Aim: To identify how activity and mobility lead to pressure ulcer development, using two objective assessments, one for mobility and one for early pressure ulcer detection.Methods: 150 older persons from long-term settings were followed up for 20 days, using an observational, quantitative, prospective study design. The study was conducted in accordance with the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology statement. Visual skin assessment and sub-epidermal moisture assessments were undertaken daily. Activity was measured using the Braden subscale.Further, a mobility profile of the participants was identified using a piezoelectric motion sensor which provided a "movement score" (mean number of movements/hour).Movement scores from 22 healthy participants were also measured to better understand the mobility profile in a healthy population.Results: Pressure ulcer incidence using visual skin assessment was 12.7% (low movers = 6.7%; high movers = 6%) and 78.7% using sub-epidermal moisture assessment (low movers = 40.0%; high movers = 38.7%). Sub-epidermal moisture assessment detected pressure ulcers on average 8.2 days before they appeared visually on the skin's surface. Pressure ulcer detection was 25 times greater using sub-epidermal moisture compared to visual skin assessment. Considering the results of the "movement level" assessment using the motion sensor technology, of all those who were determined to be immobile by Braden, 18.8% were assessed as high movers.Discussion & Conclusion: Pressure ulcers occurred both in low and high movers, which was unexpected as a similar finding has not been previously reported in the literature.
Objective: Pressure ulcers (PUs) involve the destruction of skin and underlying tissue due to prolonged pressure and shear forces. These ulcers are painful and significantly reduce a person's quality of life. PUs are also expensive to manage and impact negatively on the achievement of cost-effective, efficient care delivery. Method: Prone positioning is a postural therapy that aims to enhance respiratory function through increasing oxygenation levels. In contemporary clinical practice, ventilation in the prone position is indicated for patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. However, despite its advantages in terms of respiratory function, several studies have examined complications of prone position ventilation and have identified PUs (facial PUs as well as PUs on other weight-bearing areas of the body) as a frequent complication in patients who are already in a precarious medical situation. International data suggest that up to 57% of patients nursed in the prone position develop a PU. The aim of this clinical review is to identify and review evidence-based recommendations developed to facilitate the selection and application of preventive interventions aimed at reducing PU development in patients ventilated in the prone position. Given the current COVID-19 crisis, this review is timely as intensive care unit (ICU) patients with COVID-19 require ventilation in the prone position at a level that is disproportionate to the general intensive care population. Up to 28% of patients admitted to the ICU with confirmed infection due to severe COVID-19 are cared for in the prone position. The scope of this review is limited to adult individuals only. Results: The skin assessment should be undertaken before proning and following positioning the patient back into the supine position. Although it is essential to keep the skin clean and moisturised, using pH-balanced cleansers, there is inconsistency in terms of the evidence to support the type of moisturiser. Use of positioning devices in addition to repositioning is recommended to offload pressure points on the face and body. Further, using dressings such as hydrocolloids, transparent film and silicone may be of benefit in decreasing facial skin breakdown. Conclusion: Given the importance of PU prevention in this cohort of patients, adopting a focused prevention strategy, including skin assessment and care, offloading and pressure redistribution, and dressings for prevention may contribute to a reduction in the incidence and prevalence of these largely preventable wounds.
The effective approach on pressure ulcer (PU) prevention regarding patient safety in the hospital context was evaluated. Studies were identified from searches in EBSCO host, PubMed, and WebofScience databases from 2009 up to December 2018. Studies were selected if they were published in English, French, Portuguese, or Spanish; incidence of PUs was the primary outcome; participants were adults (≥18 years) admitted in hospital wards and/or units. The review included 26 studies. Studies related to prophylactic dressings applied in the sacrum, trochanters, and/or heels, education for health care professionals, and preventive skin care and system reminders on‐screen inpatient care plan were effective in decreasing PUs. Most of the studies related to multiple intervention programmes were effective in decreasing PU occurrence. Single interventions, namely support surfaces and repositioning, were not always effective in preventing PUs. Repositioning only was effective when supported by technological pressure‐mapping feedback or by a patient positioning system. Risk‐assessment tools are not effective in preventing PUs. PUs in the hospital context are still a worldwide issue related to patient safety. Multiple intervention programmes were more effective in decreasing PU occurrence than single interventions in isolation. Single interventions (prophylactic dressings, support surfaces, repositioning, preventive skin care, system reminders, and education for health care professionals) were effective in decreasing PUs, which was always in compliance with other preventive measures. These results provide an overview of effective approaches that should be considered when establishing evidence‐based guidelines to hospital health care professionals and administrators for clinical practice effective in preventing PUs.
Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine the impact of a specially designed care bundle on the development of facial pressure injuries (PI) among frontline healthcare workers wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) during the COVID-19 pandemic. The primary outcome of interest was the incidence of facial PIs. The secondary outcomes of interest were facial pain while wearing PPE and ease of use of the care bundle. Methods: This study used a voluntary survey by questionnaire, supplemented by a qualitative analysis of interviews from a small purposive sample that took place in one large Irish hospital over a two-month period in 2020. The hospital was a city-based public university teaching hospital with 800 inpatient beds. The intervention was a care bundle consisting of skin protection, face mask selection, material use, skin inspection, cleansing and hydration developed in line with international best practice guidelines. All staff working in COVID-19 wards, intensive care units and the emergency department in the hospital were given a kitbag containing the elements of the care bundle plus an information pamphlet. Data were collected via a survey and interviews. Results: A total of 114 staff provided feedback on the use of the care bundle. Before using the care bundle 29% (n=33) of the respondents reported developing a facial PI, whereas after using the care bundle only 8% (n=9) of the respondents reported developing a facial PI. The odds ratio (OR) of skin injury development was 4.75 (95% confidence interval (CI): 2.15–10.49; p=0.0001), suggesting that after the care bundle was issued, those who responded to the survey were almost five times less likely to develop a skin injury. Interviews with 14 staff determined that the bundle was easy to use and safe. Conclusion: Among those who responded to the survey, the use of the bundle was associated with a reduction in the incidence of skin injury from 29% to 8%, and respondents found the bundle easy to use, safe and effective. As with evidence from the international literature, this study has identified that when skincare is prioritised, and a systematic preventative care bundle approach is adopted, there are clear benefits for the individuals involved.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creat ive Commo ns Attri butio n-NonCo mmerc ial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
Objective: The aim was to assess evidence related to the measuring of subepidermal moisture (SEM) to detect early, nonvisible development of pressure ulcers (PUs). Method: Using systematic review methodology, all quantitative animal and human research studies written in English were considered. In January 2021, PubMed, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Cochrane and EMBASE databases were searched. The primary outcome of interest was the validity of SEM measurement to detect early PU development. The secondary outcome was time to PU detection, sensitivity and specificity of SEM measurement, and the impact of SEM measurements on PU prevention. Data analysis was undertaken using RevMan and narrative synthesis. Results: A total of 17 articles met the inclusion criteria. In all studies, a consistent abnormal deviation in SEM measurements corresponded with evidence of visual PU development. Time to PU development, explored in four studies, showed earlier detection of PU development using SEM measurement. RevMan analysis identified the mean difference in time to PU development (SEM measurement versus visual skin assessment, VSA) was 4.61 days (95% confidence interval: 3.94–5.28; p=0.0001) in favour of SEM measurements. The sensitivity of SEM measurements was reported in four studies, and scores varied from 48.3% to 100.0%. Specificity was also reported in four studies and scores ranged from 24.4% to 83.0%. The impact of the detection of abnormal SEM measurements on PU prevention was explored by one study. Results showed a 93% decrease in PU rates when staff acted on the results of the SEM readings. Conclusion: The findings of this review identified that SEM measurement detects PU development earlier than VSA. Furthermore, when staff responded to abnormal SEM measurements, prevention strategies were enhanced, with a subsequent reduction in visible PU development. SEM measurement may therefore be a useful addition to PU prevention strategies. Declaration of interest: The School of Nursing & Midwifery, RCSI has a research agreement with Bruin Biometrics. Funding for the study was through an Irish Research Council PhD Enterprise Partnership Scheme with Bruin Biometrics. The authors have no other conflicts of interest.
This paper aims to discuss the literature pertaining to early pressure‐shear induced tissue damage detection, with emphasis on sub‐epidermal moisture measurement (SEM). The current method for pressure detection is visual skin assessment (VSA); however, this method is fraught with challenges. Advances in early detection of pressure ulcers are reported in the literature and mainly involve measuring inflammation markers on weight‐bearing anatomical areas in order to capture the first signs of tissue damage. One novel technique currently in use is SEM measurement. This biophysical marker is the product of plasma that leaks as a response to local inflammation arising due to pressure‐shear induced damage over bony prominences. The early detection of tissue damage is beneficial in two different ways. First, it enables early intervention when the damage is still microscopic and reversible and, therefore, has the potential to prevent further aggravation of healthy surrounding tissue. This arises by avoiding the causation of the problem and stopping the knock‐on effect of inflammation, especially when the rapid pressure ulceration pathway of deformation is in place. Second, when the slow ischaemic‐reperfusion related mechanism is undergoing, cell death can be avoided when the problem is identified before the cell reaches the “death threshold,” completely averting a pressure ulcer.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.