As of 2012, what are the key predictive risk factors for pressure ulcers? Developing French guidelines for clinical practice

Michel, Jean-Marc; Willebois, S.; Ribinik, P.; Barrois, B.; Colin, D.; Passadori, Y.

doi:10.1016/j.rehab.2012.08.003

Cited by 24 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…-Shear assessment (e.g. no problem or potential/actual problem) 8/12 -Greater friction and shear results in increased risk for PI development Aljezawi et al, 2014;Cowan et al, 2012;Demarre et al, 2015;Kaitani et al, 2010;Lahmann & Kottner, 2011;Raju et al, 2015;Rao et al, 2016;Schoonhoven et al, 2006;Shahin et al, 2010;Tescher et al, 2012;Shaw et al, 2014 Tissue tolerance Slowikowski & Funk, 2010;Tsaousi et al, 2014;Fred et al, 2012;Miller et al, 2016;Shahin et al, 2010;Aljezawi et al, 2014;Cowan et al, 2012;Rao et al, 2016;Michel et al, 2012;Serra et al, 2014;Kaitani et al, 2010;…”

Section: Shearmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…TA B L E 3 Primary constructs and associated evidence evaluating prediction of concepts for hospital-acquired pressure injuries Construct # studies Tissue tolerance 41 Aljezawi et al, 2014;Beeckman et al, 2014;Brito et al, 2013;Bly et al, 2016;Banks et al, 2010;Baumgarten et al, 2006;Chen et al, 2015;Coleman et al, 2013;Connor et al, 2010;Corniello et al, 2014;Cowan et al, 2012;Delmore et al, 2015;Demarre et al, 2015;Fred et al, 2012;Kaitani et al, 2010;Lahmann & Kottner, 2011;Manzano et al, 2010;Michel et al, 2012;Miller et al, 2016;Man & Au-Yeung, 2013;Nassaji et al, 2014;O'Brien et al, 2014;;Raff et al, 2016;Raju et al, 2015;Rao et al, 2016;Serra et al, 2014;Stifter et al, 2015;Tescher et al, 2012;Smit et al, 2016;Shen et al, 2015;Shaw et al, 2014;Slowikowski & Funk, 2010;Tsaousi et al, 2014;Tschannen et al, 2012;Webster et al, 2015;Yoshimura et al, 2015;Coleman et al, 2013 Environment 22 Aydin et al, 2015;Bredesen et al, 2015;…”

Section: Ta B L E 2 (Continued)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The pressure injury predictive model: A framework for hospital‐acquired pressure injuries

Tschannen

Anderson

2020

Journal of Clinical Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Despite decades of research, pressure injuries continue to be a source of significant pain and delayed recovery for patients and substantial quality and cost issues for hospitals. Consideration of the current thinking around pressure injury risk must be evaluated to improve risk assessments and subsequent nursing interventions aimed at reducing hospital‐acquired pressure injuries. Design This is a discursive paper using Walker and Avant’s (2005) theory synthesis framework to examine the relevance of existing pressure injury models as they align with the current literature. Methods PubMed and CINAHL indexes were searched, first for conceptual models and then for pressure injury research conducted on hospitalised patients for the years 2006–2016. A synthesis of the searches culminated into a new pressure injury risk model. Conclusions Gaps in previous models include lack of attention to the environment, contributing episode‐of‐care factors and the dynamic nature of injury risk for patients. Through theory synthesis, the need for a new model representing the full risk for pressure injury was identified. The Pressure Injury Predictive Model is a representation of the complex and dynamic nature of pressure injury risk that builds on previous models and addresses new patient, contextual and episode‐of‐care process influences. The Pressure Injury Predictive Model (PIPM) provides a more accurate picture of the complexity of contextual and process factors associated with pressure injury development. Relevance to Clinical Practice Using the PIPM to determine risk can result in improved risk identification. This information can be used to implement targeted, evidence‐based pressure injury prevention interventions specific to the patient risk profile, thus limiting unwarranted and unnecessary care.

show abstract

Section: Shearmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Ta B L E 2 (Continued)mentioning

confidence: 99%

The pressure injury predictive model: A framework for hospital‐acquired pressure injuries

Tschannen

Anderson

2020

Journal of Clinical Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[2][3][4]6,7 PrU are associated with numerous negative outcomes, including decreased daily activities and quality of life, [8][9][10] costly complications and hospitalizations, [11][12][13] and even mortality. [14][15][16] Owing to the negative effects of PrU, extensive research has centered on the study of risk factors [17][18][19][20][21] and prevention and treatment of PrU. [22][23][24][25] However, few studies have assessed behavioral risk factors, and they have primarily focused on single observable factors, rather than the impact of multiple risk factors on PrU outcomes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…27,36 Additionally, heavy alcohol consumption is linked to malnutrition, 35,37,38 which is a risk factor for PrU outcomes. 21 Furthermore, heavy and binge drinking has been linked to a greater risk of unintentional injury after SCI, 39,40 and such injuries may either lead to or exacerbate PrU.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A latent structural equation model of risk behaviors and pressure ulcer outcomes among people with spinal cord injury

DiPiro

Krause

2017

Spinal Cord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Using comprehensive search strategies that combined terms for pressure ulcer 9 with published prognosis study search filters, [10][11][12][13] we searched Ovid MEDLINE and EBSCO CINAHL Plus on 14 February 2017 without any restriction. We also searched ProQuest for relevant doctoral theses and screened the reference lists of eight relevant systematic reviews, 8,[14][15][16][17][18][19][20] as well as of potentially eligible studies.…”

Section: Search Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

Nonblanchable erythema for predicting pressure ulcer development: a systematic review with an individual participant data meta‐analysis

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Background Empirical evidence is uncertain regarding the value of nonblanchable erythema in predicting the incidence of stage 2 (or more severe) pressure ulcers. Objectives To investigate whether nonblanchable erythema is an independent prognostic factor for pressure ulcer incidence using individual patient data. Methods We performed an electronic database search in February 2017 to identify longitudinal studies that considered nonblanchable erythema for predicting pressure ulcer risk in any population. We collected individual participant data for the included studies, and assessed the risk of bias of these studies using the Quality In Prognosis Studies tool. We analysed individual participant data in Stata using mixed‐effects logistic regression to investigate the association of interest. The certainty of evidence from individual participant data analysis was assessed using the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation. The study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42017081151). Results From the 13 included studies (total 68 077 participants) we had access to individual participant data from four (n = 3223), and 11·9% of participants (383 of 3223) developed new pressure ulcers of stage 2 or above within 28 days. Mixed‐effects logistic regression showed that participants with nonblanchable erythema had higher odds of developing new pressure ulcers of stage 2 or above within 28 days of follow‐up than those without nonblanchable erythema (multivariable association: n = 2684; odds ratio 2·72, 95% confidence interval 2·02–3·69; τ2 = 0; moderate‐certainty evidence). Conclusions This first prognostic factor review with individual‐level data analysis in patients with pressure ulcers suggests that people with nonblanchable erythema are more likely to develop new pressure ulcers of stage 2 or above within 28 days than people without nonblanchable erythema. It is important to identify nonblanchable erythema in practice and to intervene appropriately to prevent pressure ulceration. What's already known about this topic? Pressure ulcer reduction is a high priority for healthcare systems. Regularly inspecting skin to identify skin abnormalities is one key practice for preventing ulceration. Nonblanchable erythema – discoloration of the skin that does not turn white when pressed – is one clinically important skin abnormality. Empirical evidence synthesized using conventional meta‐analysis is uncertain regarding the value of nonblanchable erythema for predicting open pressure ulcer incidence; this is partly because the conventional technique has weakness in terms of pooling prognostic effects of different multivariable analyses across studies. What does this study add? This prognostic factor review used individual‐level data analysis to overcome the limitations of the conventional meta‐analysis technique. For the first time there is confirmatory and moderate‐certainty evidence on the association of nonblanchable erythema with pressure ulcer incidence. People with nonblanchable erythema are m...

show abstract

As of 2012, what are the key predictive risk factors for pressure ulcers? Developing French guidelines for clinical practice

Abstract: According to experts, it is important to know and predictively evaluate risk of pressure ulcers at the time of hospital admission. The predictive risk factors found in this study are identical to those highlighted at the 2001 consensus conference of which was PERSE was the promoter.

Cited by 24 publications

References 30 publications

The pressure injury predictive model: A framework for hospital‐acquired pressure injuries

The pressure injury predictive model: A framework for hospital‐acquired pressure injuries

A latent structural equation model of risk behaviors and pressure ulcer outcomes among people with spinal cord injury

Nonblanchable erythema for predicting pressure ulcer development: a systematic review with an individual participant data meta‐analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About