Issues and challenges in staging of pressure ulcers.

Wound assessment is a key element of effective wound care, and assessment of pressure ulcers includes accurate determination of wound stage. Although the original staging system established by Shea was based on his understanding of the pathology involved in pressure ulcer development, subsequent staging systems (and the one currently in use) were intended simply to establish the level of tissue damage. Recently, clinicians have drawn attention to numerous limitations associated with the current staging system, including the inability to differentiate between an inflammatory response involving intact skin and a deep tissue injury (deep bruising) underneath intact skin. This is a clinically significant difference because clinicians have noted that most inflammatory responses resolve with intervention, whereas most areas of deep tissue injury progress to full-thickness ulcers even when appropriate intervention is provided. A second area of controversy involves partial-thickness (Stage 2) lesions; because many of these lesions are caused by maceration and/or friction (as opposed to pressure) clinicians are frequently unclear regarding which of these lesions should be staged. In response to these concerns, the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel convened a consensus forum and published white papers to clearly outline the issues; they solicited clinician feedback on the white papers and the Wound, Ostomy, Continence Nurses Society provided a written response. This article summarizes the key points of the white papers, WOCN Society response, and consensus forum discussion.     

Genotype prevalence and risk factors for severe clinical adenovirus infection, United States 2004-2006.

BACKGROUND: Recently, epidemiological and clinical data have revealed important changes with regard to clinical adenovirus infection, including alterations in antigenic presentation, geographical distribution, and virulence of the virus. METHODS: In an effort to better understand the epidemiology of clinical adenovirus infection in the United States, we adopted a new molecular adenovirus typing technique to study clinical adenovirus isolates collected from 22 medical facilities over a 25-month period during 2004-2006. A hexon gene sequence typing method was used to characterize 2237 clinical adenovirus-positive specimens, comparing their sequences with those of the 51 currently recognized prototype human adenovirus strains. In a blinded comparison, this method performed well and was much faster than the classic serologic typing method. RESULTS: Among civilians, the most prevalent adenovirus types were types 3 (prevalence, 34.6%), 2 (24.3%), 1 (17.7%), and 5 (5.3%). Among military trainees, the most prevalent types were types 4 (prevalence, 92.8%), 3 (2.6%), and 21 (2.4%). CONCLUSIONS: For both populations, we observed a statistically significant increasing trend of adenovirus type 21 detection over time. Among adenovirus isolates recovered from specimens from civilians, 50% were associated with hospitalization, 19.6% with a chronic disease condition, 11% with a bone marrow or solid organ transplantation, 7.4% with intensive care unit stay, and 4.2% with a cancer diagnosis. Multivariable risk factor modeling for adenovirus disease severity found that age <7 years (odds ratio [OR], 3.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-7.4), chronic disease (OR, 3.6; 95% CI, 2.6-5.1), recent transplantation (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.3-5.2), and adenovirus type 5 (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.5-4.7) or type 21 infection (OR, 7.6; 95% CI, 2.6-22.3) increased the risk of severe disease.