van Leen Martin Wf, Schols Joseph Mga, Hovius Steven Er, Halfens Ruud Jg
Ostomy Wound Manage. 2017 Sep;63(9):10-20. doi: 10.25270/owm.2017.09.1020.
Pressure ulcers (PUs) are an important and distressing problem in Dutch nursing homes. A secondary analysis of longitudinal data from the Dutch National Prevalence Measurement of Care Problems (LPZ) - an annual, multicenter, point-prevalence survey - was conducted for the years 2005-2014 to determine the use of specific recommended PU preventive measures from the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel 1998, the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel/European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel 2009, and the 2002 and 2011 Dutch PU guidelines. Preventive care was investigated among nursing home residents at risk for PUs and included skin care (moisturization); nutritional and hydration status assessment and optimization; and pressure redistribution involving mattresses, cushions, and heel pressure-relieving strategies and devices. Following abstraction from the study database, data for 3 at-risk groups were distinguished: 1) residents with a Braden score of 17, 18, or 19; 2) residents with a Braden score below 17; and 3) residents with a PU. Data were aggregated at the institutional level. Differences were tested with multiple regression analyses. The mean number of residents over the study period was 5435, the mean age was 82.8 years, and the mean Braden score was 15.3. None of the recommended preventive measures from the guidelines consulted was applied 100% of the time: preventive skin care measures were used in 25.1% to 63.8% of cases and dehydration and/or malnutrition were identified and managed in 27.8% to 65.6% of patients. Pressure redistribution with special types of mattresses was used in 85.2% of patients, cushions in (wheel)chairs were used in 64.8% of patients, and heels were offloaded in 57.8% of patients. The results regarding repositioning for the 3 groups, respectively, showed a maximum use of 9.7%, 30.3%, and 65.6%; the higher the PU risk, the more preventive measures were used. Although the results show a decrease in the percent of category 2 through category 4 PUs from 16.6% to 5.5% and a trend toward increased use of preventive measures (more skin care, attention for dehydration/malnutrition, use of floating heels/heel devices, and pressure-relieving systems when a PU was present), the reason why measurements were suboptimally used remains unclear. Further research to address the application of guidelines in daily practice is needed.
压疮是荷兰养老院中一个重要且令人苦恼的问题。对荷兰全国护理问题患病率测量(LPZ)的纵向数据进行了二次分析,LPZ是一项年度多中心现患率调查,分析时间跨度为2005年至2014年,以确定是否采用了欧洲压疮咨询小组1998年、国家压疮咨询小组/欧洲压疮咨询小组2009年以及2002年和2011年荷兰压疮指南中推荐的特定预防措施。对有发生压疮风险的养老院居民的预防护理进行了调查,包括皮肤护理(保湿);营养和水合状态评估及优化;以及通过床垫、靠垫和足跟减压策略及装置进行压力再分布。从研究数据库提取数据后,区分出3个风险组的数据:1)布拉德评分17、18或19分的居民;2)布拉德评分低于17分的居民;3)患有压疮的居民。数据在机构层面进行汇总。通过多元回归分析检验差异。研究期间居民的平均人数为5435人,平均年龄为82.8岁,平均布拉德评分为15.3分。所参考指南中推荐的预防措施均未100%得到应用:预防性皮肤护理措施在25.1%至63.8%的病例中使用,27.8%至65.6%的患者被识别并处理了脱水和/或营养不良问题。85.2%的患者使用了特殊类型的床垫进行压力再分布,64.8%的患者在(轮椅)上使用了靠垫,57.8%的患者足跟得到减压。3组患者翻身的结果分别显示,最大使用率为9.7%、30.3%和65.6%;压疮风险越高,使用的预防措施越多。尽管结果显示2期至4期压疮的百分比从16.6%降至5.5%,且预防措施的使用有增加趋势(更多皮肤护理、关注脱水/营养不良、使用足跟漂浮垫/足跟装置以及在出现压疮时使用减压系统),但测量方法未得到最佳使用的原因仍不清楚。需要进一步研究以解决指南在日常实践中的应用问题。