Prevention and Management

Villani, Donata; Meghi, Pasquina

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-06118-4_6

Cited by 7 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Ozyurek and Yavuz 16 compared the use of VEF I (two layers) and VEF II (three layers) and found no difference in PI incidence 16 . The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence recommends a high-specification foam mattress as the standard for vulnerable patients 40 . Viscoelastic foam support surfaces can redistribute pressure points and, consequently, reduce the intensity of pressure on the body.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…16 The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence recommends a highspecification foam mattress as the standard for vulnerable patients. 40 Viscoelastic foam support surfaces can redistribute pressure points and, consequently, reduce the intensity of pressure on the body. This type of support surface can improve body adaptability, enable a larger contact surface, and more effectively reduce pressure compared with other nonpowered surfaces.…”

Section: Effectiveness Of Support Surfaces In Preventing Pimentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reducing the Incidence and Prevalence of Pressure Injury in Adult ICU Patients with Support Surface Use: A Systematic Review

Bambi

Yusuf

Irwan

2022

Adv Skin Wound Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

GENERAL PURPOSE To provide information on the effectiveness of active and reactive support surfaces in reducing the incidence and prevalence of pressure injuries (PIs) in adult ICU patients. TARGET AUDIENCE This continuing education activity is intended for physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and nurses with an interest in skin and wound care. LEARNING OBJECTIVES/OUTCOMES After participating in this educational activity, the participant will: 1. Distinguish features of active and reactive support surfaces used in the ICU.2. Compare the PI incidence in patients using a variety of support surfaces.3. Synthesize recommendations for the use of support surfaces to reduce the risk of PI in adult ICU patients. OBJECTIVE To identify and analyze scientific evidence on the effectiveness of active and reactive support surfaces in reducing the incidence and prevalence of pressure injury (PI) in adult ICU patients. DATA SOURCES PubMed, ProQuest, ScienceDirect, Wiley Online Library, ClinicalKey for Nursing, Cochrane Library, and secondary searches. STUDY SELECTION Studies were included if they related to support surfaces, involved adult ICU patients aged ≥18 years, and the primary outcome measured was incidence or prevalence of PI. The initial search resulted in 8,357 articles; after exclusions, 31 complete texts were assessed for feasibility. A total of eight articles were included in this review. A bias risk assessment was performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. DATA EXTRACTION Data were extracted by one reviewer and summarized in a table of study results that was examined and verified by two other reviewers. DATA SYNTHESIS Reactive (constant low pressure) support surfaces included viscoelastic foam mattresses, static air mattresses, and low-air-loss mattresses, whereas the active support surface consisted of alternating-pressure air mattresses. Alternating pressure mattress and viscoelastic foam mattress use both resulted in significantly lower PI incidence. CONCLUSION Support surface use is limited, and no particular type is proven to be superior to others. Clinicians should select support surfaces based on their therapeutic features and how well they meet the patient’s particular needs.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Effectiveness Of Support Surfaces In Preventing Pimentioning

confidence: 99%