Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Use of a risk-based intervention bundle to prescribe and implement interventions to prevent pressure injury: An observational study.
Fulbrook, Paul; Lovegrove, Josephine; Ven, Saroeun; Schnaak, Sarah; Nowicki, Tracy.
Affiliation
  • Fulbrook P; School of Nursing, Midwifery and Paramedicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Australian Catholic University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
  • Lovegrove J; Nursing Research and Practice Development Centre, The Prince Charles Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
  • Ven S; School of Therapeutic Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
  • Schnaak S; Nursing Research and Practice Development Centre, The Prince Charles Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
  • Nowicki T; National Health and Medical Research Council Centre of Research Excellence in Wiser Wound Care, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
J Adv Nurs ; 2024 Jul 05.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38969344
ABSTRACT

AIM:

To explore the relationship between the prescription and implementation of pressure injury preventative interventions following risk assessment combined with a risk-stratified intervention bundle.

DESIGN:

Single-centre, cross-sectional, observational, prospective.

METHODS:

The charts and bedsides of 341 adult inpatients were examined. Data collection included pressure injury risk level, prescribed preventative interventions and evidence of intervention implementation.

RESULTS:

Most patients (68.6%) were at risk of pressure injury, and most interventions were prescribed according to their risk level. However, evidence from direct observation and/or documentation indicated intervention implementation rates were relatively poor. Of nine interventions mandated for all patients, compliance with three patient-/carer-focused interventions was particularly poor, with evidence indicating they had been implemented for 3%-10% of patients. Also, nutritional screening-related interventions were implemented poorly. Clinically indicated implementation of heel-elevation devices and bariatric equipment was low for at-risk patients, and the implementation of interventions for patients with existing pressure injuries was suboptimal. Significant proportions of several interventions that were observed as having been implemented were not documented as such.

CONCLUSION:

While most interventions were prescribed according to patient risk level, the overall implementation of interventions was poor. However, the results may in part be due to failure to document interventions as opposed to omitting them. IMPLICATIONS FOR PATIENT CARE Documentation of interventions is crucial as it provides evidence of the care provided. An increased focus on documentation of pressure injury preventative interventions is required, with a clear distinction between prescription and implementation. IMPACT The results highlighted several deficiencies in care, particularly relating to evidence of implementation, patient involvement and nutritional screening. The results from this study will be used to inform and improve future pressure injury prevention practice within the study hospital and should be used to inform and benchmark pressure injury preventative practices in other hospitals. REPORTING

METHOD:

The study adheres to STROBE guidelines. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION None.
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Language: En Journal: J Adv Nurs Year: 2024 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Australia

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Language: En Journal: J Adv Nurs Year: 2024 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Australia