RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Mucosal pressure injuries (PIs) are usually caused by pressure from essential medical devices. There is no universally accepted criterion for assessment, monitoring, or reporting mucosal PI. Reliable descriptors are vital to benchmark the frequency and severity of this hospital-acquired complication. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to determine whether modified Reaper Oral Mucosa Pressure Injury Scale (ROMPIS) descriptors improved the reliability of mucosal PI assessment. Secondary aims were to explore nurses' knowledge of and attitudes toward mucosal PI. METHODS: A prospective cross-sectional survey was distributed to nurses from two tertiary affiliated intensive care units via REDCap® to capture demographic data, knowledge, attitudes, and inter-rater reliability (IRR) measures. Nurses were randomised at a 1:1 ratio to original or modified ROMPIS descriptors and classified 12 images of mucosal PI. IRR was assessed using percentage agreement, Fleiss' kappa, and intraclass correlation coefficients. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 20.9% (n = 98/468), with 73.5% (n = 72/98) completing IRR measures. Agreement was higher with modified (75%) than original ROMPIS descriptors (69.4%). IRR was fair for the original (κ = 0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.28, 0.33], z 26.5, p < 0.001) and modified ROMPIS (κ = 0.29, 95% CI [0.26, 0.31], z 25.0, p < 0.001). Intraclass correlation coefficient findings indicated ratings were inconsistent for the original (0.33, 95% CI [0.18, 0.59], F 18.8 (11 df), p < 0.001) and modified ROMPIS (0.31, 95% CI [0.17, 0.57], F 17.6 (11 df), p < 0.001). PI-specific education and risk factor recognition were common. CONCLUSION: Modified descriptors had marginally better agreement. Participants understand management and prevention but need to strengthen their perceived capacity for mucosal PI risk assessment. This work provides a foundation for future benchmarking and a platform from which further research to refine and test descriptors specific to mucosal PI can be generated.
Assuntos
Enfermeiras e Enfermeiros , Úlcera por Pressão , Humanos , Competência Clínica , Estudos Transversais , Úlcera por Pressão/etiologia , Estudos Prospectivos , Reprodutibilidade dos TestesRESUMO
AIM: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of uncoated paper on skin moisture, pressure injury risk and pressure injury incidence in neurological intensive care unit patients. METHODS: A randomized controlled design was used. The experimental group (n = 68) received usual care (repositioning every 2 h and use of an air mattress) and application of uncoated paper on the sacral area for 5 days, whereas the control group (n = 67) received only usual care. A repeated measures analysis of variance was used to determine changes in the skin moisture and risk of pressure injury between the groups. A chi-squared test was used to determine the change in the incidence of pressure injuries for sacral area. Data were collected from 20 October 2017 to 6 March 2018. RESULTS: There were statistically significant differences in the skin moisture and risk of pressure injuries between the experimental and control groups. However, a significant difference was not observed in the incidence of pressure injuries between the groups. CONCLUSION: The use of uncoated paper may be a valid nursing intervention for the prevention of pressure injuries in neurological intensive care unit patients.
Assuntos
Úlcera por Pressão , Leitos , Cuidados Críticos , Humanos , Incidência , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva , Úlcera por Pressão/epidemiologia , Úlcera por Pressão/etiologia , Úlcera por Pressão/prevenção & controleRESUMO
Resumo: A lesão por pressão é um agravo de etiologia multifatorial com elevados índices de prevalência, incidência e potencial para causar complicações graves. Há necessidade de diretrizes clínicas que apoiem a tomada de decisão deste agravo, sendo a prevenção uma estratégia eficaz para reduzir sua ocorrência. Esta pesquisa identifica, sumariza e quantifica a evidência oriunda de revisões sistemáticas de ensaios clínicos randomizados controlados, quase randomizados e cluster randomizados, sobre a comparação da efetividade de intervenções para prevenção de lesão por pressão por meio de uma overview de revisões sistemáticas segundo as recomendações da Colaboração Cochrane. A busca eletrônica foi efetuada em julho de 2017, com atualizações em outubro do mesmo ano e em janeiro de 2018, nas seguintes bases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CDSR (Cochrane), DARE (Cochrane), HTA (Cochrane), além de consulta a repositórios e site de registro de revisões sistemáticas. Foram identificados 840 registros e após leitura e apreciação de títulos e resumos, seguido pelos textos completos, oito revisões sistemáticas, com um total de 23.458 participantes foram incluídas nesta overview. Múltiplas intervenções foram avaliadas e 30 comparações diretas apresentadas, sendo cinco categorizadas em "avaliação do risco", três em "avaliação e suporte nutricional", 13 em "superfícies de suporte", três em "reposicionamento e mobilização" e seis em "terapias emergentes e outras intervenções para prevenção de lesão por pressão". O desfecho primário foi a incidência. Os desfechos secundários "tempo livre de lesão" e "evento adverso" foram analisados em uma revisão. Para os suplementos nutricionais, não houveram diferenças claras na ocorrência de lesão por pressão quando comparados à dieta hospitalar padrão (RR 0,86 IC 95% 0,73 - 1,00). No entanto, ao realizar análise de sensibilidade, observou-se uma redução da incidência de lesão por pressão, com resultados estatisticamente significativos (RR 0,83, IC95% 0,72-0,95) a favor da intervenção. Para as superfícies de suporte, os agrupamentos evidenciaram superioridade das superfícies de baixa pressão constante (RR 0,38, IC 95% 0,24 - 0,61), dos dispositivos de pressão alternada (RR 0,31 IC 95% 0,17 - 0,58) e das espumas alternativas (RR 0,40, IC 95% 0,21 - 0,74) quando comparadas ao colchão hospitalar padrão ou de espuma padrão. Em relação às terapias emergentes para prevenção das lesões, a comparação entre diversas formulações de agentes tópicos e placebo não evidenciou diferenças na ocorrência de lesões entre os grupos (RR 0,78 IC 95% 0,47 - 1,31). Na comparação entre uso de cobertura e nenhuma cobertura, a intervenção experimental foi significativamente superior ao controle (RR 0,21 IC 95% 0,09-0,51). O tempo livre de lesão foi maior no grupo que usou coberturas (9,8 dias e 8,7 dias respectivamente em um dos estudos analisados). Embora algumas intervenções de prevenção de lesão por pressão se mostraram mais efetivas na redução de sua incidência, as evidências ainda são limitadas ou muito limitadas. A principal limitação desta overview foi a baixa qualidade metodológica dos estudos incluídos nas revisões. Como implicação, tem-se que novos estudos poderão alterar substancialmente a incerteza atualmente existente das estimativas de efeito que comparam diferentes intervenções para prevenção de lesão por pressão. Registro PROSPERO CRD42017064586.
Abstract: Pressure injury is a multifactorial etiology with high prevalence rates, incidence and potential to cause serious complications. There is a need for clinical guidelines that support the decision-making on this disease, and prevention is an effective strategy to reduce its occurrence. This research identifies, summarizes and quantifies the evidence from systematic reviews of randomized, controlled randomized, quasirandomized and cluster randomized controlled clinical trials comparing the effectiveness of interventions for prevention of pressure injury. That is done through an overview of systematic reviews as recommended by Cochrane Collaboration. The electronic search was carried out in July 2017, with updates in October of the same year and in January of 2018, in the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CDSR (Cochrane), DARE (Cochrane), HTA (Cochrane) repositories and site of systematic reviews registry. The number of 840 records were identified and after reading and appreciation of titles and abstracts, followed by the full texts, eight systematic reviews, with 23,458 participants were included in this overview. Multiple interventions were evaluated and 30 direct comparisons were presented, with five categorized as "risk assessment", three in "nutritional assessment and support", 13 in "support surfaces", three in "repositioning and mobilization" and six in "emerging therapies and other interventions to prevent pressure injury". The primary outcome was incidence. Secondary outcomes "injury free time" and "adverse event" were analyzed in a review. For nutritional supplements, there were no clear differences in the occurrence of pressure injury when compared to the standard hospital diet (RR 0.86 CI95% 0.73 - 1.00). However, when performing sensitivity analysis, a reduction in the incidence of pressure injury was observed, with statistically significant results (RR 0.83, CI95% 0.72-0.95) in favor of the intervention. For the support surfaces, the clusters showed superiority of the surfaces of constant low pressure (RR 0.38, CI95% 0.24-0.61), of the alternating pressure devices (RR 0.31 CI95% 0.17 - 0.58) and of the alternative foams (RR 0.40, CI95% 0.21-0.74) when compared to the standard hospital or standard foam mattress. In relation to emerging injury prevention therapies, the comparison between several formulations of topical agents and placebo did not show differences in the occurrence of lesions between the groups (RR 0.78 CI95% 0.47 - 1.31). In the comparison between coverage use and no coverage, the experimental intervention was significantly superior to the control (RR 0.21 CI95% 0.09-0.51). The injury free time was higher in the group that used coverages (9.8 days and 8.7 days, respectively, in one of the analyzed studies). Although someprevention interventions against pressure injury have been shown to be more effective in reducing their incidence, the evidence is still limited or very limited. The main limitation of this overview was the poor methodological quality of the studies included in the reviews. As implication, it is known that new studies may substantially alter the current uncertainty of effect estimates that compare different interventions for prevention of pressure injury. Registration PROSPERO CRD42017064586.
