Laura E. Edsberg, PhD, Center for Wound Healing Research and Natural & Health Sciences Research Center, Daemen University, Amherst, New York.
Jill Cox, PhD, RN, APN-c, CWOCN, FAAN, WOC Advanced Practice Nurse, Rutgers University School of Nursing, Newark, and Englewood Health, Englewood, New Jersey.
J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2022;49(3):211-219. doi: 10.1097/WON.0000000000000878.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the implementation of pressure injury (PI) prevention strategies in adult acute care settings in the United States using the data from the 2018/2019 International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence (IPUP) Survey.
Observational, cohort study with cross-sectional data collection and retrospective data analysis.
The sample comprised 296,014 patients hospitalized in 1801 acute care facilities in the United States that participated in the 2018 and/or 2019 IPUP Survey. Slightly less than half (49.4%, n = 146,231) were male, 50% (n = 148,997) were female, 0.6% (n = 17,760) were unknown. Their mean age was 64.29 (SD 17.2) years.
Data from the 2018/2019 IPUP database were analyzed to evaluate the implementation of prevention strategies including repositioning, support surface use, head-of-bed (HOB) elevation, heel elevation, moisture management, minimizing linen layers, and nutritional support. Practices were analyzed for differences between patients without pressure injuries, and patients with Stage 1 and 2 hospital-acquired pressure injury (HAPI), and those with severe HAPIs (Stage 3, Stage 4, unstageable, and deep tissue pressure injury). Acute care unit types included critical or intensive care units, medical-surgical inpatient care units, and step-down units.
Compliance rates to PI prevention strategies varied among patients at risk for HAPIs (Braden Scale for Pressure Sore Risk score ≤18). Daily skin assessment was performed for 86% of patients with no HAPIs and 96.8% of patients with severe HAPIs. Pressure redistribution was used in 74.6% of all patients and in over 90% of patients with severe HAPIs; however, compliance to routine repositioning was reported at lower levels between 67% and 84%, respectively. Heel elevation was reported for over 60% of the patients with severe HAPIs while 31.9% did not receive heel elevation, though only 6% were reported as not needing elevation. The majority of patients had HOB greater than the 30° at the time of the data collection; compliance with minimizing linen layers (≤3) was reported in 76% or more. Moisture management strategies were reportedly used in more than 71% of all patients and 89% for patients with severe HAPIs. Nutrition support was used for 55% to 82% of the patients and only documented as contraindicated in fewer than 2% of all groups.
Study findings revealed substantial compliance rates to PI prevention strategies. Nevertheless, there is potential for improvement in the implementation of some of the most basic prevention strategies including repositioning, heel elevation, nutritional support, and moisture management.
本研究旨在使用 2018/2019 年国际压疮发生率(IPUP)调查的数据,评估美国成人急性护理环境中压疮(PI)预防策略的实施情况。
观察性队列研究,采用横断面数据收集和回顾性数据分析。
样本包括在美国 1801 家急性护理机构住院的 296014 名患者,这些患者参加了 2018 年和/或 2019 年的 IPUP 调查。略少于一半(49.4%,n=146231)为男性,50%(n=148997)为女性,0.6%(n=17760)为未知。他们的平均年龄为 64.29(SD 17.2)岁。
分析 2018/2019 年 IPUP 数据库的数据,评估预防策略的实施情况,包括翻身、支撑面使用、床头抬高、足跟抬高、皮肤保湿、最小化床单层数和营养支持。分析了无压疮、1 期和 2 期医院获得性压疮(HAPI)以及严重 HAPI(3 期、4 期、不可分期和深部组织压疮)患者之间的预防策略差异。急性护理单元类型包括重症监护病房或强化护理病房、内科-外科住院护理单元和降阶梯护理单元。
有发生 HAPI 风险的患者(Braden 压疮风险评分≤18)的 PI 预防策略依从率各不相同。无 HAPI 患者中有 86%进行了日常皮肤评估,严重 HAPI 患者中有 96.8%进行了日常皮肤评估。74.6%的患者使用了压力再分布,超过 90%的严重 HAPI 患者使用了压力再分布;然而,常规翻身的依从率报告在 67%至 84%之间。超过 60%的严重 HAPI 患者足跟抬高,而 31.9%的患者未接受足跟抬高,尽管只有 6%的患者报告不需要抬高。大多数患者在数据采集时床头抬高大于 30°;76%或以上的患者符合最小化床单层数(≤3)的要求。在所有患者中,有超过 71%的患者使用了保湿策略,而在严重 HAPI 患者中,这一比例为 89%。55%至 82%的患者使用了营养支持,所有患者中只有不到 2%的患者被记录为禁忌。
研究结果显示,PI 预防策略的依从率相当高。然而,在一些最基本的预防策略的实施方面,仍有改进的空间,包括翻身、足跟抬高、营养支持和皮肤保湿。