Pressure ulcer prevalence and perceptions on prevention: a hospital-wide survey of health professionals.

OBJECTIVE: Hospital-acquired pressure ulcers (HAPUs) remain a problem despite numerous prevention initiatives. To understand why, it is necessary to know health professionals' perceptions regarding the importance of prevention, and the usability of current initiatives. We hypothesised that positive perceptions of existing initiatives would not be correlated with low HAPU prevalence, and that health professionals would perceive the initiatives to have a low usability. METHOD: A two-part, online survey was developed and distributed electronically to nurses, in-training physicians and attending physicians, across all inpatient and perioperative departments of an academic hospital. Part one of the survey was the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Staff Attitude Scale on beliefs regarding PU prevention; part two was additional questions on the usability of existing preventative initiatives. The results of the survey were compared with quarterly HAPU prevalence data by hospital unit. RESULTS: In total, 839 health professionals completed the survey (579 nurses, 131 residents, 119 attending physicians). The mean score for the AHRQ survey was 42.5 (≥40 denoting positive perceptions). There was a moderate correlation between AHRQ scores and prevalence of HAPUs (r=-0.60, p=0.402). For usability, repositioning was felt to be the most effective intervention (mean: 4.54, standard deviation (SD): 0.64), while educational posters were felt to be the least effective (mean: 3.31, SD: 0.99). Respondents generally rated satisfaction much lower, with no single initiative significantly better than the others (range: 3.21-3.79). Perceived effectiveness and satisfaction were all positively correlated. CONCLUSION: High HAPU prevalence, despite position perceptions, suggests that prevention methods are not as effective as thought, or they are not being used as widely as they should. Further research should take advantage of positive attitudes by prospectively investigating the usability of novel interventions.

Efficacy of Monitoring Devices in Support of Prevention of Pressure Injuries: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

GENERAL PURPOSE: To present a systematic review of the literature assessing the efficacy of monitoring devices for reducing the risk of developing pressure injuries. TARGET AUDIENCE: This continuing education activity is intended for physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and nurses with an interest in skin and wound care. LEARNING OBJECTIVES/OUTCOMES: After participating in this educational activity, the participant should be better able to:1. Explain the methodology of the literature review and its results.2. Discuss the scope of the problem and the implications of the research. ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of monitoring devices for reducing the risk of developing pressure injuries (PIs). DATA SOURCES: The authors systematically reviewed the literature by searching PubMed/MEDLINE and CINAHL databases through January 2016. STUDY SELECTION: Articles included clinical trials and cohort studies that tested monitoring devices, evaluating PI risk factors on patients in acute and skilled nursing settings. The articles were scored using the Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies. DATA EXTRACTION: Using a standardized extraction form, the authors extracted patient inclusion/exclusion criteria, care setting, key baseline, description of monitoring device and methodology, number of patients included in each group, description of any standard of care, follow-up period, and outcomes. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of the identified 1866 publications, 9 met the inclusion criteria. The high-quality studies averaged Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies scores of 19.4 for clinical trials and 12.2 for observational studies. These studies evaluated monitoring devices that measured interface pressure, subdermal tissue stress, motion, and moisture. Most studies found a statistically significant decrease in PIs; 2 studies were eligible for meta-analysis, demonstrating that use of monitoring devices was associated with an 88% reduction in the risk of developing PIs (Mantel-Haenszel risk ratio, 0.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.41; I = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: Pressure injury monitoring devices are associated with a strong reduction in the risk of developing PIs. These devices provide clinicians and patients with critical information to implement prevention guidelines. Randomized controlled trials would help assess which technologies are most effective at reducing the risk of developing PIs.