Overall there is no single factor which can explain pressure ulcer risk, rather a complex interplay of factors which increase the probability of pressure ulcer development. The review highlights the limitations of over-interpretation of results from individual studies and the benefits of reviewing results from a number of studies to develop a more reliable overall assessment of factors which are important in affecting patient susceptibility.

There is evidence that PUs and PU interventions have a significant impact on HRQL and cause substantial burden to patients.

The methodology is sufficiently robust to measure and compare pressure ulcer prevalence in different countries. The pressure ulcer prevalence was higher than expected and relatively few patients received adequate prevention. This indicates that more attention to prevention is needed in Europe.

No abstract

Knowledge of nurses in Belgian hospitals about the prevention of pressure ulcers is inadequate. The attitudes of nurses toward pressure ulcers are significantly correlated with the application of adequate prevention. No correlation was found between knowledge and the application of adequate prevention.

Although a pilot, this study has produced a wealth of data that demonstrates the impact of pressure ulcers on people. While a larger study is required to obtain a European perspective, it is still reasonable to conclude that the issues of pain and restrictions should be considered in the development of pressure ulcer treatment and prevention guidelines.

The novel insights have implications for risk assessment for patients in intensive care units. Patients admitted to intensive care units have other risk factors for pressure ulcers which are eligible to be included in a new risk assessment scale.

More frequent repositioning on a pressure-reducing mattress does not necessarily lead to fewer pressure ulcer lesions and consequently cannot be considered as a more effective preventive measure.