Pressure ulcer prevention: a randomized controlled trial of 2 risk-directed strategies for patient surface assignment.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical utility, in terms of incidence of pressure ulcer (PU) development, and economic impact of 2 programs of patient surface assignment for PU prevention. DESIGN: Randomized controlled clinical trial with economic evaluation. SETTING: 30-bed multidisciplinary intensive care unit (ICU), serving as the regional trauma center. PATIENTS: 144 consecutive eligible patients at risk for the development of PUs. INTERVENTION: PU risk was assessed on admission using the Skin Ulcer Risk Evaluation (SURE) Score, and patients were randomized to either the experimental (purchase) or control group (purchase/rent). Based on their SURE Score, patients were assigned a specialty surface if needed. Patients received head-to-toe skin assessments twice weekly, new PUs were documented, a new SURE Score was calculated, and specialty surfaces were upgraded or downgraded as necessary. OUTCOMES: The incidence of PUs by site and severity, and cost. ANALYSES: Multivariate logistic regression and decision modeling. RESULTS: No significant differences were detected between groups with respect to baseline population characteristics, nor in the development of PUs. Predictors of PU development were ICU length of stay and SURE Score. The experimental (purchase) group was the less costly strategy. Under baseline assumptions, surface costs per at-risk patient were $76 CDN and $171 CDN in the experimental and control groups, respectively. The savings of $95 CDN per at-risk patient translates into conservative annual savings of $47,500 CDN. CONCLUSIONS: Using an objective, risk-based method of patient surface assignment, the authors compared the clinical and economic outcomes of 2 programs of PU prevention. In a direct comparison of alternatives, the strategy that emphasized purchased rather than rented products proved to be the more economical. Finally, this approach illustrates how by prospectively capturing data on both the costs and consequences of competing alternatives, a more objective and informed decision-making process can result.

Determining the potential need for a bereavement follow-up program: how well are family and health care workers' needs currently being met?

The purpose of the study was to determine the need for a bereavement follow-up program for either the families of patients dying in a critical care unit or the health care workers who care for these patients. Two questionnaires, the first a telephone administered questionnaire to all consenting family members of patients dying in the critical care unit, and the second a self-administered questionnaire administered to all health care workers in the critical care unit, were developed and piloted for content validity and clarity. The data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. Family members of 42 patients who died in the critical care unit were interviewed (54% response rate). During the critical care unit stay most family members obtained support from family and friends. While 70% listed health care workers as a source of support, 50% were satisfied with the support from staff. After a family member had died, 40% of those interviewed did not identify a specific source for support and 48% were interested in obtaining information on community resources available for aid in the bereavement process. The results from 117 (79% response rate) health care workers revealed that 30% were either uncomfortable or only somewhat comfortable with the dying process and the support available for them to deal with the death of their patients. The authors identified a need for bereavement follow-up programs for both the families of patients who die in the critical care unit and for the health care workers who care for these patients.