Difficulty in Identifying Factors Responsible for Pressure Ulcer Healing in Veterans With Spinal Cord Injury.

OBJECTIVE: To identify characteristics associated with pressure ulcer (PrU) healing for individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI). DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a large clinical trial's data for healing PrUs in individuals with SCI; prospective Delphi process was conducted with SCI and/or PrU experts. SETTING: Spinal cord injury centers. PARTICIPANTS: There were 629 screening and 162 treatment participants (N=791); 185 SCI clinicians/national PrU/wound care experts participated in the Delphi process. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: PrU healing of 50% and 100% at weeks 4 and 12. RESULTS: Poisson regression models using the top Delphi-recommended factors found that only ulcer stage consistently predicted 50% and 100% healing at weeks 4 and 12. Additionally, ischial/perineal location was associated with 33% higher likelihood of 50% healing at week 4. Patient noncompliance with treatment recommendations, the top-ranked Delphi factor, did not predict healing at week 4 or 12. Expanded models found that at week 4, baseline PrU size, PrU stage IV, PrU pain, and American Spinal Injury Association grade A significantly predicted 100% healing, while at week 12, only PrU stage (IV) significantly predicted 100% healing. Significant predictors of 50% healing at week 4 included baseline PrU size, stage, ischial/perianal location body mass index >30kg/m2, foul odor, and signs of infection. At week 12, PrU duration, paraplegia predicted 50% healing. SCI center identifiers consistently showed 2- to 5-fold variation in predicting 50% PrU healing at weeks 4 and 12. CONCLUSIONS: Delphi panel-recommended factors (eg, patient compliance) did not predict PrU healing. Reducing center-level variability in wound healing by learning from best practices should be a health system goal. PrU healing in SCI is still poorly understood, and future studies should focus on as yet unidentified or underappreciated factors.

Validity and reliability of a pressure ulcer monitoring tool for persons with spinal cord impairment.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose was to provide support for validity and reliability of the spinal cord impairment pressure ulcer monitoring tool (SCI-PUMT) to assess pressure ulcer (PrU) healing. DESIGN: Expert panels developed a 30-item pool, including new items and items from two established PrU healing tools, to represent potential variables for monitoring PrU healing. Subjects were prospectively assessed weekly for each variable over a 12-week period. SETTING: Data collection was conducted on a cohort of inpatients and outpatients in one Spinal Cord Injury/Disorders Center in the Veterans' Health Administration. SUBJECTS: A convenience sample of Veterans (n = 66) with spinal cord impairment (SCI) was recruited. Eligible subjects had at least one PrU (n = 167) and a history of SCI for longer than 1 year. Interventions Not applicable. OUTCOME MEASURE: A change in PrU volume was calculated using VeV Measurement Documentation software and a digital imaging camera. RESULTS: Content validity was established for a pool of items designed to gauge PrU healing. Exploratory factor analysis (construct validity) identified a parsimonious set of seven items for inclusion in the SCI-PUMT to assess PrU healing. The SCI-PUMT was found to explain 59% of the variance of the volume across the study. Inter-rater reliability was 0.79 and intra-rater reliability ranged from 0.81 to 0.99 among research assistants. Similar levels of reliability were subsequently established among registered nurses, who used the SCI-PUMT in the clinical setting. CONCLUSIONS: The final version of the SCI-PUMT was determined to be valid, reliable, and sensitive in detecting PrU healing over time in Veterans with SCI.

A multivariate fall risk assessment model for VHA nursing homes using the minimum data set.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to develop a multivariate fall risk assessment model beyond the current fall Resident Assessment Protocol (RAP) triggers for nursing home residents using the Minimum Data Set (MDS). DESIGN: Retrospective, clustered secondary data analysis. SETTING: National Veterans Health Administration (VHA) long-term care nursing homes (N = 136). PARTICIPANTS: The study population consisted of 6577 national VHA nursing home residents who had an annual assessment during FY 2005, identified from the MDS, as well as an earlier annual or admission assessment within a 1-year look-back period. MEASUREMENT: A dichotomous multivariate model of nursing home residents coded with a fall on selected fall risk characteristics from the MDS, estimated with general estimation equations (GEE). RESULTS: There were 17 170 assessments corresponding to 6577 long-term care nursing home residents. The increased odds ratio (OR) of being classified as a faller relative to the omitted "dependent" category of activities of daily living (ADL) ranged from OR = 1.35 for "limited" ADL category up to OR = 1.57 for "extensive-2" ADL (P < .0001). Unsteady gait more than doubles the odds of being a faller (OR = 2.63, P < .0001). The use of assistive devices such as canes, walkers, or crutches, or the use of wheelchairs increases the odds of being a faller (OR = 1.17, P < .0005) or (OR = 1.19, P < .0002), respectively. Foot problems may also increase the odds of being a faller (OR = 1.26, P < .0016). Alzheimer's or other dementias also increase the odds of being classified as a faller (OR = 1.18, P < .0219) or (OR=1.22, P < .0001), respectively. In addition, anger (OR = 1.19, P < .0065); wandering (OR = 1.53, P < .0001); or use of antipsychotic medications (OR = 1.15, P < .0039), antianxiety medications (OR = 1.13, P < .0323), or antidepressant medications (OR = 1.39, P < .0001) was also associated with the odds of being a faller. CONCLUSIONS: This national study in one of the largest managed healthcare systems in the United States has empirically confirmed the relative importance of certain risk factors for falls in long-term care settings. The model incorporated an ADL index and adjusted for case mix by including only long-term care nursing home residents. The study offers clinicians practical estimates by combining multiple univariate MDS elements in an empirically based, multivariate fall risk assessment model.

Provider-perceived barriers and facilitators for ischaemic heart disease (IHD) guideline adherence.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Clinical practice guidelines have become a standard way of implementing evidence-based practice, yet research has shown that clinicians do not always follow guidelines. METHOD: As part of a larger study to test the effects of an intervention on provider adherence to ischaemic heart disease (IHD) guidelines, we conducted five focus groups at three Veterans Administration Medical Centers with 32 primary care providers, cardiologists, and internists to identify key barriers and facilitators to adherence of the guidelines. Using content analysis, responses were grouped into categories. RESULTS: The main perceived advantages of using the IHD guidelines were improvements in quality and the cost of care. Perceived barriers were the lack of ability of guidelines to manage the care of any one individual patient, the difficulty of accessing guidelines, and high workloads with many complex patients. While providers agreed on the benefits of aspirin, beta-blockers and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, barriers for use of these medications were lack of consensus about contraindications, difficulty in providing follow-up during medication titration, and lack of patient adherence. Sources of influence for guideline use were: professional cardiology organizations, colleagues, mainly cardiologists, and key cardiology journals. However, most providers acknowledged that following guidelines was a personal practice decision. CONCLUSIONS: While results validated the influences of using clinical practice guidelines, our results highlight the importance of ascertaining guideline-specific barriers for building effective interventions to improve provider adherence. An advisory panel reviewed results and, using a modified nominal group process, chose implementation strategies targeting key barriers.