Using pressure mapping intraoperatively to prevent pressure ulcers-A quasi-experimental study.

Background and Aim: Patients undergoing surgery are at high risk of developing pressure ulcers. However, pressure ulcer prevention in the operating room department is demanding and restricted. New techniques, such as continuous pressure mapping that visualizes interface pressure, are now available. The aim of the study was to determine whether pressure mapping information of interface pressure intraoperatively leads to (1) more frequent intraoperative micro repositioning and a reduced amount of pressure on the sacrum area and (2) a lower frequency of pressure ulcer development. Methods: A quasi-experimental ABA design was used. A total of 116 patients undergoing surgery were included. During the B phase, the need to consider repositioning the patient according to interface pressure readings was initiated. Results: The result showed that there was significantly higher interface pressure in the A2 phase than in the B phase. Micro repositioning of the patient during surgery was performed in the B phase, but not in the A phase. The regression model showed that a higher BMI was associated with higher interface pressure. None of the patients developed hospital-acquired pressure ulcers up to Day 1 postoperatively. Conclusion: Pressure mapping involves moving away from expert opinion and tradition towards objective assessment and flexibility and we see the benefits of using pressure-mapping equipment in operating room contexts. However, more research is needed in this area.

Pressure ulcer prevalence and prevention interventions - A ten-year nationwide survey in Sweden.

The aim of this study was to describe pressure ulcer prevalence and prevention interventions in hospital care in Sweden based on nationwide surveys conducted over a 10-year period. All Swedish hospitals were invited to participate in annual pressure ulcer prevalence surveys during the period 2011-2020. The data collection protocols included gender, age, skin assessment, risk assessment, and preventive interventions. In total, more than 130,000 patients were included in the ten prevalence surveys. The prevalence of pressure ulcers in Swedish hospital patients decreased significantly from 17.0 %to 11.4% between 2011 and 2020 and hospital-acquired pressure ulcers decreased from 8.1% to 6.4% between 2018 and 2020. There was no significant decline in medicaldevice-related pressure ulcers during the same period. The proportion of patients who were risk and skin assessed increased, as did the use of pressure-reducing mattresses, sliding sheets, heel protection, and nrepositioning plans. This study shows that the implementation of a national patient safety program has had an impact on the nationwide prevalence of pressure ulcers in hospital care and the occurrence of prevention strategies. However, one in ten patients in Swedish hospitals still suffers from pressure ulcers. Further improvements can be made.

A multifaceted intervention for evidence-based pressure ulcer prevention: a 3 year follow-up.

AIM: To assess sustainability of an intervention used to implement pressure ulcer prevention. BACKGROUND: The Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Service, framework was used to develop an intervention aimed to implement evidence-based pressure ulcer prevention in a hospital setting. A short-term follow-up showed that significantly more patients received pressure ulcer prevention. A qualitative process evaluation gave support that the intervention and the implementation process changed the understanding and approach to working with pressure ulcer prevention from treating to preventing. METHOD: The study had a sequential mixed method approach, combining quantitative and qualitative data. For the quantitative data, baseline and short-term follow-up (6-8 months) data reported in an initial study were compared with long-term follow-up (36-42 months) data (n = 259 patients). For the qualitative data, interviews with registered nurses (n = 20), assistant nurses (n = 7) and first-line managers (n = 5) were performed. RESULTS: The performance of pressure ulcer prevention was sustained 3 years from its conception. The number of patients with pressure ulcers was reduced (P = 0.021). Systematic work with quality measurements, support from first-line managers, internal facilitation, collaboration and pressure ulcer prevention skills could explained the sustainability. Obstacles to achieve high-quality pressure ulcer prevention were inadequate communication, high workloads and high rates of new and substitute nurses. CONCLUSION: Three different components for sustainability on the micro-level are described; benefits for the patients, the need for routinization and development over time. Threats to sustainability are described as factors on the macro-level. There needs to be collaboration in the healthcare organization from the micro-to-macro levels, and committed experienced nurses are needed to obtain high-quality sustainable pressure ulcer prevention.

Tracking pressure injuries as adverse events: National use of the Global Trigger Tool over a 4-year period.

AIM: To examine the frequency, preventability, and consequences of hospital acquired pressure injuries in acute care hospitals over a 4-year period. METHOD: A retrospective record review was performed using the Swedish version of the Global Trigger Tool (GTT). A total of 64 917 hospital admissions were reviewed. Data were collected between 2013 and 2016 from all 63 Swedish acute care hospitals. RESULTS: The prevalence of pressure injuries (category 2-4) was 1%. Older patients, "satellite patients", and patients with acute admissions had more pressure injuries. Most pressure injuries (91%) were determined to be preventable. The mean extended length of hospital stay was 15.8 days for patients who developed pressure injuries during hospitalization. CONCLUSION: The GTT provides a useful and complementary national perspective on hospital acquired pressure injuries across hospitals, informing health care providers on safety priorities to reduce patient harm. Clinical leaders can use information on the preventability and the consequences of pressure injuries, as well as evidence-based arguments for improving the health care organization.

Staff's perceptions of a pressure mapping system to prevent pressure injuries in a hospital ward: A qualitative study.

AIM: To describe staff's perceptions of a continuous pressure mapping system to prevent pressure injury in a hospital ward. BACKGROUND: Pressure injury development is still a problem in hospitals. It is important to understand how new information and communication technologies can facilitate pressure injury prevention. METHOD: A descriptive design with qualitative focus group interviews was used. RESULTS: Five categories were identified: "Need of information, training and coaching over a long period of time," "Pressure mapping - a useful tool in the prevention of pressure injury in high risk patients," "Easy to understand and use, but some practical issues were annoying," "New way of working and thinking," and "Future possibilities with the pressure mapping system." CONCLUSION: The pressure mapping system was an eye-opener for the importance of pressure injury prevention. Staff appreciated the real-time feedback on pressure points, which alerted them to the time for repositioning, facilitated repositioning and provided feedback on the repositioning performed. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: A continuous pressure mapping system can be used as a catalyst, increasing staff's competence, focus and awareness of prevention. For successful implementation, the nurse managers should have a shared agenda with the clinical nurse leaders, supporting the sustaining and spread of the innovation.

Getting evidence-based pressure ulcer prevention into practice: a process evaluation of a multifaceted intervention in a hospital setting.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To describe registered nurses', assistant nurses' and first-line managers' experiences and perceptions of a multifaceted hospital setting intervention focused on implementing evidence-based pressure ulcer prevention. BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcer prevention is deficient. Different models exist to support implementation of evidence-based care. Little is known about implementation processes. DESIGN: A descriptive qualitative approach. METHOD: Five focus-group nurse interviews and five individual first-line manager interviews were conducted at five Swedish hospital units. Qualitative content analysis was used. RESULT: The findings support that the intervention and the implementation process changed the understanding and way of working with pressure ulcer prevention: from treating to preventing. This became possible as 'Changed understanding enables changed actions - through one's own performance and reflection on pressure ulcer prevention'. Having a common outlook on pressure ulcer prevention, easy access to pressure-reducing equipment, and external and internal facilitator support were described as important factors for changed practices. Bedside support, feedback and discussions on current results increased the awareness of needed improvements. CONCLUSION: The multifaceted intervention approach and the participants' positive attitudes seemed to be crucial for changing understanding and working more preventatively. The strategies used and the skills of the facilitators need to be tailored to the problems surrounding the context. Feedback discussions among the staff regarding the results of the care provided also appear to be vital. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: It is crucial that dedicated facilitators are involved to promote the implementation process. A preventative mindset should be strived for. Creating an implementation plan with an outcome and a process evaluation should be emphasised. It is important to give the staff regular feedback on the quality of care and on those occasions allocate time for discussion and reflection.

Getting evidence-based pressure ulcer prevention into practice: a multi-faceted unit-tailored intervention in a hospital setting.

The aim of the study was to evaluate whether a multi-faceted, unit-tailored intervention using evidenced-based pressure ulcer prevention affects (i) the performance of pressure ulcer prevention, (ii) the prevalence of pressure ulcers and (iii) knowledge and attitudes concerning pressure ulcer prevention among registered and assistant nurses. A quasi-experimental, clustered pre- and post-test design was used. Five units at a hospital setting were included. The intervention was based on the PARIHS framework and included a multi-professional team, training and repeated quality measurements. An established methodology was used to evaluate the prevalence and prevention of pressure ulcers. Nurses' knowledge and attitudes were evaluated using a validated questionnaire. A total of 506 patients were included, of whom 105 patients had a risk to develop pressure ulcer. More patients were provided pressure ulcer prevention care (P = 0·001) and more prevention care was given to each patient (P = 0·021) after the intervention. Corresponding results were shown in the group of patients assessed as being at risk for developing pressure ulcers. Nurses' knowledge about pressure ulcer prevention increased (P < 0·001). Positive attitudes towards pressure ulcer prevention remained high between pre- and post-test surveys. This multi-faceted unit-tailored intervention affected pressure ulcer prevention. Facilitation and repeated quality measurement together with constructed feedback of results seemed to be the most important factor for pressure ulcer prevention.

Factors contributing to evidence-based pressure ulcer prevention. A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Implementation of evidence-based care for pressure ulcer prevention is lacking. As the hospital organization is complex, more knowledge is needed to understand how nursing care in this area can be improved. OBJECTIVES: The present study investigated the associations between variables on different levels in the healthcare setting (patient, unit, hospital) and the documentation of (1) risk assessment and (2) skin assessment within 24h of admission, the use of (3) pressure-reducing mattresses and (4) planned repositioning in bed. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study. SETTINGS: One university hospital and one general hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Geriatric (n=8), medical (n=24) and surgical (n=19) units. All adult patients (>17 years), in total 825, were included. METHODS: A one-day prevalence study was conducted using the methodology specified by the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, together with the established methods used by the Collaborative Alliance for Nursing Outcomes. Independent variables were patient characteristics, hospital type, unit type, nurse staffing and workload. Dependent variables were documented risk and skin assessment within 24h of admission, pressure-reducing mattresses and planned repositioning in bed. The data were analysed with Logistic regression using the Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) approach. RESULTS: Patients at risk of developing pressure ulcers (Braden<17) had higher odds of having risk assessment documented, and of receiving pressure-reducing mattresses and planned repositioning. Patients at the general hospital were less likely to have risk and skin assessment documented and to receive pressure-reducing mattresses. On the other hand, planned repositioning was more likely to be used at the general hospital. When total hours of nursing care was lower, patients had higher odds of having pressure-reducing mattresses but were less likely to have planned repositioning. CONCLUSION: Patient characteristics (high age and risk score) and hospital type were associated with pressure ulcer prevention. Surprisingly, nurse staffing played only a minor role. Leaders in healthcare organizations should establish routines on different levels that support evidence-based pressure ulcer prevention, and registered nurses need to assume responsibility for bedside care.

Registered nurses' attention to and perceptions of pressure ulcer prevention in hospital settings.

AIM: To describe how registered nurses perform, document and reflect on pressure ulcer prevention in a specific nurse-patient care situation, as well as generally, on hospital wards. BACKGROUND: Registered nurses should provide safe and qualified pressure ulcer prevention, but pressure ulcers remain a problem. Compliance with evidence-based guidelines impedes pressure ulcer formation. DESIGN: A descriptive design with a multimethods approach. METHOD: Nine registered nurses at three wards and hospitals participated. The registered nurses were observed in a specific nurse-patient care situation with patients at risk for pressure ulcers. Interviews followed and patients' records were reviewed. Quantitative and qualitative data analysis methods were used. RESULTS: Pressure ulcer prevention performed by the registered nurses was dependent on the cultural care, which ranged from planned to unplanned prevention. Diversity was found in compliance with evidence-based guidelines across the wards. Although all patients involved were at risk and the nurses described pressure ulcer prevention as basic care, the nurses' attention to prevention was lacking. Few prevention activities and no structured risk assessments using risk assessment tools were observed, and few care plans were identified. The lack of attention was explained by registered nurses' trust in assistant nurses' knowledge, and prevention was seen as an assistant nurse task. CONCLUSION: Registered nurses paid little attention to pressure ulcer prevention among patients at risk. The planned and unplanned care structures affected the prevention. The nurses trusted and largely delegated their responsibility to the assistant nurses. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Evidence-based pressure ulcer prevention is fundamental to patient safety. Care quality is created in situations where patients and care providers meet. How registered nurses work with pressure ulcer prevention, their role and communication, particularly with assistant nurses, should be of major concern to them as well as to healthcare managers.