Hill-Rom, 1069 State Road 46 Batesville, IN 47006, United States.
Hill-Rom, 130 E. Randolph St., Suite 1000 Chicago, IL 60601, United States.
Int J Nurs Stud. 2019 Jan;89:46-52. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2018.09.003. Epub 2018 Sep 8.
Prevalence of hospital-acquired pressure injuries has declined over time. However, it is unknown if this decline is consistent for different stages of pressure injuries. It is also unknown if risk factors differ between superficial (stage 1 and 2) and severe (stage 3, 4, deep tissue, and unstageable) pressure injuries.
To examine changes in prevalence of superficial and severe hospital-acquired pressure injuries from 2011 to 2016. To evaluate differences between risk factors associated with superficial versus severe hospital-acquired pressure injuries.
Retrospective analysis of the 2011-2016 International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence™ data.
Acute care hospitals in the USA.
216,626 patients had complete data.
Prevalence of all, superficial, and severe hospital-acquired pressure injuries was calculated annually from 2011 to 2016 and linear trendlines were generated. Two logistic regressions examined risk factors for superficial and severe hospital-acquired pressure injuries.
Prevalence of superficial hospital-acquired pressure injuries declined significantly from 2011 to 2016. However, prevalence of severe pressure injuries did not show a reduction. Risk factors that significantly increased the risk of both superficial and severe pressure injuries were: increased age, male gender, unable to self-ambulate, all types of incontinence, additional linen layers, longer lengths of stay, and being in an intensive care unit. Body mass index (BMI) had a U-shaped relationship, where the likelihood of having either type of pressure injury was highest for low and high BMIs.
A decline in superficial, but not severe, hospital-acquired pressure injuries suggests current prevention techniques might not adequately prevent severe pressure injuries. Generally, risk factors for superficial and severe pressure injuries were highly similar where all 14 of the risk factors were significant in both regression models. However, five risk factors in particular - ICU stay, presence of an ostomy, patient age, ambulatory status, and presence of a fecal management system - had substantially different effect sizes.
医院获得性压疮的患病率随时间推移呈下降趋势。但尚不清楚这种下降是否在压疮的不同阶段一致,也不清楚危险因素在表浅性(1 期和 2 期)和严重性(3 期、4 期、深部组织和无法分期)压疮之间是否存在差异。
检查 2011 年至 2016 年期间表浅性和严重性医院获得性压疮的患病率变化,评估与表浅性和严重性医院获得性压疮相关的危险因素之间的差异。
对 2011-2016 年国际压疮发生率预测量表数据进行回顾性分析。
美国急性护理医院。
216626 例患者具有完整数据。
从 2011 年至 2016 年,每年计算所有、表浅性和严重性医院获得性压疮的患病率,并生成线性趋势线。进行两次逻辑回归分析,以评估表浅性和严重性医院获得性压疮的危险因素。
表浅性医院获得性压疮的患病率从 2011 年至 2016 年显著下降,但严重性压疮的患病率并未减少。显著增加表浅性和严重性压疮风险的危险因素包括:年龄增加、男性、无法自行活动、所有类型的失禁、增加衬垫层数、住院时间延长以及在重症监护病房。身体质量指数(BMI)呈 U 形关系,低 BMI 和高 BMI 时发生任何类型压疮的可能性最高。
表浅性医院获得性压疮的下降,但严重性医院获得性压疮没有下降,表明目前的预防技术可能不足以预防严重压疮。一般来说,表浅性和严重性压疮的危险因素高度相似,两个回归模型中,14 个危险因素均有统计学意义。然而,有 5 个危险因素(重症监护病房、造口、患者年龄、活动状态和粪便管理系统)的作用大小有显著差异。