Wilborn Doris, Halfens Ruud, Dassen Theo
Department of Nursing Science, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
J Eval Clin Pract. 2006 Dec;12(6):630-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2006.00631.x.
The aim of this paper is to analyse the protocols used in German hospitals and nursing homes for the prevention of pressure ulcers with regard to their contents and accordance with the national standard of the Deutsches Netzwerk für Qualitätsentwicklung in der Pflege (DNQP) and the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (EPUAP) and Royal College of Nursing (RCN) guidelines. Additionally, it is to show the relation between the existence and contents of the protocols of pressure ulcer prevention and pressure ulcer prevalence in the institutions.
On a fixed date trained nursing staff gathers data regarding the frequency of pressure ulcers during a prevalence survey. The existence of a pressure ulcer is established by physical examination after the risk assessment with the Braden-Scale. The patient's or resident's informed consent is a precondition for his or her participation in the survey. The protocols are available as hard copies on paper or electronic files.
Only two out of the 21 protocols developed in-house are completely concurrent with the expert standard. The EPUAP and RCN guidelines include the aspect of training and further education that is missing in the in-house protocols and the DNQP expert standard. Evaluation of the data reveals that there is no relation between the availability of protocols and pressure ulcer prevalence. Neither is there any relation between the contents and pressure ulcer prevalence. The institutions currently developing protocols have the lowest prevalence rates.
It is obvious that, while developing in-house protocols, the discussion about pressure ulcer prevention has led to a higher problem awareness in nurses and thus to an increased attentiveness in daily nursing practice which then results in improved outcomes. Two years after its publication, the expert standard is still not very well known, therefore this concentrated form of the most up-to-date knowledge is not available to all nursing staff as a basis for evidence-based practice. In addition, the sometimes outdated knowledge of nursing staff impedes the implementation of evidence-based practice guidelines. A systematic implementation strategy that assists guidelines being applied in practice is therefore required.
本文旨在分析德国医院和养老院用于预防压疮的方案,包括其内容以及是否符合德国护理质量改进网络(DNQP)的国家标准、欧洲压疮咨询小组(EPUAP)和皇家护理学院(RCN)的指南。此外,还要展示压疮预防方案的存在及内容与机构中压疮患病率之间的关系。
在固定日期,经过培训的护理人员在患病率调查期间收集有关压疮发生频率的数据。在使用Braden量表进行风险评估后,通过体格检查确定压疮的存在。患者或居民的知情同意是其参与调查的前提条件。方案以纸质硬拷贝或电子文件形式提供。
在内部制定的21个方案中,只有两个与专家标准完全一致。EPUAP和RCN指南包括了内部方案和DNQP专家标准中缺失的培训和继续教育方面。对数据的评估显示,方案的可用性与压疮患病率之间没有关系。内容与压疮患病率之间也没有关系。目前正在制定方案的机构患病率最低。
显然,在制定内部方案时,关于压疮预防的讨论提高了护士对问题的认识,从而在日常护理实践中提高了关注度,进而改善了结果。专家标准发布两年后,仍然不太为人所知,因此这种最前沿知识的集中形式并未作为循证实践的基础提供给所有护理人员。此外,护理人员有时过时的知识阻碍了循证实践指南的实施。因此,需要一种有助于指南在实践中应用的系统实施策略。