Determination of medical device-related pressure injury in COVID-19 patients: A prospective descriptive study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 patients are at risk for the development of pressure injuries (PI). AIM: The aim of this study was to determine the incidence of medical device-related pressure injury (MDRPI) in patients treated in the COVID-19 Intensive Care Unit (ICU)s. METHODS: The sample of the study consisted of 132 patients, and each with a maximum follow-up of 7 days. Data were collected in the COVID-19 ICU of a university hospital between January and May 2021 by using a Patient Characteristics Form, the MDRPI Follow-up Form, the Braden Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Scale, and the Pressure Ulcer Staging Form. RESULTS: Of the patients, 59.1% (n = 78) developed at least one MDRPI. MRDPI was observed in those with a mean age of 65.45 ± 2.462 years who were invasively ventilated (51.3%), enterally fed (46.2%), placed in the prone position (78.2%), and had a Braden score ≤12 (50%). The most common medical devices that caused MDRPIs included endotracheal tube (ET) (31.2% n = 44), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIVM) (23.4% n = 33), nasal high-flow (11.3% n = 16), nasogastric tube (10.6% n = 15), the ET connection (8.5% n = 12), respectively. The most common sites for pressure injuries were the nose (28.8% n = 34), mouth (25.8% n = 34), ear (12.9% n = 17), lip (9.1% n = 12), and cheek (8.3% n = 11). The most common gradings of MDRPIs were stage 2 (28.8% n = 38), stage 1 (19.7% n = 26), stage 3 (9.1% n = 12) mucous membrane injuries (12.9% n = 17) and suspected deep tissue injuries (9.1% n = 12), respectively. The time to PI was 3 days (25.7% n = 36). CONCLUSIONS: MDRPI was common among COVID-19 patients. It was found that the most common cause of pressure injury was ventilators, and PI developed in the mouth and lip sites most frequently in patients in prone position, stage 2 and suspected deep tissue damage was the most common grade. It is important to evaluate the skin in contact with medical devices in COVID-19 patients and to take the necessary interventions to prevent PI.

Changing Bacterial Etiology and Antimicrobial Resistance Profiles as Prognostic Determinants of Diabetic Foot Infections: A Ten-Year Retrospective Cohort Study.

Background: In this single-center study, we analyzed a retrospective cohort of patients with diabetic foot infections (DFIs) between 2011 and 2020. Patients and Methods: The first and second five-year periods were compared. A poor prognosis was defined as a primary composite end point including re-infection, major amputation, or mortality at six months. Results: A total of 484 patients were enrolled. Overall, 269 patients had the primary composite end point. A substantial decrease was detected in the second five-year period in terms of re-infection (n = 132, 66.0% vs. n = 68, 23.9%; p < 0.001) and mortality (n = 22, 11.0% vs. n = 7, 2.5%; p < 0.001). A total of 798 micro-organisms were isolated from 484 patients. A substantial increase was detected in polymicrobial infections (48.5% vs. 65.1%; p = 0.001) as well as Streptococcus spp. (2.5% vs. 9.2%; p = 0.003), Corynebacterium spp. (9.5% vs. 22.9%; p < 0.001), and extended-spectrum ß-lactamase (ESBL) producing Escherichia coli (3.0% vs. 12.7%; p < 0.001) in the second five-year period, whereas the prevalence of multi-drug-resistanct (MDR) Pseudomonas aeruginosa (17.0% vs. 10.2%; p = 0.029) and carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (7.5% vs. 2.8%; p = 0.017) decreased. Multivariable regression analysis revealed that MDR Pseudomonas aeruginosa (odds ratio [OR], 1.917; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.074-3.420; p = 0.028) and carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (OR, 3.069; 95% CI, 1.114-8.453; p = 0.030) were independent predictors for poor prognosis. Conclusions: This 10-year cohort study provides reassuring information about the changing epidemiology of DFIs and the prognostic determinants in patients with DFIs.

The validity and reliability of the Stoma Self-Efficacy Scale: A methodological study.

AIMS: To assess the validity and reliability of the stoma self-efficacy scale for Turkish-speaking individuals with stoma. BACKGROUND: Self-efficacy in stoma care is one of the most important variables requiring compliance for an increase in the quality of life and well-being of individuals with stoma. DESIGN: A methodological study. METHODS: This study used translation and back translation for the scale's language equivalence and expert opinion for the content validity. An expert panel and 10 individuals with stoma evaluated the scale for face validity. The scale's reliability was assessed by internal consistency, Pearson correlation, and test-retest reliability in a sample of 174 individuals with stomas. The scale's construct validity was tested with confirmatory factor analysis and exploratory factor analysis. RESULTS: The content validity index was .96, and Cronbach's alpha was .95. In the test-retest analysis, the intraclass correlation coefficients were high. In the factor analysis, two factors emerged from the scale, and after the confirmatory factor analysis and scale modification, the fit indices of the model were found to provide a good level of validity. CONCLUSION: The Turkish version of the stoma self-efficacy scale is a valid and reliable tool to determine the levels of self-efficacy in individuals with stoma.