OBJECTIVE:To examine the prevalence and characteristics of medical device–related pressure injuries (MDR PIs) in a large, generalizable database.METHODS:This study is a retrospective analysis of the 2016 International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence data. Data were limited to US and Canadian facilities. Facilities included acute care, long-term care, rehabilitation, long-term acute care hospitals, and hospice. Analysis included 102,865 adult patients; 99,876 had complete data and were the focus of the analysis and are reported in the results below.RESULTS:The overall PI prevalence was 7.2% (n = 7189), and the facility-acquired prevalence was 3.1% (n = 3113). The prevalence of MDR PIs was 0.60% (n = 601), which included both mucosal and nonmucosal MDR PIs. In this study, 75% of MDR PIs were facility acquired, whereas non-MDR PIs were most commonly present on admission. Facility-acquired MDR PIs formed 3 days faster than facility-acquired non-MDR PIs (12 vs 15 days; P < .05). By stage, most MDR PIs were superficial (58% were Stage 1 or 2), 15% were deep-tissue PIs, and 22% were full-thickness PIs (Stage 3 or 4 or unstageable). The most common anatomic locations for MDR PIs were the ears (29%) and the feet (12%). The most common devices associated with MDR PIs were nasal oxygen tubes, 26%; other, 19%; cast/splints, 12%; and continuous positive airway pressure/bilevel positive airway pressure masks, 9%.CONCLUSIONS:Because MDR PIs form faster than non-MDR PIs, timely proactive assessment and prevention measures are critical. Most MDR PIs occurred at the face and head region, and the ears specifically. The most common devices linked with MDR PIs were oxygen tubing and masks, making assessment and prevention efforts critical for patients who require those devices.

No abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate prevalence and risk factors of incontinence-associated dermatitis (IAD). DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of 2016 International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence survey data. SUBJECTS AND SETTING: Adult patients who were in acute care, long-term acute care, long-term care, and rehabilitation facilities in the United States and Canada. METHODS: IAD prevalence was calculated among all patients surveyed, among the incontinent patients only, across multiple care settings, and by incontinence type. A logistic regression examined risk factors for IAD in the incontinent population. RESULTS: Nearly 1 in 5 incontinent patients had IAD documented. Incontinence-associated dermatitis prevalence in the entire patient population was 4.3% while incontinence prevalence was 18%. Of incontinent patients, prevalence of IAD ranged from 8.4% in long-term care facilities to 19% in acute care facilities. Facilities with higher rates of incontinence did not necessarily have higher prevalence of IAD. Incontinence-associated dermatitis prevalence by incontinence type ranged from 12% for patients with urinary incontinence to 26% for patients with fecal management systems. Regression results support the association of the following factors with an increased likelihood of IAD documented: all types of incontinence, fecal management systems, higher body weight, diminished mobility, additional linen layers, longer length of stay, and lower Braden Scale scores. CONCLUSIONS: Incontinence-associated dermatitis remains a concern in acute care settings. Risk factors associated with IAD were similar to risk factors previously reported for hospital-acquired pressure injuries, such as limited mobility, longer lengths of stay, and additional linen layers. By consistently documenting IAD as well as pressure injury prevalence, facilities may benchmark overall skin prevention models.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the prevalence of incontinence and treatment of incontinence-associated dermatitis (IAD) and associations with outcomes including total cost of care, length of stay (LOS), 30-day readmission, sacral area pressure injuries present on admission and hospital acquired pressure injuries, and progression of all sacral area pressure injuries to a higher stage. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. SUBJECTS AND SETTINGS: Data were retrieved from the Premier Healthcare Database and comprised more than 15 million unique adult patient admissions from 937 hospitals. Patients were 18 years or older and admitted to a participating hospital between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2019. METHODS: Given the absence of an IAD International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) code, we categorized patients treated for IAD by selecting patients with a documented incontinence ICD-10-CM code and a documented charge for dermatology products used to treat IAD. The t test and χ2 tests determined whether incontinence and treatment for IAD were associated with outcomes. RESULTS: Incontinence prevalence was 1.5% for the entire sample; prevalence rate for IAD among incontinent patients was 0.7%. As compared to continent patients, incontinent patients had longer LOS (6.4 days versus 4.4 days), were 1.4 times more likely to be readmitted, 4.7 times more likely to have a sacral pressure injury upon admission pressure injury, 5.1 times more likely to have a sacral hospital-acquired pressure injury, and 5.8 times more likely to have a sacral pressure injury progress to a severe stage. As compared to incontinent patients without IAD treatment, those with IAD treatment had longer LOS (9.7 days versus 6.4 days), were 1.3 times more likely to be readmitted, and were 2.0 times more likely to have a sacral hospital-acquired pressure injury. Total index hospital costs were 1.2 times higher for incontinent patients and 1.3 times higher for patients with IAD treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Incontinence and IAD prevalence are substantially lower than past research due to underreporting of incontinence. The lack of an ICD-10-CM code for IAD further exacerbates the underreporting of IAD. Despite low prevalence numbers, our results show higher health care costs and worse outcomes for incontinent patients and patients with IAD treatment.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract