The Role of Shear Stress and Shear Strain in Pressure Injury Development.

ABSTRACT: Although other patient safety indicators have seen a decline, pressure injury (PI) incidence has continued to rise. In this article, the authors discuss the role of shear stress and shear strain in PI development and describe how accurate assessment and management can reduce PI risk. They provide explanations of shear stress, shear strain, friction, and tissue deformation to support a better clinical understanding of how damaging these forces are for soft tissue. Clinicians must carefully assess each patient's risk factors regarding shear forces within the contexts of activity and mobility. The authors also provide a toolbox of mitigation strategies, including support surface selection, selection of materials that contact the individual, management of immobility using positioning techniques, and the use of safe patient handling techniques. With a clear understanding of how shear forces affect PI risk and mitigation strategies, clinicians will more accurately assess PI risk and improve PI prevention care plans, ultimately reducing PI incidence to become more aligned with other patient safety indicators.

Enhancing prone positioning and skin damage prevention education: A randomized controlled non-inferiority trial comparing a digital education hub (PRONEtect) and a traditional lecture on final-year nursing participants' confidence and knowledge.

INTRODUCTION: The incidence of pressure ulcers remains high in patients with moderate to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome, ventilated in the prone position. A digital platform, dedicated to prone positioning and skin/tissue damage education was developed. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of the PRONEtect Education Hub versus a traditional lecture on final-year nursing students' confidence levels and knowledge in a non-inferiority study. DESIGN: A multicenter, non-blinded, parallel-group, non-inferiority study with equal randomization (1:1 allocation) was conducted at two nursing schools in Belgium. CLINICALTRIALS: gov (NCT05575869). METHODS: Following baseline assessments, the control group received a 1-h classroom lecture, and the experimental group gained access to the PRONEtect website. Three weeks later, participants completed the knowledge, confidence, and visual knowledge assessment. RESULTS: At baseline, 67 of the 80 participants completed the assessments and post-intervention, 28 and 27 participants respectively completed the confidence, knowledge, and visual knowledge assessments (dropout rate of 66.25%). Confidence levels: a mean ratio of relative change from baseline = 0.96 (Control (C)/Experimental (E)); 97.5% confidence interval (CI): 0.74 to 1.26; p = 0.74. Knowledge assessment: a mean difference in change from baseline = 1.58 (C-E); 97.5% CI: -0.58 to 3.75; p = 0.1. Although confidence and knowledge scores increased in both groups, the study cannot conclude non-inferiority. CONCLUSIONS: The trade-off between the inability to conclude efficacy of the impact of the website and the benefit of having an accessible educational platform on prone positioning and skin damage prevention makes the PRONEtect Education Hub an acceptable adjunct to traditional lecturing.

The Standardized Pressure Injury Prevention Protocol (SPIPP) Checklist 2.0: Content validation.

BACKGROUND: Pressure injury prevention is complex, and rates continue to rise. Checklists reduce human error, improve adherence and standardization with complex processes, focus attention on evidence-based practices derived from clinical practice guidelines and are arranged in a systematic manner to manage the entirety of a patient's risk for preventable outcomes. The original Standardized Pressure Injury Prevention Protocol was created to provide a checklist of pressure injury prevention measures but needed revision and validation. PURPOSE: This article describes the revision and content validity testing of the Standardized Pressure Injury Prevention Protocol Checklist 2.0 that took place in 2022. METHODS: Using the International 2019 Clinical Practice Guideline as a foundation, items were identified/revised, and expert review of the items was obtained. The Standardized Pressure Injury Prevention Protocol 2.0 underwent three rounds of revision by experts from the National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel. A panel of eight national experts completed the content validity survey. Individual item content validity index and total scale content validity index were used to summarize the content validity survey scores. RESULTS: The individual item content validity index scores ranged from 0.5 to 1.0. One item (using a mirror to look at heels) was rated as 0.5, three items were 0.75, 20 items were 0.875 and 23 items were 1.0. The item scoring 0.5 was deleted. Those items scoring 0.75 were revised using the content experts' recommendations. The total scale content validity index was 0.93. CONCLUSION: The Standardized Pressure Injury Prevention Protocol 2.0 provides a standardized checklist of evidence-based items that operationalize a rigorous clinical practice guideline for the prevention of pressure injuries. Early intervention using a standardized approach and evidence-based checklist that can be integrated into the workflow of the direct-care nurse and provider provides the best opportunity for successful and sustainable pressure injury prevention.

Development of prone positioning and skin damage prevention digital education: the PRONEtect project.

OBJECTIVE: The incidence of skin/tissue damage, such as pressure ulcers, remains high in mechanically ventilated patients in the prone position. According to guidelines, critically ill patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) should be prone for at least 12-16 hours to improve oxygenation and decrease mortality. Therefore, educating clinicians on how to reposition and manage the patient safely in a prone position plays a vital role in preventing adverse events. This project aimed to develop accessible online educational content to assist clinicians in safely executing the prone manoeuvre and minimise skin/tissue damage. METHOD: The development of the educational content was based on: a gap analysis and comprehensive review of available educational resources; evidence-based scientific literature; advice from international experts; and a qualitative study exploring the learning needs of 20 clinicians in Belgium and Sweden between February-August 2022. RESULTS: Volunteer clinicians assisted with the creation of eight simulation videos which were professionally filmed and edited. The interactive videos included the supine-to-prone and prone-to-supine manoeuvres, endotracheal and nasogastric tube securement, eye care, stoma care, protecting high-risk areas from pressure damage, and incontinence-associated dermatitis prevention. A prone positioning protocol, a checklist summarising the key aspects of the protocol, and teaching aids (slide deck for didactic lecturing) were developed and validated by a review of the relevant evidence-based literature and the international expert panel. A website was designed to host the content, with free user access, at www.pronetection.com. CONCLUSION: Education is one strategy towards prevention of complications of prone positioning. Accessible education could assist clinicians unfamiliar with prone positioning or current clinicians requiring refresher training to safely manage patients in this position.

Best-practices for preventing skin injury beneath personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic: A position paper from the National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel.

COVID-19 has infected millions of patients and impacted healthcare workers worldwide. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) is a key component of protecting frontline clinicians against infection. The benefits of PPE far outweigh the risks, nonetheless, many clinicians are exhibiting skin injury caused by PPE worn incorrectly. These skin injuries, ranging from lesions to open wounds are concerning because they increase the susceptibility of viral infection and transmission to other individuals. Early into the COVID-19 pandemic (April 2020), the U. S. National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel (NPIAP) developed a series of position statements to improve wear-ability of PPE and protect healthcare professionals and their patients as safe from harm as possible under the circumstances. The NPIAP positions, which were formed by conducting a systematic review of what was known at the time, include: (a) Prepare skin before and after wearing PPE with skin sealants, barrier creams and moisturisers; (b) Frequent PPE offloading to relieve pressure and shear applied to skin; (c) treat visible skin injuries immediately caused by PPE to minimise future infection; (d) non-porous dressings may provide additional skin protection, but lack evidence; (e) health systems should take care to educate clinicians about placement and personal hygiene related to handling PPE. Throughout all of these practices, handwashing remains a top priority to handle PPE. These NPIAP positions provided early guidance to reduce the risk of skin injury caused by PPE based on available research regarding PPE injuries, a cautious application of evidence-based recommendations on prevention of device-related pressure injuries in patients and the expert opinion of the NPIAP Board of Directors. Clinicians who adhere to these recommendations reduce the prospects of skin damage and long-term effects (e.g. scarring). These simple steps to minimise the risk of skin injury and reduce the risk of coronavirus infection from PPE can help.

Medical Device Testing: Methods, Significance, and Clinical Applications.

GENERAL PURPOSE: To present a study conducting objective biomechanical testing of medical devices known to cause medical device-related pressure injuries (MDRPIs) in critically ill adults and comparing those results with clinical outcomes associated with each device. TARGET AUDIENCE: This continuing education activity is intended for physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and nurses with an interest in skin and wound care. LEARNING OBJECTIVES/OUTCOMES: After participating in this educational activity, the participant will:1. Explain the results of the study of the relationships between objective biomechanical tests of medical devices and clinical outcomes that help inform clinicians using these devices.2. Synthesize the background information that informed the study.

To conduct bioengineering testing of devices that cause medical device-related pressure injuries (MDRPIs) in critically ill adults and compare testing results to the MDRPI clinical outcomes associated with each device. Following the identification of MDRPI from oxygen-delivery devices and nasogastric tubes in critically ill adults who were hospitalized between January 2016 and October 2022, the specific manufacturer and model number of the devices were identified. Twelve devices and two prophylactic dressings in original packaging were sent to a bioengineering laboratory for testing. Using an integrated experimental-computational approach, the compressive elastic moduli ( E [MPa]) was measured for each device and prophylactic dressing and compared with the properties of normal adult skin. The authors hypothesized that devices with greater mechanical stiffness (ie, higher E [MPa]) would be associated with a greater number and severity of MDRPIs. Researchers identified 68 patients with 88 MDRPIs. All PI stages except stage 4 were represented. Nasogastric tubes had the highest mechanical stiffness and were the most common MDRPI identified. In contrast, no soft nasal cannula MDRPIs were reported. Devices associated with the highest number of MDRPIs also had the highest E [MPa] values; researchers noted a moderate association between E [MPa] values and pressure injury severity. Prophylactic dressings had E [MPa] values within the range of normal adult skin. The relative mechanical stiffness of a device is an important factor in MDRPI etiology. However, factors such as duration of device use, tightness when securing devices, correct fit, and heat and humidity under devices should be considered in predicting MDRPI severity.

Current Perspectives on Pressure Injuries in Persons with Dark Skin Tones from the National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel.

BACKGROUND: Pressure injury (PI) development is multifactorial. In patients with dark skin tones, identifying impending PIs by visual skin assessment can be especially challenging. The need for improved skin assessment techniques, especially for persons with dark skin tones, continues to increase. Similarly, greater awareness of the need for inclusivity with regard to representation of diverse skin colors/tones in education materials is apparent. OBJECTIVE: To provide current perspectives from the literature surrounding skin assessment and PI development in patients with dark skin tones. METHODS: The following elements will be discussed through the lens of skin tone: (1) historical perspectives of PI staging from the National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel, (2) epidemiology of PI, (3) anatomy and physiology of the skin, (3) skin tone assessment and measurement, (4) augmented visual assessment modalities, (5) PI prevention, (6) PI healing, (7) social determinants of health, and (8) gaps in clinician education. CONCLUSIONS: This article highlights the gap in our clinical knowledge regarding PIs in patients with dark skin tones. Racial disparities with regard to PI development and healing are especially clear among patients with dark skin tones. Skin tone color assessment must be standardized and quantifiable in clinical education, practice, and research. This work is urgently needed, and support from private and governmental agencies is essential.

Defining Practices to Avoid Hospital-Acquired Pressure Injuries in the Operating Room.

BACKGROUND: Data from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality indicate that hospital-acquired pressure injuries (HAPIs) and surgical site infections are the only 2 hospital-acquired conditions that have not improved. Consequently, health systems around the nation are struggling to lower HAPI rates and avoid penalties. All patient care areas of the hospital play a part in pressure injury (PI) development. Analysis of real-time PI data and completion of root cause analysis related to HAPIs can guide organizational leaders to specific clinical areas in need of improvement. Surgical patients are high risk for development of a PI due to their unique vulnerability from multiple transfers and induced immobility. Operating room (OR) nursing organizations and wound care professional organizations have published evidence-based clinical practice guidelines addressing prevention of PIs in the OR. CASES: This article discusses 2 surgical patients from 2 different academic medical centers who experienced OR-associated HAPIs. Operating room HAPI prevention measures should include current evidence-based practice recommendations. Each hospital should take a critical look at their OR HAPI prevention procedures and measure them against the current published guidelines, changing and updating them to reflect best practices for avoiding PI development. Clinicians from both the OR and WOC nurse team can provide expertise to develop confluent nursing practice standards for OR-associated HAPI reduction. CONCLUSION: This article highlights the commonalities found in the guidelines and encourages collaboration between WOC nurses and OR nurses in building and implementing pressure injury prevention practices associated with the OR.

Skin damage prevention in the prone ventilated critically ill patient: A comprehensive review and gap analysis (PRONEtect study).

BACKGROUND: Ventilating critically ill patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome in the prone position is a life-saving strategy, but it is associated with adverse consequences such as skin damage. AIM: To identify, review and evaluate international proning and skin care guidelines and make an inventory of commonly used equipment and training resources. DESIGN: A gap analysis methodology was applied. METHODS: 1) Comprehensive search and evaluation of proning and skin care guidelines, 2) extensive search and listing equipment and educational resources, and 3) international consultation with 11 experts (8 countries). DATA SOURCES: A variety of sources researched through July 2021 were used to identify relevant literature: (1) scientific literature databases and clinical trials registries, (2) intensive care and wound care associations, (3) healthcare organisations, (4) guideline development organisations, and (5) the Google search engine. Eleven international experts reviewed the literature and provided insights in two, 2-h online sessions. FINDINGS: The search yielded 24 guidelines. One clinical practice guideline had high methodological quality. Twenty-five devices/equipment and sixteen teaching materials were identified and discussed with the expert panel. The gap analysis identified a lack of concise, accessible, evidence-based guidelines and educational materials of short duration. CONCLUSION: This analysis forms the basis for designing a competency-based education and training intervention for an interdisciplinary team caring for the skin of critically ill patients in the prone position. IMPACT: The results can assist the multidisciplinary team to review their current protocol for prone positioning. This is a first step in developing a training package for clinicians.

Critical biomechanical and clinical insights concerning tissue protection when positioning patients in the operating room: A scoping review.

An optimal position of the patient during operation may require a compromise between the best position for surgical access and the position a patient and his or her tissues can tolerate without sustaining injury. This scoping review analysed the existing, contemporary evidence regarding surgical positioning-related tissue damage risks, from both biomechanical and clinical perspectives, focusing on the challenges in preventing tissue damage in the constraining operating room environment, which does not allow repositioning and limits the use of dynamic or thick and soft support surfaces. Deep and multidisciplinary aetiological understanding is required for effective prevention of intraoperatively acquired tissue damage, primarily including pressure ulcers (injuries) and neural injuries. Lack of such understanding typically leads to misconceptions and increased risk to patients. This article therefore provides a comprehensive aetiological description concerning the types of potential tissue damage, vulnerable anatomical locations, the risk factors specific to the operative setting (eg, the effects of anaesthetics and instruments), the complex interactions between the tissue damage risk and the pathophysiology of the surgery itself (eg, the inflammatory response to the surgical incisions), risk assessments for surgical patients and their limitations, and available (including emerging) technologies for positioning. The present multidisciplinary and integrated approach, which holistically joins the bioengineering and clinical perspectives, is unique to this work and has not been taken before. Close collaboration between bioengineers and clinicians, such as demonstrated here, is required to revisit the design of operating tables, support surfaces for surgery, surgical instruments for patient stabilisation, and for surgical access. Each type of equipment and its combined use should be evaluated and improved where needed with regard to the two major threats to tissue health in the operative setting: pressure ulcers and neural damage.

An international consensus on device-related pressure ulcers: SECURE prevention.

Catherine Milne and colleagues present the findings of their review, ccna2@juno.com.

Use of Thermal Imaging to Identify Deep-Tissue Pressure Injury on Admission Reduces Clinical and Financial Burdens of Hospital-Acquired Pressure Injuries.

A deep-tissue pressure injury (DTPI) is a serious type of pressure injury that begins in tissue over bony prominences and can lead to the development of hospital-acquired pressure injuries (HAPIs). Using a commercially available thermal imaging system, study authors documented a total of 12 thermal anomalies in 9 of 114 patients at the time of admission to one of the study institution's ICUs over a 2-month period. An intensive, proven wound prevention protocol was immediately implemented for each of these patients. Of these 12 anomalies, 2 ultimately manifested as visually identifiable DTPIs. This represented a 60% reduction in the authors' institution's historical DTPIs/HAPI rate. Because these DTPIs were documented as present on admission using the thermal imaging tool, researchers avoided a revenue loss associated with nonreimbursed costs of care and also estimated financial benefits associated with litigation expenses known to be generated with HAPIs.Using thermal imaging to document DTPIs when patients present has the potential to significantly reduce expenses associated with pressure injury litigation. The clinical and financial benefits of early documentation of skin surface thermal anomalies in anatomical areas of interest are significant.

Root Cause Analysis for Hospital-Acquired Pressure Injury.

Root cause analysis (RCA) is a systematic process for identifying the causes of an adverse occurrence or combined with an approach for a response designed to prevent recurrences. This method may be used for continuous quality improvement in a facility or health system. Root cause analysis can aid nurses and hospital risk managers to determine how the system can improve to reduce the number and severity of pressure injuries. The process of RCA begins with being certain the wound is a pressure injury using differential diagnoses of similar appearing skin disease and injury, followed by an examination of the processes of care (human roots) for missed actions or inactions that are linked to development of a particular pressure injury. The final step of RCA is a critical examination of the system (including people and processes) to look for modifiable trends or patterns are identified that are used to prevent recurrences.

Changing the Perceptions of a Culture of Safety for the Patient and the Caregiver: Integrating Improvement Initiatives to Create Sustainable Change.

Evidence indicates that chances for a successful patient mobility program, prevention of pressure injury and falls, and safe patient handling are enhanced when an organization possesses an appropriate culture for safety. Frequently, these improvement initiatives are managed within silos often creating a solution for one and a problem for the others. A model of prevention integrating early patient mobility, preventing pressure injuries and falls while ensuring caregiver safety, is introduced. The journey begins by understanding why early mobility and safe patient handling are critical to improving overall patient outcomes. Measuring current culture and understanding the gaps in practice as well as strategies for overcoming some of the major challenges for success in each of these areas will result in sustainable change.

Revised National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel Pressure Injury Staging System: Revised Pressure Injury Staging System.

Our understanding of pressure injury etiology and development has grown in recent years through research, clinical expertise, and global interdisciplinary expert collaboration. Therefore, the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (NPUAP) has revised the definition and stages of pressure injury. The revision was undertaken to incorporate the current understanding of the etiology of pressure injuries, as well as to clarify the anatomical features present or absent in each stage of injury. An NPUAP-appointed Task Force reviewed the literature and created drafts of definitions, which were then reviewed by stakeholders and the public, including clinicians, educators, and researchers around the world. Using a consensus-building methodology, these revised definitions were the focus of a multidisciplinary consensus conference held in April 2016. As a result of stakeholder and public input, along with the consensus conference, important changes were made and incorporated into the new staging definitions. The revised staging system uses the term injury instead of ulcer and denotes stages using Arabic numerals rather than Roman numerals. The revised definition of a pressure injury now describes the injuries as usually occurring over a bony prominence or under a medical or other device. The revised definition of a Stage 2 pressure injury seeks to clarify the difference between moisture-associated skin damage and injury caused by pressure and/or shear. The term suspected has been removed from the Deep Tissue Pressure Injury diagnostic label. Each definition now describes the extent of tissue loss present and the anatomical features that may or may not be present in the stage of injury. These important revisions reflect the methodical and collaborative approach used to examine the available evidence and incorporate current interdisciplinary clinical expertise into better defining the important phenomenon of pressure injury etiology and development.