Slayton Stephanie, Morris Paula, Brinkley Jason
Stephanie Slayton, PT, DPT, CWS, Inpatient Skin/Wound Program, Vidant Medical Center, Greenville, North Carolina. Paula Morris, PT, DPT, SCI Rehabilitation Program, Vidant Medical Center, Greenville, NC. Jason Brinkley, PhD, American Institutes for Research, Chapel Hill, NC.
J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2017 May/Jun;44(3):228-235. doi: 10.1097/WON.0000000000000300.
The aim of the study was to compare the degree of pressure created when healthy adult volunteers sat on a hospital recliner chair in various positions and on various cushions.
Comparative cross-sectional study.
Thirty-four healthy subjects were recruited from the community, an urban city in a rural area of Eastern North Carolina.
Interface pressure measurements were taken by the investigators for each subject sitting on a standard hospital recliner under each of the following conditions: no cushion, foam cushion, nonadjustable air cushion, nonadjustable air/foam cushion, and adjustable air cushion. Subject positions, upright sitting and reclined, were randomly selected. Analyses consisted of data visualizations by investigators and univariate statistics. For each surface, mean pressure, peak pressure, and Pressure Area Index (PAI) were obtained and compared. Inferences were drawn from a repeated-measures analysis-of-covariance model.
Subject position was not associated with any of the measures for each surface after adjusting for other variables (average pressure P = .1094, maximum/peak pressure P = .1318, PAI P = .4336). Subject weight, the type of surface, and their interaction do impact the results (average pressure, maximum/peak pressure, and PAI, P < .0001). The foam cushion had the highest mean and average interface pressures and the lowest PAI. The nonadjustable air and air/foam cushions performed most similarly to each other, showing lowest mean and average interface pressures and the highest PAI.
Position of a hospital recliner chair in the 2 positions studied had no association with interface pressure outcomes; therefore, other methods of pressure redistribution need to be utilized by clinicians. Based on the results of this study, clinicians may need to reevaluate the type of cushion used in the acute hospital setting, as a standard foam cushion was found to increase interface pressures when compared to other cushions and a standard hospital recliner.
本研究旨在比较健康成年志愿者在医院躺椅上处于不同姿势并使用不同坐垫时所产生的压力程度。
比较性横断面研究。
从北卡罗来纳州东部农村地区的一个城市社区招募了34名健康受试者。
研究人员在以下每种条件下,对坐在标准医院躺椅上的每位受试者进行界面压力测量:无坐垫、泡沫坐垫、不可调节气垫、不可调节气/泡沫坐垫和可调节气垫。受试者的姿势,即直立坐姿和躺卧姿势,是随机选择的。分析包括研究人员的数据可视化和单变量统计。对于每个表面,获取并比较平均压力、峰值压力和压力面积指数(PAI)。从重复测量协方差分析模型中得出推论。
在调整其他变量后,受试者姿势与每个表面的任何测量指标均无关联(平均压力P = 0.1094,最大/峰值压力P = 0.1318,PAI P = 0.4336)。受试者体重、表面类型及其相互作用确实会影响结果(平均压力、最大/峰值压力和PAI,P < 0.0001)。泡沫坐垫的平均和平均界面压力最高,PAI最低。不可调节气垫和气/泡沫坐垫的表现最为相似,显示出最低的平均和平均界面压力以及最高的PAI。
在所研究的两种姿势下,医院躺椅的位置与界面压力结果无关;因此,临床医生需要采用其他压力再分布方法。基于本研究结果,临床医生可能需要重新评估急性医院环境中使用的坐垫类型,因为与其他坐垫和标准医院躺椅相比,标准泡沫坐垫会增加界面压力。