Sub-epidermal moisture assessment as an adjunct to visual assessment in the reduction of pressure ulcer incidence.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of sub-epidermal moisture (SEM) assessment technology as an adjunct to visual assessment to reduce pressure ulcer (PU) incidence alongside standard PU care pathways. METHOD: Data were obtained from wards located within 28 institutions in the UK, Canada, Belgium, Spain and Ireland. At each ward, the proportion of patients scanned who were observed to have one or more PUs of Category 2 or above during a pre-Pressure Ulcer Reduction Programme (PURP) implementation period starting between November 2017 and July 2018 was recorded. The proportion of patients scanned who were observed to have one or more PUs of Category 2 or above during a post-PURP implementation period starting between November 2018 and July 2019 was also recorded. A meta-analysis was conducted on the data using wards as the unit of analysis, to facilitate overall estimate of the PURP. A sensitivity study was also conducted to assess the sensitivity of results to data from specific institutions. RESULTS: A synthesised estimate of the overall relative risk (RR) was calculated to be 0.38 (95% confidence interval 0.26 to 0.56). Hence the risk of PU in the post-PURP cohort was about one-third that of the corresponding risk in the pre-PURP cohort. The sensitivity analysis revealed no evidence that any individual ward exerted excessive influence on the findings. CONCLUSION: The analysis has revealed strong evidence that implementation of the PURP was associated with reduction in incidence of Category 2 or above PUs across a wide range of clinical settings.

Preventing and managing device-related pressure ulcers in oncology.

There is growing evidence that medical device-related pressure ulcers (MDRPUs) are an increasing healthcare concern in all aspects of care. It is especially important to develop an individualised care plan for people at the end of life to prevent pressure ulceration and to treat this if it occurs. Tissue viability nurses have a responsibility to review and assess new prophylactic devices and dressings, to ensure a high standard of care is provided. This article describes the use of a soft silicone dressing, Kliniderm foam silicone lite, in combination with best practice, to prevent MDRPUs in the oncology setting. Three case studies show that the dressing helped avoid the occurrence of ulceration on the ears and nose in patients receiving oxygen through a nasal cannula.

Prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers/injuries: The protocol for the second update of the international Clinical Practice Guideline 2019.

AIM: The European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, the Pan Pacific Pressure Injury Alliance, and the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel are updating the 'Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers: Clinical Practice Guideline' (CPG) in 2019. The aim of this contribution is to summarize and to discuss the guideline development protocol for the 2019 update. METHODS: A guideline governance group determines and monitors all steps of the CPG development. An international survey of consumers will be undertaken to establish consumer needs and interests. Systematic evidence searches in relevant electronic databases cover the period from July 2013 through August 2018. Risk of bias of included studies will be assessed by two reviewers using established checklists and an overall strength of evidence assigned to the cumulative body of evidence. Small working groups review the evidence available for each topic, review and/or draft the guideline chapters and recommendations and/or good practice statements. Finally, strength of recommendation grades are assigned. The recommendations are rated based on their importance and their potential to improve individual patient outcomes using an international formal consensus process. DISCUSSION: Major methodological advantages of the current revision are a clear distinction between evidence-based recommendations and good practice statements and strong consumer involvement. CONCLUSION: The 2019 guideline update builds on the previous 2014 version to ensure consistency and comparability. Methodology changes will improve the guideline quality to increase clarity and to enhance implementation and compliance. The full guideline development protocol can be accessed from the guideline website (http://www.internationalguideline.com/).

Evaluation of a formal care worker educational intervention on pressure ulceration in the community.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To develop and evaluate an educational intervention for formal care workers on pressure ulceration in the community. BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers are a major burden to health care and with an ageing population likely to increase. Formal care workers are ideally placed to identify high risk but lack standardised educational provision. DESIGN: An insider approach to action research in one provider organisation, November 2014-May 2015. METHODS: Number and categorisation of pressure ulcers, within three community nursing teams before and four months after intervention was delivered to a purposive sample (n = 250) of formal care workers, were assessed and the taught element evaluated using a questionnaire and verbal feedback. RESULTS: Total number of pressure ulcers reduced from 28-20, category II, 19-11, III unchanged at 6 and IV from 2-0 following the educational intervention. Key risk factors included impaired mobility (71%), urinary incontinence (61%) and previous pressure damage (25%), and 71% had formal care worker input. The intervention was highly rated 4·95/5 by 215 (86%) formal care workers in the evaluation questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: Formal care workers receive little, if any, education on pressure ulceration. An educational intervention can have a positive effect within community care, with the potential to reduce direct costs of care. However, a standardised approach to education is required; an urgent review of the education provision to formal care workers, in the UK and around the world, is therefore essential if the potential that formal care workers offer is to be realised. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Formal care workers are ideally placed to help identify and alert healthcare professionals about patients at high risk of developing pressure ulcers. If this potential is to be realised, a standardised approach to education is required.

A topical haemoglobin spray for oxygenating pressure ulcers: a pilot study.

The effect of pressure ulcers on patient quality of life have been recognised as a real problem for many years, and the need for robust and effective management of pressure ulcers is now a prominent national health-care issue. Myriad different interventions exist for the treatment of pressure ulcers, including clinically effective dressings and pressure-relieving devices, yet many pressure ulcers still do not heal and often become a chronic wound. This is the second of a series of articles (Norris, 2014) discussing the clinical evaluation of a topical oxygen therapy in practice. It describes a small evaluation involving 18 patients with pressure ulcers. The study set out to determine the effect of a topical oxygen therapy on wound size. The therapy comprises a canister that sprays pure haemoglobin in a water solution into or onto the wound. The haemoglobin spray needs to be used at least once every 3 days, does not require training on its use and can be used in any care setting. Overall, results identified wound healing progression in all 18 wounds and wound size reduction in 17 of the 18 wounds.

Device-related atypical pressure ulcer after cardiac surgery.

Medical devices must be closely monitored to prevent harm to patients. Pressure ulcers secondary to medical devices present a significant health burden in terms of length of stay in hospital and cost. Intensivists, anaesthetists and other professionals involved in managing critically ill patients following cardiac surgery need to be aware that pressure ulcers may develop in atypical sites and present at a later stage of the hospital stay. This case report highlights the important issue of device-related pressure ulcers in the cardiac surgical intensive care setting, particularly when the clinical status of the patient may preclude routine assessment and prophylaxis. An algorithm for preventing such pressure ulcers is suggested.

Application of the sheepskin mattress in clinical care for pressure relieving: a quantitative experimental evaluation.

This study aimed at quantitatively evaluating the effectiveness of sheepskin mattress (SSM) in pressure relieving, and then variables of peak pressure (mmHg) (PP), average pressure (AP) and contact area (cm(2)) (CA) at the total, back, sacrum and heel regions of 18 students supinely lying in a control mattress (CM), standard hospital mattress (SHM), SHM+SSM, SSM+CM and AM+CM were measured and contrasted. Paired-T test with a significant level of .05 shows that: the intervention of SSM significantly increased the total CA of SHM by 395.6 cm(2) and lowered its PP and AP by 8.8 and 2.0 mmHg respectively; further, the pressure distribution of SSM+CM was superior to that of AM+CM. The reliability of this study, with exception of the heel area, was proven to be good. Overall, the sheepskin mattress is an effective product in pressure reliving.

A systematic review of economic evaluations assessing interventions aimed at preventing or treating pressure ulcers.

BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers have an adverse impact on patients and can also result in additional costs and workload for healthcare providers. Interventions to prevent pressure ulcers are focused on identifying at risk patients and using systems such as mattresses and turning to relieve pressure. Treatments for pressure ulcers are directed towards promoting wound healing and symptom relief. Both prevention and treatments have associated costs for healthcare providers. The aim of this study was to systematically review the economic evidence for prevention and treatment interventions for pressure ulcers. DESIGN: A systematic review of comparative clinical studies that evaluate interventions to either prevent or treat pressure ulcers. DATA SOURCES: Searches of the major electronic databases were conducted to identify citations that reported costs or economic analysis for interventions directed towards prevention or treatment of pressure ulcers. Only comparative clinical studies were included. Review articles, case-series, non-randomised studies, and studies in a foreign language that did not have an abstract in English were excluded from the review. REVIEW METHODS: Decisions regarding inclusion or exclusion were based on a consensus of the authors after review of the title or abstract. Potential citations were obtained for more detailed review and assessed against the inclusion criteria. The studies identified for inclusion were assessed against the 24 key criteria contained in the CHEERS checklist. Costs were standardised to US dollars and adjusted for inflation to 2012 rates. RESULTS: The searches identified 105 potential studies. After review of the citations a total of 23 studies were included: 12 examined prevention interventions and 11 treatments. Review against the CHEERS criteria showed that the majority of included trials had poor reporting and a lack of detail regarding how costs were calculated. Few studies reported more than aggregate costs of treatments with only a small number reporting unit cost outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Existing evidence was poor in regard to the economic evaluation of interventions for the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers. Much of the published literature had poor reporting quality when compared to guidelines which provide key criteria for studies to adequately examine costs within an economic analysis.