Use of a risk-based intervention bundle to prescribe and implement interventions to prevent pressure injury: An observational study.

AIM: To explore the relationship between the prescription and implementation of pressure injury preventative interventions following risk assessment combined with a risk-stratified intervention bundle. DESIGN: Single-centre, cross-sectional, observational, prospective. METHODS: The charts and bedsides of 341 adult inpatients were examined. Data collection included pressure injury risk level, prescribed preventative interventions and evidence of intervention implementation. RESULTS: Most patients (68.6%) were at risk of pressure injury, and most interventions were prescribed according to their risk level. However, evidence from direct observation and/or documentation indicated intervention implementation rates were relatively poor. Of nine interventions mandated for all patients, compliance with three patient-/carer-focused interventions was particularly poor, with evidence indicating they had been implemented for 3%-10% of patients. Also, nutritional screening-related interventions were implemented poorly. Clinically indicated implementation of heel-elevation devices and bariatric equipment was low for at-risk patients, and the implementation of interventions for patients with existing pressure injuries was suboptimal. Significant proportions of several interventions that were observed as having been implemented were not documented as such. CONCLUSION: While most interventions were prescribed according to patient risk level, the overall implementation of interventions was poor. However, the results may in part be due to failure to document interventions as opposed to omitting them. IMPLICATIONS FOR PATIENT CARE: Documentation of interventions is crucial as it provides evidence of the care provided. An increased focus on documentation of pressure injury preventative interventions is required, with a clear distinction between prescription and implementation. IMPACT: The results highlighted several deficiencies in care, particularly relating to evidence of implementation, patient involvement and nutritional screening. The results from this study will be used to inform and improve future pressure injury prevention practice within the study hospital and should be used to inform and benchmark pressure injury preventative practices in other hospitals. REPORTING METHOD: The study adheres to STROBE guidelines. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: None.

Clinicians' perceptions of "enhanced recovery after surgery" (ERAS) protocols to improve patient safety in surgery: a national survey from Australia.

BACKGROUND: Surgical patients are at risk of postoperative complications, which may lead to increased morbidity, mortality, hospital length-of-stay and healthcare costs. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) protocols are evidence-based and have demonstrated effectiveness in decreasing complications and associated consequences. However, their adoption in Australia has been limited and the reason for this is unclear. This study aimed to describe clinicians' perceptions of ERAS protocols in Australia. METHODS: A national online survey of anaesthetists, surgeons and nurses was undertaken. Invitations to participate were distributed via emails from professional colleges. The 30-item survey captured respondent characteristics, ERAS perceptions, beliefs, education and learning preferences and future planning considerations. The final question was open-ended for elaboration of perceptions of ERAS. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to describe and compare group differences across disciplines relative to perceptions of ERAS. RESULTS: The sample included 178 responses (116 nurses, 65.2%; 36 surgeons, 20.2%; 26 anaesthetists, 14.6%) across six states and two territories. More than half (n = 104; 58.8%) had used ERAS protocols in patient care, and most perceived they were 'very knowledgeable' (n = 24; 13.6%) or 'knowledgeable' (n = 71; 40.3%) of ERAS. However, fewer nurses had cared for a patient using ERAS (p <.01) and nurses reported lower levels of knowledge (p <.001) than their medical counterparts. Most respondents agreed ERAS protocols improved patient care and financial efficiency and were a reasonable time investment (overall Md 3-5), but nurses generally recorded lower levels of agreement (p.013 to < 0.001). Lack of information was the greatest barrier to ERAS knowledge (n = 97; 62.6%), while seminars/lectures from international and national leaders were the preferred learning method (n = 59; 41.3%). Most supported broad implementation of ERAS (n = 130; 87.8%). CONCLUSION: There is a need to promote ERAS and provide education, which may be nuanced based on the results, to improve implementation in Australia. Nurses particularly need to be engaged in ERAS protocols given their significant presence throughout the surgical journey. There is also a need to co-design implementation strategies with stakeholders that target identified facilitators and barriers, including lack of support from senior administration, managers and clinicians and resource constraints.

The effect of pressure injury prevention care bundles on pressure injuries in hospital patients: A complex intervention systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Numerous interventions for pressure injury prevention have been developed, including care bundles. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the effectiveness of pressure injury prevention care bundles on pressure injury prevalence, incidence, and hospital-acquired pressure injury rate in hospitalised patients. DATA SOURCES: The Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (via PubMed), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EMBASE, Scopus, the Cochrane Library and two registries were searched (from 2009 to September 2023). STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies with a comparison group published in English after 2008 were included. Studies reporting on the frequency of pressure injuries where the number of patients was not the numerator or denominator, or where the denominator was not reported, and single subgroups of hospitalised patients were excluded. Educational programmes targeting healthcare professionals and bundles targeting specific types of pressure injuries were excluded. PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS: Bundles with ≥3 components directed towards patients and implemented in ≥2 hospital services were included. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessments were undertaken independently by two researchers. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted. The certainty of the body of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation. RESULTS: Nine studies (seven non-randomised with historical controls; two randomised) conducted in eight countries were included. There were four to eight bundle components; most were core, and only a few were discretionary. Various strategies were used prior to (six studies), during (five studies) and after (two studies) implementation to embed the bundles. The pooled risk ratio for pressure injury prevalence (five non-randomised studies) was 0.55 (95 % confidence intervals 0.29-1.03), and for hospital-acquired pressure injury rate (five non-randomised studies) it was 0.31 (95 % confidence intervals 0.12-0.83). All non-randomised studies were at high risk of bias, with very low certainty of evidence. In the two randomised studies, the care bundles had non-significant effects on hospital-acquired pressure injury incidence density, but data could not be pooled. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS: Whilst some studies showed decreases in pressure injuries, this evidence was very low certainty. The potential benefits of adding emerging evidence-based components to bundles should be considered. Future effectiveness studies should include contemporaneous controls and the development of a comprehensive, theory and evidence-informed implementation plan. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42023423058. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Pressure injury prevention care bundles decrease hospital-acquired pressure injuries, but the certainty of this evidence is very low.

Pressure injury risk assessment and prescription of preventative interventions using a structured tool versus clinical judgement: An interrater agreement study.

AIM: To assess agreement of pressure injury risk level and differences in preventative intervention prescription between nurses using a structured risk assessment tool compared with clinical judgement. DESIGN: Interrater agreement study. METHODS: Data were collected from November 2019 to December 2022. Paired nurse-assessors were allocated randomly to independently assess pressure injury risk using a structured tool (incorporating the Waterlow Score), or clinical judgement; then prescribe preventative interventions. Assessments were conducted on 150 acute patient participants in a general tertiary hospital. Agreement of risk level was analysed using absolute agreement proportions, weighted kappa and prevalence-adjusted and bias-adjusted kappa. RESULTS: Ninety-four nurse assessors participated. Absolute agreement of not-at-risk versus at-risk-any-level was substantial, but absolute agreement of risk-level was only fair. Clinical judgement assessors tended to underestimate risk. Where risk level was agreed, prescribed intervention frequencies were similar, although structured tool assessors prescribed more interventions mandated by standard care, while clinical judgement assessors prescribed more additional/optional interventions. Structured tool assessors prescribed more interventions targeted at lower-risk patients, whereas assessors using clinical judgement prescribed more interventions targeted at higher-risk patients. CONCLUSION: There were clear differences in pressure injury risk-level assessment between nurses using the two methods, with important differences in intervention prescription frequencies found. Further research is required into the use of both structured tools and clinical judgement to assess pressure injury risk, with emphasis on the impact of risk assessments on subsequent preventative intervention implementation. IMPACT: The results of this study are important for clinical practice as they demonstrate the influence of using a structured pressure injury risk assessment tool compared to clinical judgement. Whilst further research is required into the use of both structured tools and clinical judgement to assess pressure injury risk and prescribe interventions, our findings do not support a change in practice that would exclude the use of a structured pressure injury risk assessment tool. REPORTING METHOD: This study adhered to the GRRAS reporting guideline. PATIENT/PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public involvement in this study. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: Educators and researchers can use the findings to guide teaching about pressure injury risk assessment and preventative intervention and to direct future studies. For clinical nurses and patients, a change in clinical practice that would exclude the use of a structured risk assessment tool is not recommended and further work is needed to validate the role of clinical judgement to assess risk and its impact on preventative intervention.

Assessment of pressure injury risk in intensive care using the COMHON index: An interrater reliability study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the interrater reliability of the COMHON (level of COnciousness, Mobility, Haemodynamics, Oxygenation, Nutrition) Index pressure injury risk assessment tool. DESIGN: Interrater reliability was tested. Twenty-five intensive care patients were each assessed by five different nurse-raters from a pool of intensive care nurses who were available on the days of assessment. In total, 25 nurses participated. SETTING: Two general and one cardiovascular surgery intensive care units in Istanbul, Turkey. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Interrater reliability was analysed using intraclass correlations, and standard errors of measurement (SEM) were calculated for sum scores, risk level and item scores. Minimally detectable change (MDC) was also calculated for sum score. Consistency between paired raters was analysed using Pearson's Product Moment Correlation (r) for sum score and Spearman's rho (rs) for ordinal variables. RESULTS: All assessments were completed in ≤5 min. Interrater reliability was very high [ICC (1,1) = 0.998 (95 % CI 0.996 - 0.999)] with a SEM of 0.14 and MDC of 0.39. Consistency between paired raters was strong for sum and item scores and risk levels (coefficients >0.6). All scale items showed correlations of >.3 with the sum score. CONCLUSION: The results demonstrate near-perfect interrater reliability. Further research into the psychometric properties of the COMHON Index and its impact on preventative intervention use is warranted. IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE: Pressure injury risk assessment within intensive care should be setting-specific due to the unique risk factors inherent to the patient population, which are not considered by general pressure injury risk assessment tools. An intensive care-specific pressure injury risk assessment tool was tested and demonstrated high reliability between intensive care nurses. Further research is needed to understand how its use in practice affects preventative intervention implementation and, in turn, how it impacts pressure injury outcomes.

The impact of a structured assessment and decision tool (I-DECIDED®) on improving care of peripheral intravenous catheters: A multicenter, interrupted time-series study.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral intravenous catheters are the most widely used invasive device in hospitals but have serious risks. OBJECTIVE: To determine if a structured assessment and decision tool (I-DECIDED®) improves daily peripheral intravenous catheter assessment and care decisions. DESIGN: Prospective, interrupted time-series study. SETTINGS: Seven adult inpatient wards in three Australian hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: 825 adults with 867 peripheral intravenous catheters. METHODS: Between August 2017 and December 2018, peripheral intravenous catheter assessments and chart audits were undertaken with informed patient consent. Following a 4-month pre-intervention period (with 2-weekly measures), the I-DECIDED® tool was implemented over 3 months (no data collection) using multiple strategies (stakeholder meetings, vascular access device form, education sessions, ward champions, lanyard cards, and posters), followed by a 4-month post-intervention period (with 2-weekly measures). Primary outcomes were device utilization (number of peripheral intravenous catheters per total number of patients screened); idle/unused catheters; insertion site complications, substandard dressing quality; and primary bloodstream infections. RESULTS: Of 2055 patients screened, 1175 (57.2%) had a peripheral intravenous catheter, and 825 patients (867 catheters) consented and were included in the final analysis. Device utilization increased from 42.0% of catheters at baseline to 49.6% post-intervention (absolute risk difference [ARD] 7.5%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.8, 10.3; relative risk [RR] 1.18, 95% CI 1.11, 1.25; p < 0.001). The proportion of idle catheters reduced from 12.7% to 8.3% (ARD -4.4%, 95% CI -8.5, -0.3; RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.44, 0.97; p = 0.035). Peripheral intravenous catheter complications reduced from 16.1% to 10.9% (ARD -5.2%, 95% CI -9.7, -0.6; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.48, 0.96; p = 0.026). Substandard dressings reduced from 24.6% to 19.5% (ARD -5.2%, 95% CI -10.7, 0.4; RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.61, 1.02; p = 0.067). Only one primary bloodstream infection occurred (post-intervention). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a comprehensive device assessment and decision tool (I-DECIDED®) reduced idle catheters and catheter complications, despite higher device utilization. Dressing quality improved but was not statistically significant. Further implementation of the tool could improve hospital safety for patients with an intravenous catheter. ANZCTR TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12617000067370. Date of registration 13 January 2017. Date of first data collection 3rd August 2017. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: #IDECIDEDassessment reduces prevalence of idle peripheral catheters and device complications.

State-wide prevalence of pressure injury in intensive care versus acute general patients: A five-year analysis.

AIM: The aim of this study was to analyse prevalence of pressure injury in intensive care versus non-intensive care patients. BACKGROUND: Hospital-acquired pressure injury is an enduring problem. Intensive care patients are more susceptible due to multiple risk factors. Several studies have indicated that intensive care patients are more likely than general patients to develop pressure injuries. DESIGN: Secondary data analysis. METHODS: Eighteen general hospitals with intensive care units were included. The sample included all consenting patients. Logistic regression modelling was used to derive prevalence and effect estimates. STROBE reporting guidelines were followed. RESULTS: The sample comprised 15,678 patients; 611 were in intensive care. The crude prevalence estimate of hospital-acquired pressure injury was 9.6% in intensive care and 2.1% in non-intensive care patients. The ≥Stage II hospital-acquired prevalence estimate in was 8.6% intensive care and 1.2% in non-intensive care patients. Intensive care patients were at markedly increased risk of hospital-acquired pressure injury compared with non-intensive care patients, with risk persisting after adjusting for pressure injury risk score. Risk of ≥ Stage II hospital-acquired pressure injury was further elevated. Intensive care patients had a higher pressure injury risk level and developed a greater proportion of severe hospital-acquired pressure injuries than non-intensive care patients. In intensive care, most hospital-acquired pressure injuries were found on the sacrum/coccyx and heels. CONCLUSIONS: There were significant differences between the hospital-acquired pressure injury prevalence of intensive care versus non-intensive care patients, which is consistent with previous studies. Overall, the prevalence of hospital-acquired pressure injury in intensive care is relatively high, indicating that their prevention should remain a high priority within the intensive care setting. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: These results may be used for benchmarking and provide a focus for future education and practice improvement efforts. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Neither patients nor the public were directly involved in the project.

Reporting accuracy of pressure injury categorisation in an acute tertiary hospital: A four-year analysis.

AIM: To determine the reporting accuracy of pressure injury categorisation by bedside clinicians, compared with nurse experts. BACKGROUND: Pressure injuries are an enduring complication of hospitalisation. The categorisation of pressure injury affects treatment and management decision-making and use of resources, and severe hospital-acquired pressure injury incidence is used to benchmark quality of care. However, it is unclear how accurately pressure injuries are categorised by clinicians in practice. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of hospital pressure injury incident and validation data. METHODS: All pressure injuries reported in adults between 2016 and 2019 that were subsequently validated by nurse experts were analysed. Absolute agreement is reported using percentages, with inter-rater agreement reported using Kappa measure of agreement. The GRRAS reporting guideline was followed. RESULTS: Of 6186 pressure injuries that were analysed, the category was reported correctly in 67.3% (n = 4163), with an overall moderate level of inter-rater agreement by category (Κ = .567, p < .001). Of those found to be non-pressure injuries when validated (18.3%, n = 1129), most were reported originally as stage II (41.2%, n = 465) or stage I (30.5%, n = 344), and 13.4% (n = 151) were categorised initially as unstageable. The majority reported initially as stage I, stage II, suspected deep tissue injury or mucosal pressure injury were validated, whereas half of those reported initially as stage III or IV were validated and less than a third of those reported initially as unstageable pressure injuries were validated. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides important insight into the accuracy of pressure injury categorisation. Whilst moderate agreement of categorisation was found between reporting clinicians and nurse experts, pressure injury differential diagnosis and categorisation of severe injuries were inadequate. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: These results may be used for benchmarking and provide a focal point for future education and practice improvement efforts. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Neither patients nor the public were directly involved in the project.

Comparison of pressure injury risk assessment outcomes using a structured assessment tool versus clinical judgement: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Whilst performing a pressure injury risk assessment is not in itself preventive, risk status identification is critical to inform the judicious implementation of prevention strategies. Risk assessment is mostly undertaken using a structured tool informed by clinical judgement, though there is a perception that use of clinical judgement alone may be sufficient. OBJECTIVES: Within acute hospital settings, to identify differences in outcomes (risk status, preventive interventions) following nursing assessment of pressure injury risk when using a structured assessment tool compared to clinical judgement. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: EBSCO CINAHL Complete, EBSCO MEDLINE Complete, Scopus, Web of Science, Ovid EMBASE. METHODS: Primary research relevant to the objectives was eligible for inclusion. Databases were searched in February 2021 (limits: date 2010-2020, English language, adults). Two reviewers undertook the review process, with a third as arbitrator. Appraisal was undertaken using Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools. Included studies are synthesised narratively. Reporting is in accordance with the PRISMA Statement. RESULTS: Five moderate to high-quality studies were included. Synthesis was limited by heterogeneity. Several risk assessment tools and methods of clinical judgement were used. Three studies reported pressure injury risk status using both assessment approaches, but in only one did nurses undertake both. Risk status, as identified by each method, varied and was sometimes contradictory. Three studies reported some elements of preventive intervention prescription and/or implementation following risk assessment, but comparison between approaches was limited. CONCLUSIONS: Some research suggests that risk status varies across different methods of pressure injury risk assessment, but it is unclear what impact this has on preventive intervention use. Risk status was not well linked to preventive interventions. Research is warranted to examine the influence that each approach to risk assessment alone and combined has on identified risk and preventive intervention prescription and implementation. REGISTRATION: A protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021224747).

Incidence and characteristics of hospital-acquired mucous membrane pressure injury: A five-year analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pressure injuries on mucous membranes are caused by pressure from medical devices at the site of injury and differ to those on the skin. Intensive care patients, who have multiple devices in situ, are particularly vulnerable. There is a significant knowledge gap regarding mucous membrane pressure injury (MMPI) incidence in acute hospital settings. AIM: To analyse MMPI incidence and characteristics in a tertiary acute general hospital. METHODS: A secondary data analysis of hospital clinical incident reports was conducted. The sample included all adults with MMPIs between 2015 and 2019. The STROBE reporting guideline was followed. RESULTS: There were 414 reports of MMPI. Most (91.5%, n = 379) were hospital-acquired with the majority found in intensive care patients (74.4%, n = 282). Hospital-acquired MMPI incidence was 0.1% (11 MMPI per 10,000 hospital episodes). In intensive care, the incidence was 2.4% (235 MMPI per 10,000 intensive care episodes). The median time from device insertion until reporting of an MMPI was 3 days. The most common sites of mucosal injury were the lips (35.6%) and mouth (28.8%). In all cases except one, MMPI was associated with medical device use at the site of injury. Five device types were identified (oral endotracheal tube-related 70.3%; urinary catheter 15.5%; gastric tube 8.3%; nasal prongs 3.5%; tracheostomy tube 2.4%). In intensive care, oral endotracheal tube-related devices were most often associated with MMPI (84.8%), whereas in non-intensive care MMPI it was the urinary catheter (51.4%). CONCLUSIONS: While hospital-acquired MMPI incidence is relatively low, it is considerably higher in intensive care patients compared to those in non-intensive care settings. The most common sites are the lips and mouth. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Mucous membrane pressure injuries represent a significant proportion of all hospital-acquired pressure injuries. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Neither patients nor the public were directly involved in this project.

Use of a Sacral Foam Dressing to Prevent Pressure Injury in At-Risk Subacute Hospitalized Older Adults: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this pilot study was to inform a future trial aimed at comparing the effectiveness of a prophylactic sacral dressing plus standard care to standard care only to reduce sacral pressure injuries (PIs) in at-risk older adults admitted to a subacute hospital setting. DESIGN: A pilot study with a pragmatic, open-label, randomized controlled trial design. SAMPLE AND SETTING: One hundred thirty participants were randomized (intervention n = 66, 50.8%; control n = 64, 49.2%). Protocol violations occurred in 48 participants (intervention n = 33, 68.8%; control n = 15, 31.3%). The study setting was a subacute hospital inpatient care unit located in Queensland, Australia. METHODS: Participants were randomly allocated 1:1 to the intervention (prophylactic dressing plus standard care) or control group (standard care). Standard care included regular PI risk and skin assessments, and selection and implementation of preventive interventions (eg, support surfaces and increased repositioning) from a PI prevention care plan. The sacral dressing was applied for intervention participants immediately following recruitment. Ward and research staff collected data and assessed skin integrity daily; participants were followed up until onset of a PI or up to 28 days without PI occurrence. In addition, retrospective chart reviews were undertaken to verify PI occurrences. Patient comfort and dressing utility were also evaluated. RESULTS: Two (3.0%) participants in the intervention group and 1 (1.6%) in the control group developed a sacral PI. The difference was not statistically significant. Only 1 PI was recorded prospectively, while 2 PIs were identified via retrospective chart review. Participants rated dressing comfort highly, particularly during the first 2 weeks, and nurses rated utility highly. Based on the intention-to-treat results, a sample size of 1799 per arm would be required in a definitive trial. CONCLUSIONS: A definitive trial is feasible and warranted. However, the large sample size required in a definitive trial indicates the need for multiple sites.

Translation and piloting of the Chinese Mandarin version of an intensive care-specific pressure injury risk assessment tool (the COMHON Index).

Objective: To translate an intensive care-specific pressure injury risk assessment tool (the COMHON Index) from English into Chinese Mandarin. Methods: A four-step approach to instrument translation was utilised: 1) English-Mandarin forward-translation by three independent bilinguists; 2) Mandarin-English back-translation by two other independent bilinguists; 3) comparison of forward and back-translations, identification of discrepancies, with required amendments returned to step one; and 4) piloting of the translated instrument. The pilot study was undertaken in a Chinese surgical intensive care unit with a convenience sample of 20 nurses. A five-point ordinal scale (1 = very difficult; 5 = very easy) was used to assess ease-of-use and understanding. Translations were retained where medians ≥ 4 indicated use and understanding was easy to very easy. Results: Five iterations of steps 1 to 3, and two sets of amendments to the original English instrument, were required to achieve translation consensus prior to pilot testing. Subscale scoring, sum scoring, and risk categorisation were documented in most pilot assessments (≥ 80%), but three sum scores were incorrectly tallied. The overall tool and all subscales were easy to use and understand (medians ≥ 4), and most assessments (16/20, 80%) took ≤ 5 min to complete. Thus, translations were retained, with minor amendments made to instrument instructions for scoring and risk categorisation. Conclusions: An easy-to-use Chinese Mandarin intensive care-specific pressure injury risk assessment tool has been introduced through cross-cultural translation. However, it requires further testing of interrater reliability and agreement. A rigorous translation and reporting exemplar is presented that provides guidance for future translations.

Effectiveness of interventions to prevent pressure injury in adults admitted to intensive care settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to investigate the effectiveness of interventions to prevent pressure injury in adults admitted to intensive care settings. REVIEW METHOD USED: This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: Five databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase) were searched in mid-2019. Searches were updated (in April 2020) to year end 2019. REVIEW METHODS: From an overarching systematic review and meta-analysis examining the effectiveness of pressure injury preventative interventions in adults admitted to acute hospital settings, trials conducted in intensive care were separated for an intensive care-specific synthesis. Two reviewers, with a third as an arbitrator, undertook study selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment. Included trials were grouped by intervention type for narrative synthesis and for random-effects meta-analysis using intention-to-treat data where appropriate. RESULTS: Overall, 26 trials were included. Ten intervention types were found (support surfaces, prophylactic dressings, positioning, topical preparations, continence management, endotracheal tube securement, heel protection devices, medication, noninvasive ventilation masks, and bundled interventions). All trials, except one, were at high or unclear risk of bias. Four intervention types (endotracheal tube securement, heel protection devices, medication, and noninvasive ventilation masks) comprised single trials. Support surface trials were limited to type (active, reactive, seating, other). Meta-analysis was undertaken for reactive surfaces, but the intervention effect was not significant (risk ratio = 0.24, p = 0.12, I2 = 51%). Meta-analyses demonstrated the effectiveness of sacral (risk ratio = 0.22, p < 0.001, I2 = 0%) and heel (risk ratio = 0.31, p = 0.02; I2 = 0%) prophylactic dressings for pressure injury prevention. CONCLUSIONS: Only prophylactic sacral and heel dressings demonstrated effectiveness in preventing pressure injury in adults admitted to intensive care settings. Further intensive care-specific trials are required across all intervention types. To minimise bias, we recommend that all future trials are conducted and reported as per relevant guidelines and recommendations.

Systematic review: Incidence and prevalence of mucous membrane pressure injury in adults admitted to acute hospital settings.

Mucous membrane pressure injury (MMPI) is associated with a history of medical device use at the site of injury. The current international guideline recommends they should be reported in incidence and prevalence studies. The aim of this systematic review was to analyse the incidence and prevalence of hospital-acquired MMPI in adults admitted to acute hospital settings. Database searches (EBSCO CINAHL Complete, EBSCO Medline Complete, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science) were undertaken between October 2019 and February 2021, using search terms related to hospital-acquired, mucosal and device-related pressure injury/ulcer incidence and prevalence. Searches were limited to the English language. Articles published between 2008 and 2020, reporting incidence or prevalence of mucous membrane or medical device-related pressure injury in non-interventional samples were selected. Two authors assessed study bias and extracted data, with a third reviewer as arbitrator. Twenty-one studies met inclusion criteria; most provided incidence data. No studies were found that specifically reported MMPI incidence or prevalence. It was possible to calculate incidence or prevalence from four studies; all were in intensive care settings. MMPI incidence of 0.8% and 30.4%, and prevalence of 1.7% and 3.7% were found. One study provided data that enabled calculation of prevalence of 0.1% in a non-intensive care sample. Only one other study provided specific data about MMPI. It is concluded that there is insufficient evidence available to enable estimation of MMPI incidence or prevalence in either acute hospital or intensive care settings.

Effectiveness of interventions to prevent pressure injury in adults admitted to acute hospital settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Hospital-acquired pressure injuries cause significant harm to afflicted individuals, and financially burden hospitals. Most pressure injuries are avoidable with the use of preventative interventions. However, within acute hospital settings the effectiveness of pressure injury preventative interventions, as demonstrated by high-level evidence, requires examination. OBJECTIVE: Analyse the effectiveness of interventions to prevent pressure injury in adults admitted to acute hospital settings. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: CINAHL, MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science and Embase were searched in May/June 2019. In April 2020, searches were updated to the end of 2019. METHODS: Randomised controlled trials which investigated the effectiveness of pressure injury preventative interventions on pressure injury incidence, within adults admitted to acute hospital settings, were included. Trials limited to pressure injury treatment or specialty areas, and non-English reports, were excluded. Screening, extraction and risk-of-bias assessment were undertaken independently by two reviewers, with a third as arbitrator. Included studies were grouped by intervention type. Studies were synthesised narratively, and meta-analysis was undertaken where study interventions were similar. Using a random-effects model, primary meta-analyses were undertaken using intention-to-treat data. RESULTS: Of 2000 records, 45 studies were included in the systematic review which investigated nine different intervention types: continence management, heel protection devices, medication, nutrition, positioning, prophylactic dressings, support surfaces, topical preparations and bundled interventions. All studies were judged to be at unclear or high risk-of-bias. Several meta-analyses were undertaken, pooled by intervention type. Most pooled samples were heterogeneous. Based on intention-to-treat data, only one intervention demonstrated a statistically significant effect: Australian medical sheepskin surfaces compared to other standard care surfaces (risk ratio 0.42, p = 0.006, I2 = 36%), but included studies were limited by bias and age. Following per protocol meta-analyses, only two intervention types demonstrated a significant effect: support surfaces (active versus other comparison [risk ratio = 0.54, p = 0.005, I2 = 43%] and standard surfaces [risk ratio = 0.31, p < 0.001, I2 = 0%]; and reactive versus other comparison surfaces [risk ratio = 0.53, p = 0.03, I2 = 64%]) and heel protection devices versus standard care (risk ratio = 0.38, p < 0.001, I2 = 36%). CONCLUSIONS: Only one intervention was supported by intention-to-treat meta-analysis. Significantly, all trials were at unclear or high risk-of-bias; and there were several limitations regarding heterogeneity across trials and trial outcomes. Further large-scale, high-quality trials testing pressure injury preventative interventions are required to establish effectiveness within acute hospital settings. Attention should be paid to true intention-to-treat analysis, and acute and intensive care settings should be reported separately. PROSPERO registration number:CRD42019129556.

Relationship Between Prescription and Documentation of Pressure Injury Prevention Interventions and Their Implementation: An Exploratory, Descriptive Study.

BACKGROUND: Formal assessment by nurses of a patient's pressure injury (PI) risk level is often highlighted as being key to PI prevention. However, if no action is taken to address the determined risk (i.e., if appropriate preventative interventions are not implemented), the patient remains vulnerable to PI development, and the assessment process is rendered pointless. AIM: To explore the relationship between the prescription (planning) and implementation of PI preventative interventions by nurses following formal risk assessment. METHODS: Using an exploratory, descriptive design, the charts and bedside areas of 200 adult patients admitted across four hospital wards were examined. Data collected included PI risk level, documented prescribed preventative interventions, and interventions for which there was evidence of implementation. RESULTS: Of the final sample (n = 187), 66.8% of cases were categorized as being "at-risk" or above. As the risk category of patients increased, proportionately more patients in each category were prescribed each intervention. However, in most cases, significantly fewer interventions were actually implemented than were prescribed, except for several interventions that were implemented in more cases than were prescribed. There were 14 cases, including four at-risk and three high-risk patients, in which no preventative interventions were prescribed, while 88.7% of not at-risk patients had (unnecessary) preventative interventions prescribed. DISCUSSION: These results indicate that intervention prescription increased relative to assessed level of risk; however, the rates of intervention prescription and actual implementation were suboptimal. The results indicate a significant mismatch between these two steps of PI prevention. LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: These results indicate that intervention prescription increased relative to assessed level of risk; however, the rates of intervention prescription and actual implementation were suboptimal. A significant mismatch between these two steps of PI prevention was evident. Following patient risk assessment, there should be a greater focus on appropriate preventative intervention prescription (planning) with regular review and audit to help ensure that interventions are implemented as prescribed. Improved implementation of preventative interventions should, in turn, help to reduce hospital-acquired pressure injuries.

International consensus on pressure injury preventative interventions by risk level for critically ill patients: A modified Delphi study.

The aim of this modified Delphi study was to determine a minimum pressure injury preventative intervention set for implementation relative to critically ill patients' risk level. Preventative interventions were identified via systematic review, risk levels categorised by an intensive-care-specific risk-assessment-scale (COMHON Index), and panel members (n = 67) identified through an international critical care nursing body. Round 1: panel members were asked to rate implementation of 12 interventions according to risk level (low, moderate, high). Round 2: interventions were rated for use at the risk level which received greatest round 1 support. Round 3: interventions not yet achieving consensus were again rated, and discarded where consensus was not reached. Consensus indicated all patients should receive: risk assessment within 2-hours of admission; 8-hourly risk reassessment; and use of disposable incontinence pads. Additionally, moderate- and high-risk patients should receive: a reactive mattress support surface and a heel off-loading device. High-risk patients should also receive: nutritional supplements if eating orally; preventative dressings (sacral, heel, trochanteric); an active mattress support surface; and a pressure-redistributing cushion for sitting. Repositioning is required at least 4-hourly for low-risk, and 2-hourly for moderate- and high-risk patients. Rigorous application of the intervention set has the potential to decrease pressure injuries in intensive care.

The relationship between pressure ulcer risk assessment and preventative interventions: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Hospital-acquired pressure ulcers (PU) continue to occur despite an ongoing focus on prevention. The aim of this review was to identify and evaluate primary research which links pressure ulcer risk assessment with prescription and implementation of preventative interventions for hospitalised adults. METHOD: A systematic review of the databases EBSCO CINAHL Complete, EBSCO MEDLINE Complete, Scopus and Web of Science was undertaken, using search terms related to pressure ulcers, hospital-acquired, risk, planning, implementation, prevention and outcome. Primary research reports that linked PU risk assessment with prescription and implementation of preventative interventions in some way were included. RESULTS: From 589 potentially eligible publications, 20 primary research reports were included. Of these, seven linked PU risk assessment to preventative intervention implementation and 13 linked it to preventative intervention prescription and implementation in some way. No studies linked PU risk assessment to preventative intervention prescription alone. CONCLUSION: While the included studies linked these components in some way, there was little focus on the relationship between the three. PU preventative intervention prescription is not well defined, with inconsistencies noted in intervention prescription across studies. Many studies reported inadequate provision of prevention measures for patients at risk of PU. Further research is required to explore the relationship between PU risk assessment and preventative intervention prescription alone, and with implementation.

Prescription of pressure injury preventative interventions following risk assessment: An exploratory, descriptive study.

This exploratory, descriptive study aimed to identify and describe the pressure injury preventative interventions prescribed by nurses following the assessment of a patient's pressure injury risk and to compare the prescribed interventions relative to the assessed risk level. A total of 200 inpatients in a tertiary Australian hospital were included. Patients' charts were audited within 24 hours of admission. Data collected included patient characteristics, pressure injury risk assessment score and level, and preventative interventions prescribed. Most patients were assessed as not being at risk, with the largest group of at-risk patients assessed as being at high risk. Some not-at-risk patients were prescribed interventions intended for those at risk, while prescription rates of preventative interventions recommended for those at any level of risk were variable (6%-64%). Significant associations were found between assessed pressure injury risk and preventative intervention prescription. Preventative intervention prescription was inadequate, potentially exposing some patients to pressure injury. However, the association between intervention prescription and risk level suggests that nurses are prescribing interventions relative to risk. A more structured approach to intervention prescription according to risk level, such as a care bundle, may help to improve nurses' preventative intervention prescription and ensure that all at-risk patients receive appropriate preventative interventions.