Risk factors and prevention among patients with hospital-acquired and pre-existing pressure ulcers in an acute care hospital

Aims and objectives.  This study aimed to describe and identify risk factors associated with hospital‐acquired pressure ulcers among adults in an acute care hospital compared with patients with pre‐existing pressure ulcers present on admission. A further aim was to identify the preventive measures performed with both groups respectively. Background.  Pressure ulcers occur most often in older and immobile persons with severe acute illness and neurological deficits. However, few studies have addressed risk factors that are associated with hospital‐acquired pressure ulcers compared with patients with pre‐existing pressure ulcers. Design.  A point prevalence study with a cross‐sectional survey design was conducted at a Swedish university hospital. Method.  Data on 535 patients were recorded using a modified version of the protocol developed and tested by the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, including the Braden scale for risk assessment. Results.  The prevalence of pressure ulcers was 27% (95% confidence interval, 23–31%). Higher age and a total Braden score below 17 were significantly associated with the presence of pressure ulcers. Among individual risk factors higher age, limited activity level and friction and shear while seated or lying down were associated with hospital‐acquired pressure ulcers, whereas only higher age and friction and shear were associated with the presence of pressure ulcers in the overall sample. There was an overall sparse use of preventive measures to relieve pressure. Conclusion.  The findings of the present study revealed that pressure ulcers and the insufficient use of preventive measure to relieve pressure is still a problem in acute care settings. A continued focus must be placed on staff training in identifying patients at risk for pressure ulcers development. Relevance to clinical practice.  Increasing the ability to identify patients who are at risk for pressure ulcer development can assist in preventing unnecessary complications and suffering as well as reduce costs.     

An exploration of the occurrence of pressure ulcers in a British spinal injuries unit

Spinal cord injury (SCI) is associated with increased risk of pressure ulcers, but there are few published data about this in the United Kingdom (UK). This article represents a quantitative exploration of the occurrence of pressure ulcers in a UK spinal injuries unit (SIU). The technique used is a retrospective review of records: details of 144 completed first admissions for SCI between 1998 and 2000 were entered on to a database (SPSS) for analysis. Thirty-two per cent of patients already had pressure ulcers on admission to the SIU, while a total of 56% experienced an ulcer at some stage between injury and discharge from the SIU. Four pressure ulcer risk assessment scales were used (Waterlow, Braden, Norton and SCIPUS-A). These appeared to have moderate predictive power in this population. Pressure ulcers were found to be associated with increased length of hospital stay, density of lesion, surgical stabilization of neck injury before transfer to the SIU, tracheostomy on admission to the SIU and delayed transfer to the SIU after injury. Implications for practice are discussed.     

Validation of pressure ulcer risk assessment scales: a critique

AIM: The aim of this paper is to present critical analysis of the validation methods of pressure ulcer risk assessment scales. BACKGROUND: The validation of pressure ulcer risk assessment scales remains a topic of considerable debate and uncertainty. The Braden scale and Norton scale are the most frequently used. Sensitivity and specificity are the recommended and most commonly used epidemiological tools to evaluate the validity of those risk assessment scales. DISCUSSION: The use of preventive measures influences both the sensitivity and specificity of the scales. Analysis of published studies on risk assessment scales reveals that, although some patients received preventive measures and others did not, this was not taken into account. Consequently, generalization of those results is not possible. Some possible alternative designs for studying the validity of risk assessment scales are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Currently available risk assessment scales are of only limited value, and there use will result in many patients being falsely identified as at risk or not at risk. Sensitivity and specificity criteria are not the most appropriate tools to validate risk assessment scales. A risk assessment scale should be evaluated in combination with the preventive measures used.     

Risk assessment scales for pressure ulcer prevention: a systematic review

AIM: This paper reports a systematic review conducted to determine the effectiveness of the use of risk assessment scales for pressure ulcer prevention in clinical practice, degree of validation of risk assessment scales, and effectiveness of risk assessment scales as indicators of risk of developing a pressure ulcer. BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers are an important health problem. The best strategy to avoid them is prevention. There are several risk assessment scales for pressure ulcer prevention which complement nurses' clinical judgement. However, some of these have not undergone proper validation. METHOD: A systematic bibliographical review was conducted, based on a search of 14 databases in four languages using the keywords pressure ulcer or pressure sore or decubitus ulcer and risk assessment. Reports of clinical trials or prospective studies of validation were included in the review. FINDINGS: Thirty-three studies were included in the review, three on clinical effectiveness and the rest on scale validation. There is no decrease in pressure ulcer incidence was found which might be attributed to use of an assessment scale. However, the use of scales increases the intensity and effectiveness of prevention interventions. The Braden Scale shows optimal validation and the best sensitivity/specificity balance (57.1%/67.5%, respectively); its score is a good pressure ulcer risk predictor (odds ratio = 4.08, CI 95% = 2.56-6.48). The Norton Scale has reasonable scores for sensitivity (46.8%), specificity (61.8%) and risk prediction (OR = 2.16, CI 95% = 1.03-4.54). The Waterlow Scale offers a high sensitivity score (82.4%), but low specificity (27.4%); with a good risk prediction score (OR = 2.05, CI 95% = 1.11-3.76). Nurses' clinical judgement (only considered in three studies) gives moderate scores for sensitivity (50.6%) and specificity (60.1%), but is not a good pressure ulcer risk predictor (OR = 1.69, CI 95% = 0.76-3.75). CONCLUSION: There is no evidence that the use of risk assessment scales decreases pressure ulcer incidence. The Braden Scale offers the best balance between sensitivity and specificity and the best risk estimate. Both the Braden and Norton Scales are more accurate than nurses' clinical judgement in predicting pressure ulcer risk.     

Unit‐level time trends and seasonality in the rate of hospital‐acquired pressure ulcers in US acute care hospitals

This is a longitudinal study of the trend and seasonality in unit‐level hospital‐acquired pressure ulcer (HAPU) rates from 2004 to 2011, for 5447 acute care nursing units in 733 US hospitals. Unit‐level HAPU rates decreased significantly during 2004–2007 (OR = 0.91, 95% CI [0.90, 0.91]) and the decreasing trend was much stronger during 2008–2011 (OR = 0.84 [0.83, 0.85]). Seasonal variations in HAPU rates were strong and consistent during 2004–2008, with the highest HAPU rate in Quarter 1 (Jan–Mar) and the lowest rate in Quarter 3 (Jul–Sep). During 2009–2011, the magnitude of this seasonality was greatly reduced, and only HAPU rate in Quarter 1 remained significantly higher than HAPU rates in other quarters. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Res Nurs Health 36:171–180, 2013     

Predicting pressure ulcer risk: a multifactorial approach to assess risk factors in a large university hospital population

Aims. The purpose of this study was: (1) to determine the combination of risk factors which best predicts the risk of developing pressure ulcers among inpatients in an acute care university hospital; (2) to determine the appropriate weight for each risk factor; and (3) to derive a concise and easy‐to‐use risk assessment tool for daily use by nursing staff. Background. Efficient application of preventive measures against pressure ulcers requires the identification of patients at risk. Adequate risk assessment tools are still needed because the predictive value of existing tools is sometimes unsatisfactory. Design. Survey. Methods. A sample of 34,238 cases admitted to Essen University Clinics from April 2003 and discharged up to and including March 2004, was enrolled into the study. Nursing staff recorded data on pressure ulcer status and potential risk factors on admission. Predictors were identified and weighted by multivariate logistic regression. We derived a risk assessment scale from the final logistic regression model by assigning point values to each predictor according to its individual weight. Results. The period prevalence rate of pressure ulcers was 1·8% (625 cases). The analysis identified 12 predictors for developing pressure ulcers. With the optimum cut‐off point sensitivity and specificity were 83·4 and 83·1%, respectively, with a positive predictive value of 8·4% and a negative predictive value of 99·6%. The diagnostic probabilities of the derived scale were similar to those of the original regression model. Conclusions. The predictors mostly correspond to those used in established scales, although the use of weighted factors is a partly novel approach. Both the final regression model and the derived scale show good prognostic validity. Relevance to clinical practice. The derived risk assessment scale is an easy‐to‐understand, easy‐to‐use tool with good prognostic validity and can assist in effective application of preventive measures against pressure ulcer.     

Immobility--a major risk factor for development of pressure ulcers among adult hospitalized patients: a prospective study

OBJECTIVE: To identify risk factors associated with pressure ulcer development among adult hospitalized medical and surgical patients. DESIGN: A prospective comparative study including 530 adult patients from medical and surgical wards. Registered Nurses made the data collection on admission and once a week for up to 12 weeks. The risk assessment scale used was the Risk Assessment Pressure Sore (RAPS) scale, including the following variables; general physical condition, activity, mobility, moisture, food intake, fluid intake, sensory perception, friction and shear, body temperature and serum albumin. RESULTS: Sixty-two (11.7%) patients developed 85 pressure ulcers. The most common pressure ulcer was that of nonblanchable erythema. Patients who developed pressure ulcers were significantly older, hospitalized for a longer time, had lower scores on the total RAPS scale, had lower weight and lower diastolic blood pressure than nonpressure ulcer patients did. In the multiple logistic regression analyses using variables included in the RAPS scale immobility emerged as a strong risk factor. When adding remaining significant variables in the analyses, mobility, time of hospitalization, age, surgical treatment and weight were found to be risk factors for pressure ulcer development. CONCLUSION: It is confirmed that immobility is a risk factor of major importance for pressure ulcer development among adult hospitalized patients. The results also indicate that the RAPS scale may be useful for prediction of pressure ulcer development in clinical practice.     

Non-blanchable erythema as an indicator for the need for pressure ulcer prevention: a randomized-controlled trial

Aims and objectives. To evaluate whether postponing preventive measures until non‐blanchable erythema appears will actually lead to an increase in incidence of pressure ulcers (grades 2–4) when compared with the standard risk assessment method. Background. To distinguish patients at risk for pressure ulcers from those not at risk, risk assessment scales are recommended. These scales have limited predictive validity. The prevention of further deterioration of non‐blanchable erythema (grade 1 pressure ulcer) instead of the standard way of assigning prevention could be a possible new approach. Design. Randomized‐controlled trial. Methods. Patients admitted to surgical, internal or geriatric wards (n = 1617) were included. They were randomly assigned to an experimental and a control group. In the experimental group (n = 826), prevention was started when non‐blanchable erythema appeared, in the control group (n = 791) when the Braden score was <17 or when non‐blanchable erythema appeared. In both groups, patients received identical prevention, either by using a polyethylene–urethane mattress in combination with turning every four hours or by using an alternating pressure air mattress. Pressure points were observed daily and classified according to the four grades of the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel. The Braden scale was scored every three days. Results. In the experimental group, 16% of patients received preventive measures, in the control group 32%. The pressure ulcer incidence (grades 2–4) was not significantly different between the experimental (6·8%) and control group (6·7%). Conclusion. Significantly fewer patients need preventive measures when prevention is postponed until non‐blanchable erythema appears and those patients did not develop more pressure ulcers than patients who received prevention based on the standard risk assessment method. Relevance to clinical practice. Using the appearance of non‐blanchable erythema to allocate preventive measures leads to a considerable reduction of patients in need of prevention without resulting in an increase in pressure ulcers.     

Development of a new risk assessment scale for predicting pressure ulcers in an intensive care unit

Aims and objectives: The study aimed to evaluate the predictive validity and accuracy of a new pressure ulcer risk assessment scale in two Indonesia intensive care units (ICUs). Background: Several risk assessment scales have been designed to identify patients at risk of developing pressure ulcers in ICU. However, the relative weight of each variable that contributes to pressure ulcer development in these scales is not described to enable designing of a risk assessment scale. Currently, the risk factors contributing to pressure ulcer development include interface pressure, body temperature and cigarette smoking. Design: A prospective cohort study was conducted in two ICUs in Pontianak, Indonesia. Methods: A total of 253 patients were recruited to the study from both hospitals. Data collection included new risk assessment scale [i.e. the Suriadi and Sanada (S.S.) scale] scoring, demographic, pressure ulcer severity scores (based on the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel) and skin condition measures. Using the S.S. scale, trained data collectors scored patients once and assessed the body temperature daily until patients were discharged. Additionally, daily data were also collected in relation to the patient‘s skin condition and stage of pressure ulcer. Results: Out of the 253 patients, 72 (28·4%) developed pressure ulcers. In ICU A, the incidence was 27%; pressure ulcers developed into stage I (41·7%), stage II (45·8%), stage III (10·4%) and stage IV (2·1%). In ICU B, the incidence was 31·6%; the development of pressure ulcers was 48% in stage I and 52% in stage II. Using the predictive validity test, the S.S. scale balanced sensitivity (81%) and specificity (83%) at a cut‐off score of 4. The area under the receiver‐operating characteristic curve was 0·888 (confidence interval: 0·84–0·93). Conclusion: The S.S. scale was found to be a valid risk assessment tool to identify the patients at risk of developing pressure ulcers in Indonesia ICU.