Amsterdam UMC, Department of Public and Occupational Health, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Meibergdreef 9, 1105AZ, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Independent Research Consultant Paris, France.
J Tissue Viability. 2021 Nov;30(4):517-526. doi: 10.1016/j.jtv.2021.01.007. Epub 2021 Jan 24.
Pressure ulcer indicators are among the most frequently used performance measures in long-term care settings. However, measurement systems vary and there is limited knowledge about the international comparability of different measurement systems. The aim of this analysis was to identify possible avenues for international comparisons of data on pressure ulcer prevalence among residents of long-term care facilities.
A descriptive analysis of the four point prevalence measurement systems programs used in 28 countries on three continents was performed. The criteria for the description and analysis were based on the scientific literature on criteria for indicator selection, on issues in international comparisons of data and on specific challenges of pressure ulcer measurements.
The four measurement systems use a prevalence measure based on very similar numerator and denominator definitions. All four measurement systems also collect data on patient mobility. They differ in the pressure ulcer classifications used and the requirements for a head-to-toe resident examination. The regional or country representativeness of long-term care facilities also varies among the four measurement systems.
Methodological differences among the point prevalence measurement systems are an important barrier to reliable comparisons of pressure ulcer prevalence data. The alignment of the methodologies may be improved by implementing changes to the study protocols, such as aligning the classification of pressure ulcers and requirements for a head-to-toe resident skin assessment. The effort required for each change varies. All these elements need to be considered by any initiative to facilitate international comparison and learning.
在长期护理环境中,压力性溃疡指标是最常使用的绩效衡量标准之一。然而,测量系统各不相同,对于不同测量系统的国际可比性知之甚少。本分析的目的是确定在长期护理机构居民的压力性溃疡患病率数据方面进行国际比较的可能途径。
对三大洲 28 个国家使用的四个时点患病率测量系统方案进行了描述性分析。描述和分析的标准基于关于指标选择标准的科学文献、关于数据国际比较的问题以及压力性溃疡测量的具体挑战。
这四个测量系统使用的患病率衡量标准基于非常相似的分子和分母定义。这四个测量系统还都收集了关于患者活动能力的数据。它们在使用的压力性溃疡分类以及对从头到脚的居民检查的要求方面存在差异。四个测量系统中,长期护理机构的地区或国家代表性也存在差异。
时点患病率测量系统之间的方法学差异是可靠比较压力性溃疡患病率数据的重要障碍。通过实施对研究方案的更改,可以改进方法学的一致性,例如使压力性溃疡的分类和对从头到脚的居民皮肤评估的要求保持一致。每个更改所需的努力都不同。任何促进国际比较和学习的举措都需要考虑所有这些因素。