Implementation and evaluation of multilayered pressure injury prevention strategies in an Australian intensive care unit setting.

BACKGROUND: Pressure injuries are a ubiquitous, yet largely preventable, hospital acquired complication commonly seen in critically ill patients in the intensive care unit. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to implement targeted evidence-based pressure injury prevention strategies and evaluate their effect through measurement of patient pressure injury observations. METHODS: A prospective multiphased design was used in the intensive care unit of an Australian tertiary referral hospital using three study periods (period 1, weeks 1-18; period 2, weeks 19-28; and period 3, weeks 29-52). The interventions included staff-focused interventions and patient-focused interventions, with the latter defined in a work unit guideline. Weekly visual observations of critically ill patients' skin integrity were conducted by trained research nurses over 52 weeks from November 2015 to November 2016. The primary outcome measure was a pressure injury of any stage, identified at the weekly observation, and the effect of the intervention was evaluated through logistic regression. Reporting rigour has been demonstrated using the Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence checklist. RESULTS: Over the whole study, 15.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 12.6, 18.2%, 97/631) of patients developed a pressure injury, with the majority of these injuries (73.2%, 95% CI = 64.4%, 82.0%, 71/97) caused by medical devices. After adjustment for covariates known to influence hospital-acquired pressure injury development, pressure injury rates for period 3 compared with period 1 were reduced (odds ratio = 0.41, 95% CI = 0.20-0.97, p = 0.0126). CONCLUSIONS: We found the use of defined pressure injury prevention strategies targeted at both staff and patients reduced pressure injury prevalence.

Exploring medical device-related pressure injuries in a single intensive care setting: A longitudinal point prevalence study.

OBJECTIVES: To report longitudinal prevalence rates of device-related pressure injuries in critically ill adult patients in the intensive care unit and to explore the patient characteristics associated with the development of device related pressure injuries. RESEARCH DESIGN: A prospective observational design where observations of patients' skin integrity were conducted on one day each week for 52 weeks. SETTING: The study was conducted in the 36-bed intensive care unit of a major metropolitan tertiary referral hospital in Queensland, Australia. The sample included all patients aged 18 years or older admitted to the intensive care unit before midnight on the day preceding the observation, with a medical device in situ. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was device related pressure injuries identified at the weekly observations and defined as a pressure injury found on the skin or mucous membrane with a history of medical device in use at the location of the injury. Patient demographic and clinical characteristics were recorded. RESULTS: Over the study period, 11.3% (71/631) of patients developed at least one hospital-acquired DRPI. The most common devices associated with injury were nasogastric/nasojejunal tubes (41%) and endotracheal tubes (27%). Significant predictors of device related pressure injuries were the total number of devices (OR 1.230, 95% CI 1.09-1.38, p < 0.001), the length of time in the ICU (OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.02-1.09, p = 0.003), male sex, (OR 2.099, 95% CI 1.18-3.7, p = 0.012), and increased severity of illness score on admission (OR 1.044, 95% CI 1.01-1.09, p = 0.013). CONCLUSION: Device related pressure injuries are an all-too-common iatrogenic problem for this vulnerable patient cohort.

Securement to prevent device-related pressure injuries in the intensive care unit: A randomised controlled feasibility study.

Medical device-related pressure injuries are the most common cause of pressure injuries within the intensive care unit, in particular those caused by nasogastric tubes and endotracheal tubes. There are several known methods, which can alleviate the pressure of these devices on the skin surface to reduce the rate of these injuries. To determine the feasibility of conducting a larger, adequately powered trial testing, several clinically effective interventions to reduce the incidence of medical device-related pressure injuries caused by these devices. Patients were recruited into both study arms and received one of three different methods of skin protection for both arms. Outcome measures included fidelity to the processes of care protocol, recruitment potential, and the number of medical device-related pressure injuries. Recruitment (n = 87) was slower than expected with less than 10% of screened potential patients available for enrolment. Fidelity to the process of care for each subgroup was variable with better adherence in the nasogastric tube arm compared to the endotracheal tube arm. This feasibility study has revealed concerns about the intervention designs and effectiveness as well as challenges for the adherence of the nursing staff to the protocol.

Exploring Incontinence-Associated Dermatitis in a Single Center Intensive Care Unit: A Longitudinal Point Prevalence Survey.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to provide longitudinal prevalence rates of incontinence-associated dermatitis (IAD) in patients in an intensive care unit (ICU) and to identify patient characteristics associated with IAD development. DESIGN: Prospective observational. SUBJECTS AND SETTING: The sample comprised 351 patients aged 18 years and older in a major metropolitan public hospital ICU in Queensland, Australia. METHODS: All consenting, eligible participants at risk of developing IAD underwent weekly skin inspections to determine the presence of IAD. Data were collected weekly for 52 consecutive weeks. Descriptive statistics described the study sample and logistic regression analysis was used to identify patient characteristics associated with development of IAD. RESULTS: The weekly IAD prevalence ranged between 0% and 70%, with IAD developing in 17% (n = 59/351) of ICU patients. The odds of IAD developing increased statistically significantly with increasing age (odds ratio [OR]: 1.029, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.005-1.054, P = .016), time in the ICU (OR = 1.104; 95% CI: 1.063-1.147, P < .001), and Bristol Stool chart score (OR = 4.363, 95% CI: 2.091-9.106, P < .001). Patients with respiratory (OR = 3.657, 95% CI: 1.399-9.563, P = .008) and sepsis (OR = 3.230, 95% CI: 1.281-8.146, P = .013) diagnoses had increased odds of developing IAD. CONCLUSIONS: These data show the high variability of IAD prevalence over a 1-year period. Characteristics associated with the development of IAD in patients in the ICU included older age, longer lengths of ICU stay, incontinent of liquid feces, and having respiratory or sepsis diagnoses.

Safety culture in intensive care internationally and in Australia: A narrative review of the literature.

OBJECTIVE: Assessment of safety culture in health care is of particular relevance in the complex intensive care setting, where the effects of human error can have catastrophic consequences. The aim of this review was to examine the literature on safety culture in intensive care units (ICUs) and specifically, to explore the state of knowledge regarding safety culture in the context of Australian ICUs. METHODS: A search was conducted of key databases for studies published in English between January 2008 and December 2017 using terms 'safety culture', 'safety climate', 'safety attitude', 'intensive care', 'ICU' and 'critical care'. Studies were included if they presented original research, utilised the teamwork and safety climate factors of a quantitative survey tool to assess safety culture, the sample population included participants working in an adult intensive care, and the findings were reported in the context of intensive care. RESULTS: Of the 36 studies identified, two were conducted in Australia. The studies demonstrate a rapid expansion in safety culture assessment globally. Three levels of safety culture application in intensive care were identified, including safety culture assessment, effect of an intervention on safety culture, and evaluation of the association between safety culture and structural, process and outcomes measures. The use of targeted safety culture domains is emerging. Common findings included variation in perceptions of safety culture between ICUs, unit and hospital management, and professional groups. CONCLUSION: Though the assessment of safety culture in ICUs has been an area of prolific research internationally over the past ten years, the Australian context is limited and could be advanced through further research, including the effect on safety culture of interventions, and to establish the association between safety culture and patient safety outcomes. Longitudinal studies to demonstrate sustained intervention effects on safety culture should be considered.

Understanding contextual barriers and enablers to pressure injury prevention practice in an Australian intensive care unit: An exploratory study.

BACKGROUND: Skin integrity management is often a low clinical priority in the intensive care environment, possibly resulting in high pressure injury (PI) prevalence. This article reports the results of the first phase of a multiphased project, "Translating evidence-based pressure injury prevention strategies to the intensive care environment (SUSTAIN study)". The SUSTAIN study used a research translation framework to guide the assessment of research uptake, development, and monitoring of translational strategies to reduce PIs. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to assess the enablers and barriers to research translation of evidence-based skin integrity management in one Australian tertiary referral intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: This exploratory study was conducted in an Australian metropolitan tertiary ICU on a sample of 204 registered nurses. Data were collected using (i) a descriptive cross-sectional cohort survey of barriers, enablers, and attitudes to PI prevention, (ii) a cross-sectional survey of PI knowledge, and (iii) focus groups to understand the local contextual factors impacting registered nurses' PI prevention practice. RESULTS: Participants reported a moderate to high ability to rise above barriers in PI prevention, a positive attitude towards PI prevention, and considered this a priority in their care of patients. High patient acuity emerged as a barrier to implementing timely PI prevention strategies. In the knowledge, test participants with postgraduate qualifications answered more statements correctly. Focus group data revealed four themes: (i) team ICU, (ii) processes of care, (iii) education for consistency, and (iv) the patient. CONCLUSIONS: It is essential that evidence-based PI prevention strategies are provided in the intensive care environment. Our findings indicate that despite positive attitudes and sound knowledge levels, high patient acuity is a significant barrier to evidence implementation.

Pressure injury prevalence in intensive care versus non-intensive care patients: A state-wide comparison.

BACKGROUND: Hospital-acquired pressure injury is associated with increased morbidity and mortality and considered to be largely preventable. Pressure injury prevalence is regarded as a marker of health care quality. OBJECTIVE: To compare the state-wide prevalence, severity and location of pressure injuries of intensive care unit patients compared to patients in non-intensive care wards. METHOD: The study employed a secondary data analysis design to extract and analyse de-identified pressure injury data from all Queensland Health hospitals with level I-III intensive care facilities that participated in Queensland Bedside Audits between 2012-2014. The sample included all adult ICU and non-ICU patients that provided consent for the Queensland Bedside Audits, excluding those in mental health units. RESULTS: Excluding Stage I, overall hospital-acquired pressure injury prevalence from 2012 to 2014 was 11% for intensive care patients and 3% for non-intensive care patients. Intensive care patients were 3.8 times more likely (RR 2.7-5.4, 95% CI) than non-intensive care patients to develop a pressure injury whilst in hospital. The sacrum/coccyx was the most common site of hospital-acquired pressure injury in all patients (intensive care patients 22%; non-intensive care patients 35%) however, mucosal pressure injury proportion was significantly higher in intensive care patients (22%) than in non-intensive care patients (2%). Stage II HAPI prevalence was the most common stage reported, 53% for intensive care patients compared to 63% for non-intensive care patients. CONCLUSION: There are significant differences in hospital-acquired pressure injury prevalence by stage and location between intensive care and non-intensive care patients reflecting the possible impact of critical illness on the development of skin injury. This has implications for resource funding for pressure injury prevention and the imposition of government initiated financial penalties for hospital-acquired pressure injury. For future comparisons to be effective between intensive care units, benchmarking partners should share similar characteristics and relevant targets.