Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Medical Device-Related Pressure Injuries in Infants and Children.
Stellar, Judith J; Hasbani, Natalie R; Kulik, Lindyce A; Shelley, Stacey S; Quigley, Sandy; Wypij, David; Curley, Martha A Q.
  • Stellar JJ; Judith J. Stellar, MSN, CRNP, PPCNP-BC, CWOCN, Department of Nursing and General Surgery, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Natalie R. Hasbani, MPH, Department of Cardiology, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. Lindyce A. Kulik, PhD, RN, CWON, Cardiovascular Nursing Patient Services, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. Stacey S. Shelley, RN, DNP, Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, Utah. Sandy Quigley, RN, MSN, CPNP, CWOCN, D
J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs ; 47(5): 459-469, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1270772
ABSTRACT

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this study was to describe medical device-related pressure injuries (MDRPIs) in hospitalized pediatric patients.

DESIGN:

A prospective, descriptive study. SAMPLE/SUBJECTS AND

SETTING:

The sample comprised 625 patients cared for in 8 US pediatric hospitals. Participants were aged preterm to 21 years, on bed rest for at least 24 hours, and had a medical device in place.

METHODS:

Two nursing teams, blinded to the other's assessments, worked in tandem to assess pressure injury risk, type of medical devices in use, and preventive interventions for each medical device. They also identified the presence, location, and stage of MDRPI. Subjects were observed up to 8 times over 4 weeks, or until discharge, whichever occurred first.

RESULTS:

Of 625 enrolled patients, 42 (7%) developed 1 or more MDRPIs. Two-thirds of patients with MDRPIs were younger than 8 years. Patients experiencing MDRPIs had higher acuity scores on hospital admission, were more frequently cognitively and/or functionally impaired, or were extreme in body mass index. Respiratory devices caused the most injuries (6.19/1000 device-days), followed by immobilizers (2.40/1000 device-days), gastric tubes (2.24/1000 device-days), and external monitoring devices (1.77/1000 device-days). Of the 6336 devices in place, 36% did not have an MDRPI preventive intervention in place. Clinical variables contributing to MDRPI development included intensive care unit care (odds ratio [OR] 8.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.9-43.6), use of neuromuscular blockade (OR 3.7, 95% CI 1.7-7.8), and inotropic/vasopressor medications (OR 2.7, 95% CI 1.7-4.3). Multivariable analysis indicated that Braden QD scores alone predicted MDRPI development.

CONCLUSION:

Medical devices are common in hospitalized infants and children and these medical devices place patients at risk for MDRPI.
Subject(s)

Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Pressure Ulcer / Equipment and Supplies Type of study: Cohort study / Observational study / Prognostic study Topics: Long Covid Limits: Adolescent / Adult / Aged / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Language: English Journal: J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs Journal subject: Nursing Year: 2020 Document Type: Article

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Pressure Ulcer / Equipment and Supplies Type of study: Cohort study / Observational study / Prognostic study Topics: Long Covid Limits: Adolescent / Adult / Aged / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Language: English Journal: J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs Journal subject: Nursing Year: 2020 Document Type: Article