Cost comparison of pressure ulcer preventive dressings: hydrocolloid dressing versus transparent polyurethane film.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the costs of using a transparent polyurethane film (PF) and hydrocolloid dressing (HD) in the prevention of pressure ulcers (PUs). METHOD: This descriptive, observational, longitudinal, comparative study was conducted in the intensive care units, coronary care unit and medical clinic of a charity hospital in Brazil. Data were collected during a 30-day study period, consisting of physical examination, assessment of risk factors for PU development and application of the Braden scale, which were performed at inclusion in the study and once daily during hospitalisation. Either PF or HD was applied bilaterally in the sacral and trochanteric regions for prevention of PUs in patients at a moderate to high risk of PUs according to the Braden scale, and costs of using PU preventive dressings were estimated. RESULTS: The mean total costs per dressing change per patient when using the HD and PF to prevent PUs were 413.60 BRL and 74.04 BRL, respectively. There were significant between-group differences in mean costs for all variables, except for saline solution and nurse-technician services. CONCLUSION: Results showed that the mean cost per dressing change per patient was lower when using the transparent PF than when using the HD.

Using transparent polyurethane film and hydrocolloid dressings to prevent pressure ulcers.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance and effectiveness of a hydrocolloid dressing (HD) and a transparent polyurethane film (PF) in preventing pressure ulcer (PU) development. METHOD: The study was conducted in the intensive care unit, coronary care unit and medical clinic of the Holy House of Mercy of Passos, Brazil. Data were collected 48 hours after admission and during hospitalisation. The Braden scale was used for PU risk assessment. Consecutive eligible patients without PUs were randomly assigned by lottery to the two groups, either the HD or PF group. RESULTS: Of the 160 eligible patients, significant between-group differences were found in the mean total number of dressing changes (HD, 6.09±1.655 changes; PF, 5.59±2.036 changes; p=0.010), and mean number of dressing changes in the sacral region (HD, 2.50±0.871; PF, 2.05±0.825; p=0.001), with the PF group requiring significantly fewer changes than the HD group. The most common reasons for changing dressings in both groups were moisture (PF 51.1%; HD 47.9%) and shear (HD 43%; PF 38.9%), with a significant difference in shear between groups. The incidence of PUs was significantly lower (p=0.038) in the PF group (8.7%) compared with that in the HD group (15%). CONCLUSION: The results suggest that the transparent polyurethane film had a better performance and was more effective than the hydrocolloid dressing in preventing PU development.