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.

Skin lesions in health personnel secondary to the use of personal protective equipment against Covid-19.

Objective: To measure the prevalence of skin lesions in health personnel related to the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Method(s): A cross-sectional, descriptive and quantitative study was carried out;A questionnaire was applied to medical and nursing staff who treated patients with COVID-19, the most frequent adverse reactions caused by: masks, gloves, glasses, protective clothing and alcohol gel were quantified. Result(s): 90 people participated, of which 81 (90%) presented skin lesions associated with PPE. The accessory that caused the most injuries was the mask (87.7%), followed by glasses (85.5%) and alcohol gel (82.2%). The most frequent reaction to masks was nasal bridge ulcer (68.9%);in glasses it was pressure injury to the forehead (76.7%);and due to the use of alcohol gel it was dryness (75.5%). Conclusion(s): Prolonged use (>5 hours) of PPE can cause adverse skin effects in healthcare personnel. The mask was the accessory that generated the most skin lesions, with pressure ulcers on the nasal bridge being the most frequent.Copyright © 2022, Fundacion Index. All rights reserved.

Characteristics of COVID-19 patients who developed pressure injuries: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the characteristics of patients with COVID-19 who developed pressure injuries (PIs), the characteristics of PIs experienced, and the incidence and prevalence of PIs among the patients with COVID-19. PIs are associated with increased morbidity, mortality and healthcare expense. PIs have been reported among patients who have contracted COVID-19. Understanding the characteristics of COVID-19 patients, and how PIs are prevented and managed, may inform care and optimise the outcomes for COVID-19-positive patients. METHOD: A scoping review was conducted. All study designs, including grey literature, published in the English language from December 2019 to March 2021, reporting on patients with COVID-19 and PIs, were included. RESULTS: In total, 27 publications (n=4820 patients) were included in the review. The reported incidence rate of PIs was 7.3-77.0%. The causative factors noted were: prone positioning (28.5%); medical devices (21.4%); and medical devices used during prone positioning (14.2%). The most common PI sites were the cheeks (18.7%). PIs occurred on average at 14.7 days post-acute care admission. Of the PIs where staging information was specified (67.7%), the most common was Stage 2/II (45.2%). PI risk may intensify on account of the intrinsic mechanism of COVID-19-associated intensive care treatment. CONCLUSION: PI prevention and management should be prioritised for patients with COVID-19, given the reported high prevalence of PIs and exacerbated risk arising from the use of prone position and medical devices. Further research is required to understand the association between COVID-19 and PIs, and to guide effective prevention and treatment approaches.

Safety and usability of proning pillows in intensive care: A scoping review

Objectives: Proning is an established technique for the care of intubated patients with severe respiratory failure. Positioning devices used to support the head and body of patients placed in the prone position are often associated with the formation of pressure injuries. Despite robust literature on the prevention and monitoring of pressure injuries, little is described about the role of proning pillows on pressure injuries. The objective of this review is to understand the extent of evidence pertaining to the safety and usability of different types of proning pillows in the intensive care setting. Review method: A scoping review of the literature was completed using predefined search terms in three databases and identified 296 articles. An additional 26 were included from reference lists. Twenty studies are included in the analysis;most were published in the past 3 years, with >50% in surgical settings. Data sources: Three databases were searched: PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE. Review methods: The review followed the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews, and data were reviewed using Covidence. Results: The most prevalent proning pillow is a standard, noncontoured foam head positioner. It is responsible for the majority of facial pressure injuries in all settings of care. Memory foam pillows and helmet-based systems offer improved surface pressure distribution, although their usability in the intensive care setting remains poorly studied. Inflatable air-cell-based devices present an alternative, but the lack of supporting research and the costs may explain their poor uptake. Several articles proposed the use of pressure sensor systems to evaluate devices. We propose a set of ergonomic parametres to consider when choosing or designing a positioning device for proned patients. Conclusion: The evidence pertaining to the safety and usability of proning pillows in the intensive care setting is scarce, which provides opportunities for future research to improve the efficacy in the prevention of pressure injuries and the user experience. © 2022

The prevalence of facial pressure injuries among nurses during COVID-19 pandemic and its relationship to COVID-19 infection.

AIM: The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of facial pressure injuries related to personal protective equipment use in nurses and the relationship with getting COVID-19 infection. DESIGN: The study used descriptive and correlational online survey design. METHODS: Nurses in Turkey were recruited via an electronic link sent to their social media platforms (e.g., Facebook, Instagram, Twitter), WhatsApp, and e-mail during the study: March-April 2021. Of them, 603 participants completed the survey form from all over Turkey. RESULTS/FINDINGS: Facial pressure injuries develop in nurses due to use of personal protective equipment. The rates of facial pressure injuries were higher in the nurses who were younger (p=0.002) and those who had less experience years (p=0.005) than the other nurses. The statistically significant variables were determined as age, status of using face shield, status of wearing overalls and status of wearing shoe covers (p<0.05). We determined that facial pressure injuries were not significantly associated with getting COVID-19 infection (p>0,05). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that facial pressure injuries associated with personal protective equipment use among nurses, who work on the frontlines in the COVID-19 pandemic period, is highly prevalent. Experiencing facial pressure injuries did not have a significant effect on the participants' statuses of getting infected with COVID-19. Providing training in health institutions may present an effective strategy in lowering problems.

Extended prone positioning duration for COVID-19-related ARDS: benefits and detriments.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, many more patients were turned prone than before, resulting in a considerable increase in workload. Whether extending duration of prone position may be beneficial has received little attention. We report here benefits and detriments of a strategy of extended prone positioning duration for COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). METHODS: A eetrospective, monocentric, study was performed on intensive care unit patients with COVID-19-related ARDS who required tracheal intubation and who have been treated with at least one session of prone position of duration greater or equal to 24 h. When prone positioning sessions were initiated, patients were kept prone for a period that covered two nights. Data regarding the incidence of pressure injury and ventilation parameters were collected retrospectively on medical and nurse files of charts. The primary outcome was the occurrence of pressure injury of stage ≥ II during the ICU stay. RESULTS: For the 81 patients included, the median duration of prone positioning sessions was 39 h [interquartile range (IQR) 34-42]. The cumulated incidence of stage ≥ II pressure injuries was 26% [95% CI 17-37] and 2.5% [95% CI 0.3-8.8] for stages III/IV pressure injuries. Patients were submitted to a median of 2 sessions [IQR 1-4] and for 213 (94%) prone positioning sessions, patients were turned over to supine position during daytime, i.e., between 9 AM and 6 PM. This increased duration was associated with additional increase in oxygenation after 16 h with the PaO2/FiO2 ratio increasing from 150 mmHg [IQR 121-196] at H+ 16 to 162 mmHg [IQR 124-221] before being turned back to supine (p = 0.017). CONCLUSION: In patients with extended duration of prone position up to 39 h, cumulative incidence for stage ≥ II pressure injuries was 26%, with 25%, 2.5%, and 0% for stage II, III, and IV, respectively. Oxygenation continued to increase significantly beyond the standard 16-h duration. Our results may have significant impact on intensive care unit staffing and patients' respiratory conditions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Institutional review board 00006477 of HUPNVS, Université Paris Cité, APHP, with the reference: CER-2021-102, obtained on October 11th 2021. Registered at Clinicaltrials (NCT05124197).

How the COVID-19 pandemic influences the prevalence of pressure injuries in the Czech Republic: A nationwide analysis of a health registry in 2020.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 significantly influences the overall patient status and, in severe symptomatology, the ability to move and the low oxygenation of the tissue for the ventilated patient in Intensive Care Units (ICU). There is a higher risk for Pressure injuries (PIs) development. OBJECTIVES: The nationwide analyses of the National health register aimed to compare the prevalence of PIs reported before the pandemic COVID-19 started and during the pandemic in 2020. METHOD: A retrospective, nationwide cross-sectional analysis of data regarding the STROBE checklist collected by the National Health Information System (NHIS), focusing on the PIs reporting based on the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) diagnoses L89.0-L89.9 for PIs in 2020. The data from the pandemic period of COVID-19 in 2020 were compared to the prevalence of PI cases in the period 2010-2019 in the Czech Republic in all hospitalized patients. RESULTS: The total number of admissions for L89 in 2020 was 14,441, of which 1509 (10.4%) also had COVID-19. In the ICU were 4386 admissions, 12.1% of which also had COVID-19. A higher proportion of PIs is observed in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 than in patients without COVID-19 (2.62% vs 0.81%, respectively 1.05% vs 0.46% when standardized to the 2013 ESP = European Standard Population). In patients hospitalized in ICU, 3.68% with COVID-19 had PIs vs 1.42% without COVID-19 had PIs (1.97% vs 0.81% using the 2013 ESP). CONCLUSION: The national health registers analyses have proven that the prevalence of PIs was higher among patients hospitalized with the SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Health care workers' experience of personal protective equipment use and associated adverse effects during the COVID-19 pandemic response in Singapore.

AIM: One of the greatest challenges in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic is preventing staff exposure and infection by ensuring consistent and effective use of personal protective equipment (PPE). This study explored health care workers' experience of prolonged PPE use in clinical practice settings and their concerns regarding PPE supply, effectiveness and training needs. DESIGN: A descriptive cross-sectional design was adopted in this study. METHODS: Health care workers (N = 592) from an acute care hospital completed an online survey from July to September 2020 assessing: (i) usage frequencies, side effects and interference with patient care; and (ii) perceptions of access to PPE, likelihood of exposure to infection and adequacy of PPE training. RESULTS: PPE-related side effects were reported by 319 (53.8%) participants, the majority being nurses (88.4%) and those working in high-risk areas such as the emergency department (39.5%), respiratory wards (acute 22.3% and non-acute 23.8%) and COVID-19 isolation ward (13.8%). The average time wearing PPE per shift was 6.8 h (SD 0.39). The most commonly reported symptoms were from donning N95 masks and included: pressure injuries (45.5%), mask-induced acne (40.4%) and burning/pain (24.5%). Some 31.3% expressed that PPE-related side effects had negatively affected their work. The odds of having PPE-associated side effects was higher in women (OR 2.10, 95% CI [1.29-03.42], p = .003) and those working in high-risk wards (OR 3.12, 95% CI [2.17-4.60], p < .001]. Most (90.1%) agreed that PPE supplies were readily available, sufficient for all (86.1%) and there was sufficient training in correct PPE use (93.6%). Only 13.7% of participants reported being 'highly confident' of overall PPE protection. CONCLUSIONS: Prevention and management of PPE-related adverse effects is vital to: preserve the integrity of PPE, improve adherence and minimize viral transmission. IMPACT: The high incidence of PPE-associated pressure injuries and perception that PPE use can interfere with clinical care should inform future development of PPE products, and strategies to better equip health care workers to prevent and manage PPE-related side effects.

The effect of prone positioning on pressure injury incidence in adult intensive care unit patients: A meta-review of systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVE: Numerous systematic reviews have examined the impact of prone positioning on outcomes, including pressure injury (PI). The objective of this meta-review was to synthesise the evidence on the effect of prone positioning on the incidence and location of PIs in adult intensive care unit patients. REVIEW METHOD: This is a meta-review of published systematic reviews. Five databases were searched; data were extracted by three authors and adjudicated by a fourth. The AMSTAR-2 tool was used to quality appraise the selected articles, which was completed by three authors with a fourth adjudicating. RESULTS: Ten systematic reviews were synthesised. The cumulative incidence of PI in 15,979 adult patients ranged from 25.7% to 48.5%. One study did not report adult numbers. Only one review reported the secondary outcome of PI location. PIs were identified in 13 locations such as the face, chest, iliac crest, and knees. Using the AMSTAR-2, three reviews were assessed as high quality, six as moderate quality, and one as low quality. CONCLUSION: The high incidence of PI in the prone position highlights the need for targeted preventative strategies. Care bundles may be one approach, given their beneficial effects for the prevention of PI in other populations. This review highlights the need for proactive approaches to limit unintended consequences of the use of the prone position, especially notable in the current COVID-19 pandemic.

COVID-19 related pressure injuries in patients and personnel: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is causing a rapid and tragic health emergency worldwide. Because of the particularity of COVID-19, people are at a high risk of pressure injuries during the prevention and treatment process of COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aimed to summarize the pressure injuries caused by COVID-19 and the corresponding preventive measures and treatments. METHODS: This systematic review was according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. PubMed, Web of science and CNKI (Chinese) were searched for studies on pressure injuries caused by COVID-19 published up to August 4, 2020. The quality of included studies was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) and the CARE guidelines. RESULTS: The data were extracted from 16 studies involving 7,696 participants in 7 countries. All studies were published in 2020. There are two main types of pressure injuries caused by the COVID-19: 1) Pressure injuries that caused by protective equipment (masks, goggles and face shield, etc.) in the prevention process; 2) pressure injuries caused by prolonged prone position in the therapy process. CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review, the included studies showed that wearing protective equipment for a long time and long-term prone positioning with mechanical ventilation will cause pressure injuries in the oppressed area. Foam dressing may need to be prioritized in the prevention of medical device related pressure injuries. The prevention of pressure injuries should be our particular attention in the course of clinical treatment and nursing.

Benefits of sucrose octasulfate (TLC-NOSF) dressings in the treatment of chronic wounds: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Management of chronic wounds remains one of the major challenges for health professionals and patients. An evidence-based decision is important to ensure that patients are receiving the best treatment proven to reduce healing time and improve outcomes, including economic benefits and patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Due to recent restrictions because of the COVID-19 pandemic, including closure of wound care centres within hospitals and a drop in patient volume, chronic wound management needs simple-to-use dressings which are still effective and evidence-based solutions. This systematic review was conducted to identify the clinical evidence available on a sucrose octasulfate dressing (TLC-NOSF, UrgoStart dressing range, Laboratoires Urgo, France) to explore its efficacy in the management of chronic wounds, particularly lower limb ulcers, diabetic foot ulcers and pressure ulcers. METHOD: A literature search of PubMed, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar was conducted based on the PICO model (patient/population, intervention, comparison and outcomes) to retrieve publications of different levels of evidence in order to evaluate outcomes of the use of TLC-NOSF dressings. RESULTS: A total of 21 publications of different levels, ranging from double-blind randomised control trials to case reports, involving over 12,000 patients, were identified through PubMed, with a further eight publications through Google Scholar and two publications through Cochrane Library. A total of seven results were omitted due to the lack of relevance or repetition. CONCLUSION: All the evidence provided suggest that these dressings provide clinicians with an evidence-based option for the management of chronic wounds; that the TLC-NOSF dressings are beneficial in promoting the healing process, reducing healing times, enhancing patients' HRQoL, and in allowing a more cost-effective procedure.

Facial Pressure Injuries from Prone Positioning in the COVID-19 Era.

OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS: This study aimed to determine the incidence of facial pressure injuries associated with prone positioning for COVID-19 patients as well as to characterize the location of injuries and treatments provided. METHODS: This was a retrospective chart review of 263 COVID-19 positive patients requiring intubation in the intensive care units at MedStar Georgetown University Hospital and MedStar Washington Hospital Center between March 1st and July 26th, 2020. Information regarding proning status, duration of proning, presence, or absence of facial pressure injuries and interventions were collected. Paired two-tailed t-test was used to evaluate differences between proned patients who developed pressure injuries with those who did not. RESULTS: Overall, 143 COVID-19 positive patients required proning while intubated with the average duration of proning being 5.15 days. Of those proned, 68 (47.6%) developed a facial pressure injury. The most common site involved was the cheek with a total of 57 (84%) followed by ears (50%). The average duration of proning for patients who developed a pressure injury was significantly longer when compared to those who did not develop pressure injuries (6.79 days vs. 3.64 days, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Facial pressure injuries occur with high incidence in patients with COVID-19 who undergo prone positioning. Longer duration of proning appears to confer greater risk for developing these pressure injuries. Hence, improved preventative measures and early interventions are needed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 131:E2139-E2142, 2021.

Determination of the effect of prophylactic dressing on the prevention of skin injuries associated with personal protective equipments in health care workers during COVID-19 pandemic.

AIM: The present study was carried out as a comparative observational study in order to determine the effect of prophylactic dressing on the prevention of skin injuries due to the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) in health care workers (HCWs) working with COVID-19 patients. In addition, the effect of nasal strip on the prevention of discomfort in breathing with mask was also investigated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The present study was carried out with 48 HCWs (Control Group-CG, n = 20; Experimental Group 1-EG1, n = 20; Experimental Group 2-EG2, n = 8) who use PPE on the face region and work with COVID-19 patients. Data was collected with Data Collection Form developed by researchers. In participants in CG, normal procedures of the institution in using PPE were followed. In EG1, prophylactic dressing was used on risky areas on the face. In EG2, nasal strip sticky on one side was used in addition to prophylactic dressing. The evaluation of the facial skin was made once a day by a researcher with expertise in wound management. RESULTS: Groups were similar in terms of demographic characteristics of participants. Overall rate of skin injuries associated with PPE use was 47.9%. Skin injuries developed in all participants in CG (n = 20), and in two and one participants in EG1 and EG2 respectively, with significant difference between groups. The most common skin injuries were Stage 1 pressure injury (29.2%), blanchable erythema of intact skin (27.1%) and itching (18.8%). No participant in EG2 reported discomfort in breathing (n = 8). Significant difference was found between groups in favor of EG2 in terms of experiencing discomfort in breathing (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In the present study, it was established that using prophylactic dressing under PPE prevents skin injuries on the facial skin and using nasal strip prevents discomfort in breathing with mask. In view of these results, it was recommended that prophylactic dressing should be used under PPE.

Recommendations for prevention and treatment of device-related pressure injuries during COVID-19 period / 药学实践杂志

With the outbreak of COVID-19, non-stop working medical staff need to wear protective equipment for a long time, which could easily cause device-related pressure injuries to nose, cheek, forehead or the back of auricle, and might even cause facial skin swelling and ulceration. The above problems reduce work efficiency and increase the infection risk for healthcare people. This article introduces the concept of device-related pressure injuries and summarizes the progress of the treatment for device-related pressure injuries at home and abroad in recent years, aiming at providing guidance for frontline medical staff to prevent device-related pressure injuries.

Strategy of nursing care on the face skin injuries caused by wearing medical-grade protective equipment / 中华烧伤杂志

For effective resistance to virus attack and infection, reducing virus transmission chance, it is extremely important for the medical staff and related workers to have their own safe protection. This paper summarizes the development causes, common locations, and prevention ways about the device related pressure injuries on the face resulted from wearing medical-grade protective equipment for a long working time. The paper proposes the nursing strategy for device related pressure injuries and other nursing strategy is proposed to take care efficiently the device related pressure injuries. Meantime, a corresponding nursing strategy is also suggested to deal with the correlative skin diseases during the application of medical-grade protective equipment. These paper aims to provide reference for the prevention of device related pressure injuries and the care of skin-related diseases for clinical working staff, especially to the respectable personnel in front line of fighting against Corona virus disease 2019.