factor screening tool with eleven components could be adapted to local familiar falls-risk tools and be completed in less than 10 min. Further research to trial the feasibility of completing ED referrals based on screening results is required to confirm the usefulness of such screening and referral within the ED.

Comparison of pressure injury risk assessment outcomes using a structured assessment tool versus clinical judgement: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Whilst performing a pressure injury risk assessment is not in itself preventive, risk status identification is critical to inform the judicious implementation of prevention strategies. Risk assessment is mostly undertaken using a structured tool informed by clinical judgement, though there is a perception that use of clinical judgement alone may be sufficient. OBJECTIVES: Within acute hospital settings, to identify differences in outcomes (risk status, preventive interventions) following nursing assessment of pressure injury risk when using a structured assessment tool compared to clinical judgement. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: EBSCO CINAHL Complete, EBSCO MEDLINE Complete, Scopus, Web of Science, Ovid EMBASE. METHODS: Primary research relevant to the objectives was eligible for inclusion. Databases were searched in February 2021 (limits: date 2010-2020, English language, adults). Two reviewers undertook the review process, with a third as arbitrator. Appraisal was undertaken using Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools. Included studies are synthesised narratively. Reporting is in accordance with the PRISMA Statement. RESULTS: Five moderate to high-quality studies were included. Synthesis was limited by heterogeneity. Several risk assessment tools and methods of clinical judgement were used. Three studies reported pressure injury risk status using both assessment approaches, but in only one did nurses undertake both. Risk status, as identified by each method, varied and was sometimes contradictory. Three studies reported some elements of preventive intervention prescription and/or implementation following risk assessment, but comparison between approaches was limited. CONCLUSIONS: Some research suggests that risk status varies across different methods of pressure injury risk assessment, but it is unclear what impact this has on preventive intervention use. Risk status was not well linked to preventive interventions. Research is warranted to examine the influence that each approach to risk assessment alone and combined has on identified risk and preventive intervention prescription and implementation. REGISTRATION: A protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021224747).

Patient and carer experience of living with a pressure injury: A meta-synthesis of qualitative studies.

INTRODUCTION: Pressure injuries are a significant cause of harm, contributing to increased mortality and financial burden on the healthcare system. Significant research on pressure injury risk assessment, prevention and treatment exists, but limited research exploring the patient and carer experience of living with pressure injury. AIMS: The aim of this meta-synthesis was to describe the patient and carer experience of living with a pressure injury. DESIGN: Meta-synthesis. METHODS: A prospective review protocol was registered, and systematic search conducted across five electronic databases. The PRISMA 2020 checklist for reporting systematic reviews was used. Two reviewers independently undertook screening and review of articles, using the CASP checklist for evaluating qualitative research. A meta-synthesis using thematic content analysis was undertaken. RESULTS: Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria. Meta-synthesis led to the construction of three primary themes: loss of autonomy and independence, psychological effects, and adjustment. Within these primary themes, sub-themes of dependence, social isolation and social avoidance behaviours, feelings and emotions, loss, managing, physical consequences, service provision, and functional challenges, were identified. CONCLUSION: The psychology and mindset of those involved, and support to navigate the challenges that arise are two unique and clinically relevant categorisations to guide provision of pressure injury care. Adaptation to a pressure injury is multi-faceted and contextual, challenges to adaptation create additional psychological burden. Interventions encompassing all facets of the experience are necessary. Current research into experiences is limited, and further research to support interventions is necessary.

Use of a Sacral Foam Dressing to Prevent Pressure Injury in At-Risk Subacute Hospitalized Older Adults: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this pilot study was to inform a future trial aimed at comparing the effectiveness of a prophylactic sacral dressing plus standard care to standard care only to reduce sacral pressure injuries (PIs) in at-risk older adults admitted to a subacute hospital setting. DESIGN: A pilot study with a pragmatic, open-label, randomized controlled trial design. SAMPLE AND SETTING: One hundred thirty participants were randomized (intervention n = 66, 50.8%; control n = 64, 49.2%). Protocol violations occurred in 48 participants (intervention n = 33, 68.8%; control n = 15, 31.3%). The study setting was a subacute hospital inpatient care unit located in Queensland, Australia. METHODS: Participants were randomly allocated 1:1 to the intervention (prophylactic dressing plus standard care) or control group (standard care). Standard care included regular PI risk and skin assessments, and selection and implementation of preventive interventions (eg, support surfaces and increased repositioning) from a PI prevention care plan. The sacral dressing was applied for intervention participants immediately following recruitment. Ward and research staff collected data and assessed skin integrity daily; participants were followed up until onset of a PI or up to 28 days without PI occurrence. In addition, retrospective chart reviews were undertaken to verify PI occurrences. Patient comfort and dressing utility were also evaluated. RESULTS: Two (3.0%) participants in the intervention group and 1 (1.6%) in the control group developed a sacral PI. The difference was not statistically significant. Only 1 PI was recorded prospectively, while 2 PIs were identified via retrospective chart review. Participants rated dressing comfort highly, particularly during the first 2 weeks, and nurses rated utility highly. Based on the intention-to-treat results, a sample size of 1799 per arm would be required in a definitive trial. CONCLUSIONS: A definitive trial is feasible and warranted. However, the large sample size required in a definitive trial indicates the need for multiple sites.

Translation and piloting of the Chinese Mandarin version of an intensive care-specific pressure injury risk assessment tool (the COMHON Index).

Objective: To translate an intensive care-specific pressure injury risk assessment tool (the COMHON Index) from English into Chinese Mandarin. Methods: A four-step approach to instrument translation was utilised: 1) English-Mandarin forward-translation by three independent bilinguists; 2) Mandarin-English back-translation by two other independent bilinguists; 3) comparison of forward and back-translations, identification of discrepancies, with required amendments returned to step one; and 4) piloting of the translated instrument. The pilot study was undertaken in a Chinese surgical intensive care unit with a convenience sample of 20 nurses. A five-point ordinal scale (1 = very difficult; 5 = very easy) was used to assess ease-of-use and understanding. Translations were retained where medians ≥ 4 indicated use and understanding was easy to very easy. Results: Five iterations of steps 1 to 3, and two sets of amendments to the original English instrument, were required to achieve translation consensus prior to pilot testing. Subscale scoring, sum scoring, and risk categorisation were documented in most pilot assessments (≥ 80%), but three sum scores were incorrectly tallied. The overall tool and all subscales were easy to use and understand (medians ≥ 4), and most assessments (16/20, 80%) took ≤ 5 min to complete. Thus, translations were retained, with minor amendments made to instrument instructions for scoring and risk categorisation. Conclusions: An easy-to-use Chinese Mandarin intensive care-specific pressure injury risk assessment tool has been introduced through cross-cultural translation. However, it requires further testing of interrater reliability and agreement. A rigorous translation and reporting exemplar is presented that provides guidance for future translations.

Skin tear prevalence in an Australian acute care hospital: A 10-year analysis.

Hospital-acquired skin tear prevalence is under-reported; thus, the aim of this study was to analyse skin tear point prevalence and characteristics in a tertiary acute care hospital in Queensland, Australia, over a 10-year period. All consenting adult inpatients received a full skin inspection and skin tear category, site, cause, treatment, and whether it was documented as hospital- or community-acquired were recorded. Eleven prevalence audits were analysed with a total sample of 3626 patients. An overall pooled prevalence of 8.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 7.5-10.4) with an associated hospital-acquired pooled prevalence of 5.5% (95% CI 4.5-6.7) was found. In total, 616 skin tears were reported, of which 374 (60.7%) were hospital-acquired. Over a third of patients (38.7%) had multiple skin tears and most patients (84.8%) with at least one skin tear were aged ≥70 years. The largest proportion of skin tears (40.1%) was those with no skin flap. Of those documented, most were caused by falls or collisions, suggesting combined skin tear and falls prevention strategies may be effective. Over a decade, there was a downward trend in hospital-acquired skin tear, which is encouraging. Skin tear prevalence is recommended as a measure of care quality with an emphasis on good quality documentation.

Effectiveness of interventions to prevent pressure injury in adults admitted to acute hospital settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Hospital-acquired pressure injuries cause significant harm to afflicted individuals, and financially burden hospitals. Most pressure injuries are avoidable with the use of preventative interventions. However, within acute hospital settings the effectiveness of pressure injury preventative interventions, as demonstrated by high-level evidence, requires examination. OBJECTIVE: Analyse the effectiveness of interventions to prevent pressure injury in adults admitted to acute hospital settings. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: CINAHL, MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science and Embase were searched in May/June 2019. In April 2020, searches were updated to the end of 2019. METHODS: Randomised controlled trials which investigated the effectiveness of pressure injury preventative interventions on pressure injury incidence, within adults admitted to acute hospital settings, were included. Trials limited to pressure injury treatment or specialty areas, and non-English reports, were excluded. Screening, extraction and risk-of-bias assessment were undertaken independently by two reviewers, with a third as arbitrator. Included studies were grouped by intervention type. Studies were synthesised narratively, and meta-analysis was undertaken where study interventions were similar. Using a random-effects model, primary meta-analyses were undertaken using intention-to-treat data. RESULTS: Of 2000 records, 45 studies were included in the systematic review which investigated nine different intervention types: continence management, heel protection devices, medication, nutrition, positioning, prophylactic dressings, support surfaces, topical preparations and bundled interventions. All studies were judged to be at unclear or high risk-of-bias. Several meta-analyses were undertaken, pooled by intervention type. Most pooled samples were heterogeneous. Based on intention-to-treat data, only one intervention demonstrated a statistically significant effect: Australian medical sheepskin surfaces compared to other standard care surfaces (risk ratio 0.42, p = 0.006, I2 = 36%), but included studies were limited by bias and age. Following per protocol meta-analyses, only two intervention types demonstrated a significant effect: support surfaces (active versus other comparison [risk ratio = 0.54, p = 0.005, I2 = 43%] and standard surfaces [risk ratio = 0.31, p < 0.001, I2 = 0%]; and reactive versus other comparison surfaces [risk ratio = 0.53, p = 0.03, I2 = 64%]) and heel protection devices versus standard care (risk ratio = 0.38, p < 0.001, I2 = 36%). CONCLUSIONS: Only one intervention was supported by intention-to-treat meta-analysis. Significantly, all trials were at unclear or high risk-of-bias; and there were several limitations regarding heterogeneity across trials and trial outcomes. Further large-scale, high-quality trials testing pressure injury preventative interventions are required to establish effectiveness within acute hospital settings. Attention should be paid to true intention-to-treat analysis, and acute and intensive care settings should be reported separately. PROSPERO registration number:CRD42019129556.