University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, School of Nursing, 1006 Carrington Hall, Campus Box 7460, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7460, United States.
University of Virginia, School of Medicine, United States.
Int J Nurs Stud. 2020 May;105:103455. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2019.103455. Epub 2019 Nov 5.
Pressure ulcer rates are persistently high despite years of research and practice policies focused on prevention. Prior research found crosssectional associations between care interventions, hospital and nursing unit characteristics and pressure ulcer rates. Whether these associations persist over time is unknown. Finally, comparisons of quality measures across rural and urban location have mixed findings.
Our study examined effects of care interventions on unit-acquired pressure ulcer rates over 4 years controlling for community, hospital, and nursing unit characteristics in rural and urban locations.
Guided by contingency theory a longitudinal study was conducted to examine associations between context, staffing, care interventions, nurse outcomes, and pressure ulcer rates, using unit-level data from the National Database of Nursing Quality Indicators 2010-2013 (16 quarters) augmented with data on rural classifications and case mix index. Ulcer rates were measured as percentage of patients with a nursing unit-acquired pressure ulcer. The three care interventions were unit-percentage of patients receiving skin assessment on admission, receiving risk assessment on admission, and receiving any risk assessment before the pressure ulcer. Nursing unit characteristics were RN staffing, education, and experience. Nurse outcomes were job satisfaction and intent-to-stay.
We included 5761 units (332 rural and 5429 urban) in 772 hospitals (89 rural and 683 urban) that reported ulcer rates in two or more quarters during the study period.
Rural and urban units were examined separately using multilevel binomial regression in which within-unit changes in pressure ulcer rates were related to the within-unit changes in the explanatory variables, controlling for region, hospital size, unit type, case mix index, and percentage of patients at risk for pressure ulcers.
An increase in the three care interventions, RN skill mix, and the two nurse outcomes were associated with a decrease in unit-acquired pressure ulcers. For example, in rural units a 10% increase in unit-percentage of any risk assessment and in urban units a 10% increase in skin assessment on admission were associated with a 21% and 5% decrease in the odds of developing an ulcer. A 10% increase in RN skill mix was associated with 17-18% and 5-6% decrease in ulcer rates in rural and urban units respectively.
Hospitals aiming to improve pressure ulcer prevention should focus on organizational structures that support improved nurses work environments and workflow that will enhance nursing care interventions. Future studies should include both contextual and patient characteristics along with care interventions.
尽管多年来一直致力于研究和制定预防压力性溃疡的政策,但压力性溃疡的发生率仍然居高不下。先前的研究发现,护理干预措施、医院和护理单元的特征与压力性溃疡的发生率之间存在横断面相关性。但这些相关性是否会随着时间的推移而持续存在尚不清楚。最后,对农村和城市地区的质量指标进行比较的研究结果存在差异。
我们的研究通过控制农村和城市地区社区、医院和护理单元的特征,考察了 4 年内护理干预措施对单位获得性压力性溃疡发生率的影响。
本研究以权变理论为指导,采用纵向研究方法,利用国家护理质量指标数据库 2010-2013 年(16 个季度)的单元水平数据(农村分类和病例组合指数的数据有所扩充),对上下文、人员配置、护理干预措施、护士结局与压力性溃疡发生率之间的关系进行了研究,溃疡发生率以单位获得性压力性溃疡患者的百分比来衡量。三种护理干预措施是:入院时接受皮肤评估的患者比例、入院时接受风险评估的患者比例、在发生压力性溃疡之前接受任何风险评估的患者比例。护理单元特征为注册护士的配置、教育和经验。护士结局是工作满意度和留职意愿。
我们纳入了 772 家医院(89 家农村,683 家城市)5761 个单元(332 个农村,5429 个城市),这些单元在研究期间有两个或两个以上季度报告了溃疡发生率。
采用多水平二项式回归方法分别对农村和城市单元进行了检验,在控制了区域、医院规模、单元类型、病例组合指数和压力性溃疡风险患者的百分比后,将单位压力性溃疡发生率的变化与单位内解释变量的变化联系起来。
护理干预措施、注册护士技能组合和护士结局的两个指标的增加与单位获得性压力性溃疡的减少有关。例如,在农村单元中,任何风险评估比例增加 10%,在城市单元中,入院时接受皮肤评估的比例增加 10%,则发生溃疡的几率分别降低 21%和 5%。农村和城市单元中,注册护士技能组合增加 10%,溃疡发生率分别降低 17-18%和 5-6%。
旨在改善压力性溃疡预防的医院应关注支持改善护士工作环境和工作流程的组织结构,这将增强护理干预措施。未来的研究应包括环境和患者特征以及护理干预措施。