Jill Cox, PhD, RN, APN-c, CWOCN, is Wound/Ostomy/Continence Advanced Practice Nurse, Englewood Hospital and Medical Center, Englewood, New Jersey, and Clinical Associate Professor, School of Nursing, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey. Sharon Roche, PhD, RN, APN-c, CCRN, is Critical Care Advanced Practice Nurse; and Virginia Murphy, BSN, RN, CCRN, is Critical Care Manager, Englewood Hospital and Medical Center, Englewood, New Jersey. Acknowledgments: The authors thank the following intensive care unit staff nurses for their diligent assistance with the data collection for this study: Lisa Barrale, BSN, RN, CCRN; Iris Carros, BSN, RN; Carole Eastman, MS, RN; Suzanne Scheidegger, BSN, RN, CCRN; and Kerry Volmer, BSN, RN, CCRN. The authors have disclosed no financial relationships related to this article. Submitted September 14, 2017; accepted in revised form December 15, 2017.
Adv Skin Wound Care. 2018 Jul;31(7):328-334. doi: 10.1097/01.ASW.0000534699.50162.4e.
Pressure injury (PI) development in the critical care population is multifactorial. Despite the application of evidence-based prevention strategies, PIs do occur and may be unavoidable in some patients.
To describe the risk factors associated with PI development in a sample of medical-surgical intensive care unit patients and determine whether these risk factors were congruent with the risk factors proposed in the work of the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel on unavoidable PIs.
A retrospective, descriptive design was used to determine the PI risk factors present in a sample of 57 critically ill patients admitted to the medical-surgical intensive care unit for more than 24 hours and who acquired a PI during their admission.
The most frequently identified risk factors were immobility (n = 57 [100%]), septic shock (n = 31 [54%]), vasopressor use (n = 37 [65%]), head-of-bed elevation greater than 30° (n = 53 [93%]), sedation (n = 50 [87.7%]), and mechanical ventilation for more than 72 hours (n = 46 [81%]). The most common PI location was the sacrum (n = 32 [56%]), and the most common stage reported was deep-tissue PI (n = 39 [68%]). The mean number of days to PI development was reported at 7.5 (SD, 7.2) days.
Results of this descriptive study were congruent with the literature surrounding the clinical situations that predispose patients to unavoidable PIs. While the implementation of aggressive PI prevention strategies is essential to reducing PI rates, it is important to recognize that in certain populations, such as the critically ill, exposure to certain risk factors may potentially escalate PI risk beyond the scope of prevention and result in an unavoidable PI. Recognizing these risk factors is significant in the journey to differentiate PIs that result from a lack of preventive care from those that may be prevention immune.
危重症患者发生压力性损伤(PI)的原因是多因素的。尽管应用了循证预防策略,但 PI 仍会发生,在某些患者中可能是不可避免的。
描述医疗外科重症监护病房患者中与 PI 发展相关的危险因素,并确定这些危险因素是否与国家压力性溃疡咨询小组关于不可避免 PI 的工作中提出的危险因素一致。
采用回顾性描述性设计,确定在入住医疗外科重症监护病房超过 24 小时并在住院期间发生 PI 的 57 例危重症患者样本中存在的 PI 危险因素。
最常确定的危险因素为:不能活动(n = 57 [100%])、脓毒症性休克(n = 31 [54%])、使用血管加压药(n = 37 [65%])、床头抬高超过 30°(n = 53 [93%])、镇静(n = 50 [87.7%])和机械通气超过 72 小时(n = 46 [81%])。最常见的 PI 部位是骶骨(n = 32 [56%]),报告的最常见阶段是深部组织 PI(n = 39 [68%])。PI 发展的平均天数为 7.5(SD,7.2)天。
本描述性研究的结果与文献中描述的使患者易发生不可避免 PI 的临床情况一致。尽管实施积极的 PI 预防策略对于降低 PI 发生率至关重要,但重要的是要认识到,在某些人群中,如危重症患者,接触某些危险因素可能会使 PI 风险超出预防范围,并导致不可避免的 PI。认识到这些危险因素对于区分因缺乏预防护理而导致的 PI 和可能具有预防免疫力的 PI 具有重要意义。