Vanderwee Katrien, Grypdonck Maria, Defloor Tom
Nursing Science, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
J Clin Nurs. 2007 Feb;16(2):325-35. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2005.01429.x.
To evaluate whether postponing preventive measures until non-blanchable erythema appears will actually lead to an increase in incidence of pressure ulcers (grades 2-4) when compared with the standard risk assessment method.
To distinguish patients at risk for pressure ulcers from those not at risk, risk assessment scales are recommended. These scales have limited predictive validity. The prevention of further deterioration of non-blanchable erythema (grade 1 pressure ulcer) instead of the standard way of assigning prevention could be a possible new approach.
Randomized-controlled trial.
Patients admitted to surgical, internal or geriatric wards (n = 1617) were included. They were randomly assigned to an experimental and a control group. In the experimental group (n = 826), prevention was started when non-blanchable erythema appeared, in the control group (n = 791) when the Braden score was <17 or when non-blanchable erythema appeared. In both groups, patients received identical prevention, either by using a polyethylene-urethane mattress in combination with turning every four hours or by using an alternating pressure air mattress. Pressure points were observed daily and classified according to the four grades of the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel. The Braden scale was scored every three days.
In the experimental group, 16% of patients received preventive measures, in the control group 32%. The pressure ulcer incidence (grades 2-4) was not significantly different between the experimental (6.8%) and control group (6.7%).
Significantly fewer patients need preventive measures when prevention is postponed until non-blanchable erythema appears and those patients did not develop more pressure ulcers than patients who received prevention based on the standard risk assessment method.
Using the appearance of non-blanchable erythema to allocate preventive measures leads to a considerable reduction of patients in need of prevention without resulting in an increase in pressure ulcers.
评估与标准风险评估方法相比,将预防措施推迟至出现非苍白性红斑时是否会实际导致压疮(2 - 4级)发病率增加。
为区分有压疮风险的患者和无风险的患者,推荐使用风险评估量表。这些量表的预测效度有限。预防非苍白性红斑(1级压疮)进一步恶化而非采用标准的预防分配方式可能是一种新方法。
随机对照试验。
纳入入住外科、内科或老年病房的患者(n = 1617)。他们被随机分为实验组和对照组。在实验组(n = 826)中,当出现非苍白性红斑时开始预防,在对照组(n = 791)中,当Braden评分<17或出现非苍白性红斑时开始预防。两组患者均接受相同的预防措施,要么使用聚亚安酯床垫并每四小时翻身一次,要么使用交替压力气垫床。每天观察压力点,并根据欧洲压疮咨询小组的四个等级进行分类。每三天对Braden量表进行评分。
实验组中16%的患者接受了预防措施,对照组为32%。实验组(6.8%)和对照组(6.7%)的压疮发病率(2 - 4级)无显著差异。
当将预防措施推迟至出现非苍白性红斑时,需要预防措施的患者显著减少,且这些患者发生的压疮并不比基于标准风险评估方法接受预防的患者更多。
利用非苍白性红斑的出现来分配预防措施可大幅减少需要预防的患者数量,且不会导致压疮增加。