Hospital-Acquired Pressure Injuries in Adults With Prone Positioning Using Manual Method Versus Specialty Bed: A Retrospective Comparison Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the incidence of hospital-acquired pressure injuries (HAPIs) in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and placed in a prone position manually or using a specialty bed designed to facilitate prone positioning. A secondary aim was to compare mortality rates between these groups. DESIGN: Retrospective review of electronic medical records. SUBJECTS AND SETTING: The sample comprised 160 patients with ARDS managed by prone positioning. Their mean age was 61.08 years (SD = 12.73); 58% (n = 96) were male. The study setting was a 355-bed community hospital in the Western United States (Stockton, California). Data were collected from July 2019 to January 2021. METHODS: Data from electronic medical records were retrospectively searched for the development of pressure injuries, mortality, hospital length of stay, oxygenation status when placed in a prone position, and the presence of a COVID-19 infection. RESULTS: A majority of patients with ARDS were manually placed in a prone position (n = 106; 64.2%), and 54 of these patients (50.1%) were placed using a specialty care bed. Slightly more than half (n = 81; 50.1%) developed HAPIs. Chi-square analyses showed no association with the incidence of HAPIs using manual prone positioning versus the specialty bed (P = .9567). Analysis found no difference in HAPI occurrences between those with COVID-19 and patients without a coronavirus infection (P = .8462). Deep-tissue pressure injuries were the most common type of pressure injury. More patients (n = 85; 80.19%) who were manually placed in a prone position died compared to 58.18% of patients (n = 32) positioned using the specialty bed (P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: No differences in HAPI rates were found when placing patients manually in a prone position versus positioning using a specialty bed designed for this purpose.

Factors associated with ABCDE bundle adherence in critically ill adults requiring mechanical ventilation: An observational design.

OBJECTIVE: To identify factors associated with the ABCDEF bundle (Assess, prevent, and manage pain, Both, spontaneous awakening and breathing trials, Choice of sedation/analgesia, Delirium assess, prevent and manage, Early mobility/exercise and Family engagement/empowerment) adherence, in critically ill patients during the first 96 hours of mechanical ventilation. DESIGN: Observational study using electronic health record data. SETTING: 15 intensive care units located in seven community hospitals in a western United States health system. PATIENTS: 977 adult patients who were on mechanical ventilation for greater than 24 hours and admitted to an intensive care unit over six months. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Multiple regression analysis was used to examine factors contributing to bundle adherence while adjusting for severity of illness, days on mechanical ventilation, hospital site and time elapsed. ABCDEF bundle adherence was higher in patients on mechanical ventilation for less than 48 hours (p = 0.01), who received continuous sedation for less than 24 hours (p < 0.001), admitted from skilled nursing facilities (p < 0.05), and over the course of the six-month study period (p < 0.01). Bundle adherence was significantly lower for Hispanic patients (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Our study identified potentially modifiable factors that could improve the team's performance of the ABCDEF bundle in patients requiring mechanical ventilation.