Successful implementation of clinical practice guidelines for pressure risk management in a home nursing setting

Rationale This paper reports an initiative which promoted evidence‐based practice in pressure risk assessment and management among home nursing clients in Melbourne, Australia. Aim and objectives The aim of this study was to evaluate the introduction and uptake of the Australian Wound Management Association Guidelines for the Prediction and Prevention of Pressure Ulcers. Method In 2007 a pilot study was conducted. Nurse perspectives (n=21) were obtained via survey and a client profile (n=218) was generated. Audit of the uptake and continued use of the pressure risk screening tool, during the pilot study and later once implemented as standard practice organizational wide, was conducted. Results Nurses at the pilot site successfully implemented the practice guidelines, pressure risk screening was adopted and supporting resources were well received. Most clients were at low risk of pressure ulcer development. The pilot site maintained and extended their pilot study success, ensuring more than 90% of clients were screened for pressure risk over the 18 months which followed. All other sites performed less well initially, however subsequently improved, meeting the pilot sites success after 18 months. Two years later, the organization continues to screen more than 90% of all clients for pressure risk. Conclusion Implementation of clinical practice guidelines was successful in the pilot project and pressure risk screening became a well‐adopted practice. Success continued following organizational wide implementation. Pilot study findings suggest it may be prudent to monitor the pressure ulcer risk status of low risk clients so as to prevent increasing risk and pressure ulcer development among this group.     

Stroke unit Nurse Managers' views of individual and organizational factors liable to influence evidence‐based practice: A survey

The uptake of evidence into practice may be impeded or facilitated by individual and organizational factors within the local context. This study investigated Nurse Managers of New South Wales, Australia, stroke units (n = 19) in their views on: leadership ability (measured by the Leadership Practices Inventory), organizational learning (measured by the Organizational Learning Survey), attitudes and beliefs towards evidence‐based practice (EBP) and readiness for change. Overall Nurse Managers reported high‐level leadership skills and a culture of learning. Nurse Managers' attitude towards EBP was positive, although nursing colleague's attitudes were perceived as less positive. Nurse Managers agreed that implementing evidence in practice places additional demands on staff; and almost half (n = 9, 47%) reported that resources were not available for evidence implementation. The findings indicate that key persons responsible for evidence implementation are not allocated sufficient time to coordinate and implement guidelines into practice. The findings suggest that barriers to evidence uptake, including insufficient resources and time constraints, identified by Nurse Managers in this study are not likely to be unique to stroke units. Furthermore, Nurse Managers may be unable to address these organizational barriers (i.e. lack of resources) and thus provide all the components necessary to implement EBP.     

Evaluation of a self‐efficacy enhancement program to prevent pressure ulcers in patients with a spinal cord injury

Aim

This study developed a self‐efficacy enhancement program and evaluated its effects on the self‐care behaviors, self‐care knowledge, and self‐efficacy regarding pressure ulcer prevention in patients with a spinal cord injury.

Methods

This was a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Six hospitals were invited to recruit patients with a spinal cord injury who were undergoing rehabilitation after receiving acute treatment. These hospitals were randomly allocated into experimental (three hospitals) or control (three hospitals) groups and 47 patients participated (24 in the experimental group and 23 in the control group). The experimental group was given an 8 week self‐efficacy enhancement program for pressure ulcer prevention. The self‐efficacy enhancement program consisted of small‐group face‐to‐face intervention (education and skills training), education with computer animation, phone counseling, face‐to‐face counseling, and self‐management records. The control group only received a pressure ulcer prevention information booklet. Self‐care knowledge, self‐efficacy, self‐care behaviors, and pressure ulcer incidence were measured at baseline and after the 8 week self‐efficacy enhancement program.

Results

The experimental group showed a significantly greater improvement in self‐care knowledge, self‐efficacy, and self‐care behaviors for pressure ulcer prevention than did the control group. One participant in the control group developed a pressure ulcer, while none of the participants in the experimental group developed a pressure ulcer; this difference was not statistically significant.

Conclusions

The self‐efficacy enhancement program enabled patients with a spinal cord injury to engage in continued self‐care behaviors and helped them to improve their knowledge and self‐efficacy concerning pressure ulcer prevention.

     

Explaining the national differences in pressure ulcer prevalence between the Netherlands and Germany – adjusted for personal risk factors and institutional quality indicators

Background Pressure ulcers have a known impact on quality of life as well as on morbidity and mortality of the persons affected. Remarkable differences in pressure ulcer prevalence between the Netherlands and Germany have been found during the last 6 years. This study explores to what extent the individual risk of the population and quality indicators of the institutions can explain the variation in national prevalence. Methods Data of a binational multi‐centred cross‐sectional study in 103 hospitals (n = 21 378 patients) and 129 nursing homes (n = 15 579 residents) were analysed using random effects regression models to calculate the differences in national prevalences within the nursing homes and hospitals, adjusted for personal risk for pressure ulcer and quality indicators. Results The prevalence of pressure ulcers among the at‐risk group (Bradenscore ≤20) in nursing homes was 30.8% in the Netherlands and 8.3% in Germany [OR: 4.9 (CI 95%: 4.2–5.7)]. In hospitals, the prevalence among the at‐risk group was 26.1% in the Netherlands and 21.2% in Germany [OR: 1.3 (CI 95%: 1.2–1.5)]. After adjusting for individual risk factors (age, gender, Bradenscore) as well as for quality structures (use of prevention and treatment protocols, experts groups, information leaflets, nurses training, central pressure ulcer statistics and regular updating of protocols), the chance of developing a pressure ulcer was 6.05 times higher (CI 95%: 4.0–9.2) in a Dutch nursing home than in a German nursing home. Within the hospitals, the OR for Dutch patients was 2.03 (CI 95%: 1.4–3.0). Conclusion A remarkable national variation exists in pressure ulcer prevalence and nursing practice. Neither the populations vulnerability for pressure ulcers nor pressure ulcer management as measured in this study could explain this national variation. Therefore, other risk factors should be taken into consideration. Additionally, it is possible that quality indicators are implemented in differing ways with varying levels of effectiveness. Therefore, further research is needed to examine prospectively and in more detail the reality of care within facilities in both countries.