The theory and practice of pressure ulcer/injury risk assessment: a critical discussion

Abstract

Pressure ulcer/injury (PU) risk assessment is widely considered an essential component in clinical practice. It is a complex and broad concept that includes different approaches, such as clinical judgement, using standardised risk assessment instruments, skin assessments, or using devices to measure skin or tissue properties. A distinction between PU risk assessment and early detection is important. PU risk measures the individual's susceptibility to developing a PU under a specific exposure (primary prevention), and early detection includes the assessment of early (sub)clinical signs and symptoms to prevent progression and to support healing (secondary prevention). PU risk is measured using prognostic/risk factors or prognostic models. Every risk estimate is a probability statement containing varying degrees of uncertainty. It therefore follows that every clinical decision based on risk estimates also contains uncertainty. PU risk assessment and prevention is a complex intervention, where delivery contains several interacting components. There is a huge body of evidence indicating that risk assessment and its outcomes, the selection of preventive interventions and PU incidence are not well connected. Methods for prognostic model development and testing in PU risk research must be improved and follow state-of-the-art methodological standards. Despite these challenges, we do have substantial knowledge about PU risk factors that helps us to make better clinical decisions. An important next step in the development of PU risk prediction might be the combination of clinical and other predictors for more individualised care. Any prognostic test or procedure must lead to better prevention at an acceptable cost.

A Prospective Study of Pressure Injury Healing Rate and Time and Influencing Factors in an Acute Care Setting

“…Research has shown that cardiovascular dysfunction negatively affects PI healing, 16,37 probably due to reduced tissue perfusion, tissue ischemia, hypoxia, interrupted nutrition or oxygen supply, and metabolic waste accumulation 38 . In the present study, however, patients with a cardiovascular comorbidity had a higher PI healing rate than those without.…”