[Frequency of pressure ulcers in german hospitals].

The prevalence and incidence of pressure ulcers are increasingly used to assess the quality of care delivered by health systems and facilities and the effectiveness of the pressure ulcer prevention initiatives in place. Available results about pressure ulcer prevalence and incidence in German hospitals are contradictory. The comparison of 3 multicentre nationwide studies is proposed to provide a more accurate estimation of the pressure ulcer frequency. Pressure ulcer prevalence was compared by data provided by the Charité with data of the software-based data collection packet "Kinexus". Additionally, data on pressure ulcer incidence of Kinexus were compared with the results of the incidence data of the "Generalindikator Dekubitusprophylaxe" of the German Society of Quality Assurance (BQS, now AQUA Institute). Data from 2007 and 2008 and patients 75 years and older were considered. For the calculation of the outcome "pressure ulcer" recommendations of the EPUAP and the NPUAP were followed. As category I (non-bleaching erythema) pressure ulcers are difficult to diagnose, all proportions were calculated including and excluding category I. All 3 samples were comparable regarding the mean age of 81 years. Pressure ulcer prevalence categories I-IV (II-IV) of the Kinexus study was 11.8% (6.1%) and of the Charité study it was 11.0% (5.5%). Regarding pressure ulcer incidence, the rate that was calculated by the BQS categories I-IV (II-IV) was 1.3% (0.8%), in comparison to the incidence rate of Kinexus which was 6.7% (3.9%). There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 prevalence measurements but the odds-ratio of the Kinexus incidence in comparison to the BQS incidence was more than 4 times higher (p<0.001). Results of the Kinexus study are more comparable to incidence figures of international studies on pressure ulcer incidence. The results of this secondary data analysis indicate that published incidence figures by the BQS (now AQUA Institute) might be underestimated. Since this measurement is expensive and burdensome, this mandatory procedure is questionable.