Skin care intervention for patients having cardiac surgery.

BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers are a major problem after cardiovascular surgery, occurring in 9.2% to 38% of patients. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of a skin care intervention program in preventing development of ulcers or progression from one stage to another and to determine the extent to which selected risk factors were associated with development and progression of pressure ulcers. METHODS: A simple interrupted time series design was used. The protocol involved interrelated assessment, staging, and type of intervention provided. The Braden Scale was used to determine risk for skin breakdown. RESULTS: Of the 351 patients in the study, 327 (93%) maintained skin integrity and 24 (7%) had skin breakdown. Breakdown by stages was as follows: stage 1, 62% (n = 15); stage 2, 29% (n = 7); stage 3, 4% (n = 1); and stage 4, 4% (n = 1). Age, sex (female), and heart failure were statistically significant risk factors for breakdown (P = < .001, .02, and .02, respectively). The mean scores on the Braden Scale of the breakdown group differed significantly from those of the skin integrity group from days 2 through 5 after surgery (P = .01). Seventeen (71%) of the breakdowns occurred during the first 4 days after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Skin assessments and nursing interventions should be increased on the day of surgery and the first to fifth postoperative days, including multiple assessments and skin care focused on maintaining skin integrity.     

Predicting the risk of pressure ulcers in critically ill patients.

BACKGROUND: Critically ill patients are at high risk for pressure ulcers. OBJECTIVES: To determine the contributions of the Braden subscales in predicting pressure ulcers in critically ill patients and to investigate how often the Braden scale should be completed to assess the risk for pressure ulcers in critically ill patients. METHOD: The Braden scale was used to assess repeatedly 136 adult patients without pressure ulcers in a medical intensive care unit, a surgical intensive care unit, and a noninvasive respiratory care unit, and the patients' skin was inspected routinely for pressure ulcers. RESULTS: A total of 36 pressure ulcers, most commonly on the sacrum or coccyx and the heels (15 stage 1, 20 stage 2, 1 stage 3), developed in 17 patients (12%). In 14 (82%) of the 17, the ulcers developed within 72 hours of admission to the intensive care unit. The risk for pressure ulcers increased as the mean sensory perception (P = .01) and the mean total Braden (P = .046) scores decreased. The mean sensory perception scores obtained at 12 and 36 hours after admission also had a significant relationship to the risk for pressure ulcers (P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Patients in intensive care units have an increased risk for pressure ulcers. Although waiting until 12 hours after a patient's admission to the intensive care unit to obtain the initial Braden rating may be reasonable (with the second rating obtained 36 hours after admission), additional research is needed before this practice can be recommended.     

Incidence of pressure ulcers in a neurologic intensive care unit

OBJECTIVES: To determine the risk factors for pressure ulceration in an intensive care setting, to evaluate the Braden scale as a predictor of pressure ulcer risk in critically ill patients, and to determine whether pressure ulcers are likely to occur early in the hospital stay. DESIGN: Cohort study of patients with no preexisting ulcers with a 3-month enrollment period. SETTING: The neurologic intensive care unit and the neurologic intermediate unit at a primary care/referral hospital with a level I trauma center. PATIENTS: A total of 186 patients entered the study. INTERVENTION: Within 12 hrs of admittance, initial assessment, photographs, and Braden score were completed. Patients were re-examined every 4 days or at discharge from the unit, whichever came first. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Determining risk factors for pressure ulcers, performing detailed statistical analyses, and testing the usefulness of the Braden score as a predictor of pressure ulcer risk. RESULTS: Twenty-three of 186 patients developed at least one pressure ulcer (incidence = 12.4%) after an average stay of 6.4 days. The Braden scale, which measures six characteristics of skin condition and patient status, proved to be a primary predictor of ulcer development. No ulcers developed in the 69 patients whose Braden score was 16 or higher. The likelihood of developing a pressure sore was predicted mathematically from the Braden score. However, being underweight was a significant and distinct factor in pressure ulcer development. CONCLUSIONS: Pressure ulcers may develop within the first week of hospitalization in the intensive care unit. Patients at risk have Braden scores of < or = 16 and are more likely to be underweight. These results suggest that aggressive preventive care should be focused on those patients with Braden scores of < or = 13 and/or a low body mass index at admission.     

Prevalence, risk factors and prevention of pressure ulcers in Dutch intensive care units

OBJECTIVE: Evaluating the prevalence, risk factors and prevention of pressure ulcers in Dutch intensive care units (ICUs). DESIGN: Cross-sectional design. SETTING: ICUs of acute care hospitals that participated in the 1998 and 1999 national prevalence surveys. Data were collected on 1 day in each year. PATIENTS: Eight hundred fifty patients admitted to Dutch ICUs. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Six categories of data were collected: (1) characteristics of the institution, (2) characteristics of the ward, (3) characteristics of the patients (age, sex, date of admission, reason for admission), (4) risk assessment using the Braden scale and two additional risk factors (malnutrition and incontinence), (5) severity of the pressure ulcers and (6) supportive surface used. The prevalence of pressure ulcers was 28.7%. In a forward logistic regression analysis, four risk factors were significantly associated with the presence of pressure ulcers: infection, age, length of stay and total Braden score. Of the patients at high risk of developing pressure ulcers but without actual pressure ulcers, 60.5% were positioned on a support system. Only 36.8% of the patients who were determined to need repositioning were actually being turned. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of pressure ulcers in Dutch ICUs is high and their prevention is flawed, especially as regards the use of support systems. Patients for whom turning is indicated are not being turned. Predicting pressure ulcers in ICU patients is difficult and needs further investigation.     

Pressure-flow signatures of central-airway mucus plugging

SETTING: Medical Intensive Care Unit of Regions Hospital, a University of Minnesota-affiliated teaching hospital. PATIENT: Mechanically ventilated woman with status asthmaticus and acute respiratory failure. INTERVENTION: Observations of airway pressure and flow tracings before and after bronchoscopic inspection and airway lavage. MAIN RESULTS: Four newly observed signs were recorded that may serve to identify occult central airway mucus plugging in the ventilated asthmatic patient.     

Assessing predictive validity of the modified Braden scale for prediction of pressure ulcer risk of orthopaedic patients in an acute care setting

Aims and objectives. To assess and compare the predictive validity of the modified Braden and Braden scales and to identify which of the modified Braden subscales are predictive in assessing pressure ulcer risk among orthopaedic patients in an acute care setting. Background. Although the Braden scale has better predictive validity, literature has suggested that it can be used in conjunction with other pressure ulcer risk calculators or that some other subscales be added. To increase the predictive power of the Braden scale, a modified Braden scale by adding body build for height and skin type and excluding nutrition was developed. Design. A prospective cohort study. Method. A total of 197 subjects in a 106‐bed orthopaedic department of an acute care hospital in Hong Kong were assessed for their risk for pressure ulcer development by the modified Braden and Braden scales. Subsequently, daily skin assessment was performed to detect pressure ulcers. Cases were closed when pressure ulcers were detected. Results. Out of 197 subjects, 18 patients (9·1%) developed pressure ulcers. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the modified Braden scale was 0·736 and for the Braden scale was 0·648. The modified Braden cut‐off score of 19 showed the best balance of sensitivity (89%) and specificity (62%). Sensory perception (Beta = ?1·544, OR=0·214, p = 0·016), body build for height (Beta = ?0·755, OR = 0·470, p = 0·030) and skin type (Beta = ?1·527, OR = 0·217, p = 0·002) were significantly predictive of pressure ulcer development. Conclusion. The modified Braden scale is more predictive of pressure ulcer development than the Braden scale. Relevance to clinical practice. The modified Braden scale can be adopted for predicting pressure ulcer development among orthopaedic patients in an acute care setting. Specific nursing interventions should be provided, with special attention paid to orthopaedic patients with impaired sensory perception, poor skin type and abnormal body build for height.     

Prevalencia de úlceras por presión en atención primaria en dos comarcas catalanas

ObjectiveTo determine the prevalence of and risk factors for skin breakdown due to pressure ulcers.MethodWe performed an observational, cross sectional study between April 1 and April 15, 2003 in all community nurses in the areas of Bages and Berguedà (Barcelona, Spain) and the head nurses of all nursing homes. Information (patient and caregiver characteristics and preventive measures) was gathered on all patients previously diagnosed with skin breakdown or risk of skin breakdown.ResultsA total of 810 patients were studied (209 with skin breakdown and 601 at risk for skin breakdown). The prevalence of patients with skin breakdown due to pressure ulcers was 0.11% among the adult population, 0.42% in individuals aged more than 64 years old, 7.3% in patients receiving home care, and 4.8% in nursing home residents. Each community nurse attended a mean of 3.7 patients (SD = 2.5) at risk of skin breakdown and a mean of 1.8 patients (SD = 1.1) with pressure ulcers.ConclusionsGiven the prevalence of pressure ulcers in patients receiving home care, detection of risk should be increased to prevent ulcer progression. When risk is detected, preventive measures should be increased. Health education should be improved in family caregivers, who play a major role in the process.     

褥疮影响因素分析及护理对策

目的 通过了解和分析影响褥疮发生的主要因素,提高护理效率,降低褥疮的发生率。 方法 应用非条件Logistic回归分析,对收集到褥疮高发人群相关数据进行单因素和多因素分析。结果 单因素分析显示,年龄、BMI、卧床时间、Braden评分、陪护人员褥疮防护知识知晓情况和康复训练6个因素均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。其中,较低Braden评分具有高度危险作用(OR=9.10);高龄,肥胖和卧床时间也是褥疮发生的危险因素(OR值分别为0.44,0.38和0.02);陪护人员褥疮知识知晓情况和参与康复训练具有保护作用(OR值分别为0.13和0.14)。多因素分析显示,影响褥疮发生的主要因素包括：康复训练、Braden评分、年龄和BMI4个因素,其中康复训练的具有较高保护作用。 结论 褥疮发生的主要影响因素是Braden评分和康复训练,加强对高龄和肥胖等高发人群的护理能有效减低褥疮的总体发生率。     

Pressure ulcer risk in long-term units: prevalence and associated factors

AIM: This paper is a report of a study to assess pressure ulcer prevalence in a group of long-term units and to describe the main factors associated both with risk for and presence of a pressure ulcer. BACKGROUND: Despite being potentially preventable, pressure ulcers are highly frequent among institutionalized patients and are associated with increased morbidity and mortality. METHOD: A cross-sectional study was carried out, involving 571 patients from 10 long-term units in Rome, Italy. Healthcare staff in each unit evaluated pressure ulcer risk and collected clinical data while a single Registered Nurse assessed all patients to identify pressure ulcers. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed for the two outcomes: condition at risk for pressure ulcers (Braden score < or = 16) and pressure ulcer presence. The data were collected in February-March 2005. FINDINGS: The overall prevalence of pressure ulcers was 27%. Multivariate analysis showed a statistically significant positive association between high-risk condition of pressure ulcer and previous stroke (OR = 1.96; 95% CI 1.30-2.96), previous trauma (OR = 1.83; 95% CI 1.12-2.99) and cognitive decline (OR associated with a 1 point Short Portable Mental State Questionnaire increase = 1.26; 95% CI 1.05-1.50). The model for pressure ulcer presence confirmed a statistically significant excess in patients with cardiovascular diseases (OR = 1.79; 95% CI 1.13-2.85), with high Activity of Daily Living scores (OR associated with a 1 point increase 1.38; 95% CI 1.03-1.84) and low Braden Scale scores (OR associated with a 1 point increase = 0.80; 95% CI 0.70-0.87). The risk of pressure ulcers according to number of full-time nurses and auxiliary staff per 10 beds lower than five was marginally statistically significant (OR = 1.60; 95% CI 0.98-2.61). CONCLUSION: Further research is needed to validate our findings and further prospective research is needed to identify ways of preventing pressure ulcers. Our data on staffing suggest that organizational factors should be taken into account when exploring determinants of pressure ulcers.     

Differences in prevalence of pressure ulcers between the Netherlands and Germany--associations between risk, prevention and occurrence of pressure ulcers in hospitals and nursing homes

Aim. This study compares pressure ulcer prevalence and prevention activities in nursing homes and hospitals within two European countries. Background. Over three years stable differences have been found between the Netherlands (NL) and Germany (GER) with higher pressure ulcer rates in the NL. As previous analyses have shown, the differences cannot be entirely explained by differences in the population’s vulnerability to pressure ulcers because they still remain after risk adjustment. Therefore, the differences in prevalence must be caused by other factors. The purpose of this study is to analyse if any potential differences in preventive activities can account for the varying occurrence of pressure ulcers. Method. In both countries, nation-wide surveys were conducted annually using the same standardised questionnaires. Trained nurses examined all consenting patients of the voluntarily participating facilities. This examination included a skin assessment of the entire body. Data regarding risk factors, prevention and details about wounds were then collected. Results. In-patients of 29 German (n = 2531) and 71 Dutch (n = 10 098) nursing homes and 39 German (n = 8515) and 60 Dutch (n = 10 237) hospitals were investigated. The use of pressure-reducing devices was more common in the NL than in GER, but all other interventions were more frequently provided to German risk patients than to their Dutch counterparts. The pressure ulcer prevalence was significantly higher in the Dutch sample. After adjusting for gender, age, Braden Score and prevention, the probability of having a pressure ulcer was 8·1 times higher for Dutch nursing home residents than for German residents. Conclusion. Some of the variance in pressure ulcer prevalence between the two countries can be explained by varying pressure ulcer prevention. However, some remarkable differences still remain unexplained. Relevance to clinical practice. The extent of pressure ulcer prevention, especially repositioning and nutrition intervention provided to patients at risk, is not in accordance with international guidelines.     

Pressure Ulcer Prevalence and Incidence in a Rehabilitation Hospital

Pressure ulcers remain a serious health problem, especially in terms of personal suffering and economics. The study described here, conducted in a rehabilitation setting, investigated the prevalence (number of persons with pressure ulcers at a given time) and the incidence (number of persons developing pressure ulcers over a given time) of pressure ulcers. Skin assessments and risk assessments of the subjects were completed using the Braden Scale for Predicting Pressure Sore Risk. Demographic data were obtained. The prevalence rate was 25%, although there was no incidence during the time of this study. Factors associated with the prevalence of pressure ulcers are discussed.     

手术患者压疮发生率及发生时间和影响因素研究

目的：探讨手术患者压疮发生率、发生时间特点和相关因素,为临床制定应对措施提供依据。方法：按照统一标准在12所综合医院中入选1074例术后患者,预防措施相同,采用“外科压疮风险评估表”收集每例患者术后0～5d基线资料,使用Braden计分量表评估压疮危险。采用Logistic回归分析压疮发生的影响因素。结果：观察期内1074例手术患者中发生11例11处Ⅰ期压疮,发生率1.02%,其中外科监护病房发生率1.95%。多发生在术后1～3d内。压疮发生的影响因素为：手术时间、术后皮肤水肿和使用矫形装置及Braden计分（P〈0.05）。结论：对手术时间≥2h、术后皮肤水肿、使用矫形装置及Braden计分≤16分的患者应作为术后压疮预防的重点对象,但Braden量表对围手术期患者压疮风险的预测作用尚有待于进一步研究。     

Braden评分联合微循环评价指标构建创伤重症患者压力性损伤风险可视化预后模型

目的:基于Braden评分,联合局部皮肤温度和局部组织氧饱和度作为局部微循环指标,构建创伤重症患者压力性损伤风险预后模型,并开发可视化列线图。方法:选取浙江省某三甲医院2020年06月1日至2020年08月31日期间所有进入急诊重症监护室（EICU）的创伤患者,采取Braden量表评估患者压力性损伤发生风险,测量患者骶尾部受压部位皮肤温度与血氧饱和度,作为微循环评价指标。采用多因素Logistic回归构建基于Braden评分联合微循环评价指标的创伤重症患者压力性损伤预后模型及可视化列线图,并与单纯Braden量表构建的预测模型比较。通过计算受试者操作特征曲线下面积判断预测模型区分度。C指数对最佳模型进行内部验证、H-L拟合优度检验、整体鉴别指数观察预测模型效果。结果:本研究共纳入152例患者,其中33例发生压力性损伤,占21.71%。Braden量表联合局部皮肤温度与局部组织氧饱和度后曲线下面积为0.866,模型内部验证C指数为0.847。H-L拟合优度检验结果为8.37, P=0.051,即模型具有良好区分度与一致性。模型整体鉴别指数=0.144, P=0.023。 结论:Braden量表联合局部微循环指标构建创伤重症患者压力性损伤预后模型具有良好区分度与一致性,较单纯Braden量表预测效力提高14.4%,据此构建列线图,能够为临床提供快捷、方便可靠的预测工具。     

Friction and shear highly associated with pressure ulcers of residents in long‐term care – Classification Tree Analysis (CHAID) of Braden items

Aims Among various risk assessment scales for the development of pressure ulcers in long‐term care residents that have been published in the last three decades, the Braden scale is among the most tested and applied tools. The sum score of the scale implies that all items are equally important. The aim of this study is to show whether specific items are of greater significance than others and therefore have a higher clinical relevance. Design Data analysis of six pressure ulcer prevalence studies (2004–2009). Methods A total of 17 666 residents (response rate 79.6%) in 234 long‐term care facilities participated in 6 annual point prevalence studies that were conducted from 2004 to 2009 throughout Germany. For the classification of the sample regarding pressure ulcers as a dependent variable and the Braden items as predictor variables, Chi‐square Automatic Interaction Detector (CHAID) for modelling classification trees has been used. Results Pressure ulcer prevalence was 5.4% including pressure ulcer grade 1 and 3.4% for pressure ulcer grades 2–4. CHAID analysis for the classification tree provided the item ‘friction and shear’ as the most important predictor for pressure ulcer prevalence. On the second level, the strongest predictors were ‘nutrition’ and ‘activity’ and on the third level they were ‘moisture’ and ‘mobility’. Residents with problems regarding ‘friction and shear’ and poor nutritional status present with an 18.0 (14.8) pressure ulcer prevalence which is 3–4 times higher than average. Conclusion CHAID analyses have shown that all items of the Braden scale are not equally important. For residents in long‐term care facilities in Germany, the existence of ‘friction and shear’ as a potential and especially as a manifest problem has had the strongest association with pressure ulcer prevalence.     

Using the Braden Q Scale to Predict Pressure Ulcer Risk in pediatric patients

The Braden Q Scale for Predicting Pediatric Pressure Ulcer Risk (Braden Q Scale) is a widely used, valid, and reliable pediatric-specific pressure ulcer risk assessment tool. Since its original publication, requests for clarification on how best to use the tool across the wide spectrum of pediatric patients commonly cared for in health care systems have been received. Common clarifications focus on using the Braden Q Scale as originally designed; specifically, not using untested derivations of the tool, and not using the Braden Q Scale to predict medical device-related pressure damage. The purpose of this article is to provide practical information on how best to use the Braden Q Scale and how to score a pediatric patient's risk for pressure ulcers. Accurate assessment of patient risk for pressure ulcers is the first step in guiding appropriate nursing interventions that prevent pressure ulcers. Patient assessment, scoring, and common clinical scenarios are presented.     

Variation in pressure ulcer prevalence and prevention in nursing homes: A multicenter study

AimTo estimate the prevalence of pressure ulcers in nursing homes and its variability, the frequency of use of preventive measures and treatment.BackgroundPressure ulcer is a frequent pathology across healthcare settings. Most pressure ulcers are preventable and are considered an important quality of care indicator.MethodsAssessments were done on a single day of November 2015 in nursing homes in Geneva, Switzerland. Of the 51 institutions (3824 patients) eligible, 33 homes agreed to participate, representing 2671 patients (69.8%).One referent nurse per nursing home received training on pressure ulcer detection. To estimate the residual variability in prevalence and in number of prevention measures, adjusted multilevel logistic regressions were used.ResultsPatients were on average 85.6 years old, with a median length of stay of 2.1 years. The overall prevalence was 5.7% but varied considerably, from 0% to 19.6%.The variability across nursing homes decreased slightly when taking into account patient-level and institution-level characteristics.In the adjusted models, pressure ulcers prevalence was significantly associated with Braden risk; number of preventive measures was significantly associated with nursing home size, and Braden risk, and marginally associated with length of stay.ConclusionsOverall prevalence of pressure ulcers was relatively low. While several prevention measures for patients at risk were taken, the correct use of all of them was rare.The variability in prevalence and in number of preventive measures across nursing homes was very high. Programmes focusing on the correct use of all recommended prevention measures could help reducing pressure ulcers prevalence.