Objective To identify risk factors independently predictive of pressure injury (also known as pressure ulcer) development among critical-care patients Design We undertook a systematic review of primary research based on standardized criteria set forth by the Institute of Medicine. Data Sources We searched the following databases: CINAHL (EBSCOhost), the Cochrane Library (Wilson), Dissertations & Theses Global (ProQuest), PubMed (National Library of Medicine), and Scopus. There was no language restriction. Method A research librarian coordinated the search strategy. Articles that potentially met inclusion criteria were screened by two investigators. Among the articles that met selection criteria, one investigator extracted data and a second investigator reviewed the data for accuracy. Based on a literature search, we developed a tool for assessing study quality using a combination of currently available tools and expert input. We used the method developed by Coleman and colleagues in 2014 to generate evidence tables and a summary narrative synthesis by domain and subdomain. Results Of 1753 abstracts reviewed, 158 were identified as potentially eligible and 18 fulfilled eligibility criteria. Five studies were classified as high quality, two were moderate quality, nine were low quality, and two were of very low quality. Age, mobility/activity, perfusion, and vasopressor infusion emerged as important risk factors for pressure injury development, whereas results for risk categories that are theoretically important, including nutrition, and skin/pressure injury status, were mixed. Methodological limitations across studies limited the generalizability of the results, and future research is needed, particularly to evaluate risk conferred by altered nutrition and skin/pressure injury status, and to further elucidate the effects of perfusion-related variables. Conclusions Results underscore the importance of avoiding overinterpretation of a single study, and the importance of taking study quality into consideration when reviewing risk factors. Maximal pressure injury prevention efforts are particularly important among critical-care patients who are older, have altered mobility, experience poor perfusion, or who are receiving a vasopressor infusion.
Background Although healthcare organizations have decreased hospital-acquired pressure injury (HAPI) rates, HAPIs are not eliminated, driving further examination in both nursing and health services research. Objective The objective was to describe HAPI incidence, risk factors, and risk-adjusted hospital variation within a California integrated healthcare system. Methods Inpatient episodes were included in this retrospective cohort if patients were hospitalized between January 1, 2013, and June 30, 2015. The primary outcome was development of a HAPI over time. Predictors included cited HAPI risk factors in addition to incorporation of a longitudinal comorbidity burden (Comorbidity Point Score, Version 2 [COPS2]), a severity-of-illness score (Laboratory-Based Acute Physiology Score, Version 2 [LAPS2]), and the Braden Scale for Predicting Pressure Ulcer Risk. Results Analyses included HAPI inpatient episodes (n = 1661) and non-HAPI episodes (n = 726,605). HAPI incidence was 0.57 per 1,000 patient days (95% CI [0.019, 3.805]) and 0.2% of episodes. A multivariate Cox proportional hazards model showed significant (p < .001) hazard ratios (HRs) for the change from the 25th to the 75th percentile for age (HR = 1.36, 95% CI [1.25, 1.45]), higher COPS2 scores (HR = 1.10, 95% CI [1.04, 1.16]), and higher LAPS2 scores (HR = 1.38, 95% CI [1.28, 1.50]). Female gender, an emergency room admission for a medical reason, and higher Braden scores showed significant protective HRs (HR < 1.00, p < .001). After risk adjustment, significant variation remained among the 35 hospitals. Discussion Results prompt the consideration of age, severity of illness (LAPS2), comorbidity indexes (COPS2), and the Braden score as important predictors for HAPI risk. HAPI rates may be low; however, because of significant individual site variation, HAPIs remain an area to explore through both research and quality improvement initiatives.
This study provides evidence that frequent reevaluation of structures and processes promote achievement of desired outcomes in relation to hourly rounding. The authors recommend abandonment of routinization and adoption of flexibility to sustain successful implementation of hourly rounding.
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.