Evaluation of evidence of prevention and management of facial pressure injuries in medical staff.

AIM: This systematic review evaluated the quality of evidence for the prevention and management of facial pressure injuries in medical staff. DESIGN: This review was presented in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. METHODS: We retrieved the relevant studies from 19 databases. Using the literature evaluation standards and evidence grading system of the Australian Joanna Briggs Institute Evidence-Based Health Care Center, we evaluated the quality of the literature encompassing different types of research and assessed their levels of evidence. RESULTS: A total of 13 studies were included, including seven expert consensuses, two recommended practices, one clinical decision, one best practice information booklet, one systematic review and one randomized controlled trial. In the end, 31 best evidence were summarized, including skin cleaning and care, PPE placement and movement, reasonable use of dressings, treatment measures and education and training.

Evaluation of dressings preventing facial medical device-related pressure injury in medical staff during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

AIM: This study systematically compared the efficacy of various dressings that may prevent facial medical device-related pressure injury (MRDPI) in medical staff during the COVID-19 pandemic. BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, medical staff who are required to wear masks, goggles and other personal protective equipment (PPE) are susceptible to facial MRDPI, which exacerbates working conditions. Dressings can effectively prevent or alleviate MRDPI, but it is unclear which dressings are most effective. DESIGN: A systematic review and network meta-analysis, in accordance with PRISMA. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in four English and four Chinese databases to identify relevant studies published up to 8 September 2022. The selected studies were randomised controlled trials, with populations comprising medical staff who wore PPE during the COVID-19 pandemic and included an observation and control group. RESULTS: The network meta-analysis of the 12 selected articles showed that foam dressing, hydrocolloid dressing and petrolatum gauze were better than conventional protection for preventing MRDPI. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve indicated that foam dressing was the best preventative. CONCLUSION: Foam dressing is more effective than other dressings in preventing facial MRDPI in medical staff. When PPE must be worn for many hours, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic, medical staff can use foam dressings to prevent MRDPI. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The results support the use of dressings, especially foam dressings, to prevent MRDPI in healthcare workers. The appropriate dressings are recommended to prevent MRDPI associated with wearing PPE.

Incidence of facial pressure injuries in health-care professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: To evaluate the incidence of facial pressure injuries in health-care professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic in a meta-analysis. METHODS: Related studies were obtained through electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) Chinese Scientific Journal (VIP) China Biomedical Literature service systems (CBM) and Wanfang Data (from inception to 27 November 2021). The pooled incidence and the 95% confidence interval of facial pressure injuries were calculated with Review Manager v5.4 software. RESULTS: Overall, 16 studies with 14 430 health-care professionals were included. Pooled results showed that the pooled incidence of facial pressure injury in health-care professionals was 58.8% (95% CI: 49.0%-68.7%; p < 0.01). The results of the subgroup analysis showed that the incidence of facial pressure injury in these staff was high, and predominantly stage I pressure injury, in the following cases: in health-care professionals who wore personal protective equipment for longer than 4 h, in those without any training experience, and on the nose. CONCLUSION: Administrators and researchers should pay attention to preventing facial pressure injury related to the wearing of personal protective equipment (PPE) by ensuring all health-care professionals receive training and by limiting prolonged periods of use.

Influencing factors of medical device-related pressure ulcers in medical personnel during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the influencing factors of medical device related pressure injury (MDRPU) in medical staff by meta-analysis. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted by PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, VIP, CBM, and WanFang Data (from inception to July 27, 2022). Two researchers independently performed literature screening, quality evaluation and data extraction, and meta-analysis was conducted with RevMan 5.4 and Stata12.0 software. RESULTS: Total of 11215 medical staff were included in 9 articles. Meta analysis showed that gender, occupation, sweating, wearing time, single working time, department of COVID-19, preventive measures, and level 3 PPE were the risk factors for MDRPU in medical staff (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The outbreak of COVID-19 led to the occurrence of MDRPU among medical staff, and the influencing factors should be focused on. The medical administrator can further improve and standardize the preventive measures of MDRPU according to the influencing factors. Medical staff should accurately identify high-risk factors in the clinical work process, implement intervention measures, and reduce the incidence of MDRPU.