EPUAP statement on prevalence and incidence monitoring of pressure ulcer occurrence

The trend of pressure ulcer prevalence rates in German hospitals: Results of seven cross-sectional studies

“…Pressure ulcer incidence rates are more capable of evaluating the effectiveness of prevention and treatment and are more sensitive in marking the quality of care [35]. Nevertheless, we think that our results indeed reflect clinical practice because it is very probable that the proportions of observed pressure ulcers at a specific point of time are related to the quality of prevention and treatment [12].…”

“…Prevalence rates are very useful to evaluate the magnitude of pressure ulcer problems and they help planning health resources and facilities [12]. When measured at different points in time it is possible to detect trends and developments.…”

Treatment of Early-Stage Pressure Ulcers by Using Autologous Adipose Tissue Grafts

“…Studies performed to date have confirmed that the sacral area is the most frequently involved one [6]. PUs prevalence in Europe (stages I–IV) is estimated at 18.1% or 10.5%, when stage I ulcers are excluded [7, 8]; the highest incidence is found to be among the elderly and bedridden patients, especially those who are hospitalized or in long-term care settings [9, 10]. The most widely used staging system was proposed by the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (NPUAP) in 1989 and then updated in 2007 [11].…”

A survey of wound care provision within one English health care district

“…In part the lack of general awareness that wound healing is a large, economically important issue in all health care systems flows from the failure to collect appropriate epidemiological data detailing the prevalence of all wound aetiologies within geographically discrete populations. Where epidemiological data is available it is often restricted to specific wound aetiologies within limited populations (for example pressure ulcers within acute care) where even with these limitations comparison between health care providers and trends over time are challenging to interpret due to methodological differences between studies [1]. Such fragmentation of wound occurrence data limits its value as a prompt to policy makers and the public that wound healing is a significant challenge for individual people and to health care budgets.…”