Implementing a pressure ulcer prevention program and enhancing the role of the CWOCN: impact on outcomes.

Hospitals in the US are increasingly concerned with the rising number of hospital-acquired pressure ulcers. To reduce its 2002-2003 average hospital-acquired pressure ulcer prevalence rate of 9.2%, a regional medical center in southeastern US initiated a process improvement and education program. Quarterly pressure ulcer prevalence studies were conducted and the Medical Intensive Care Unit was found to have the highest number of hospital-acquired pressure ulcers among the five units participating in the study. As part of a new Pressure Ulcer Strategic Plan, significant changes were made to the organizational infrastructure and processes, which included implementing the Braden Risk Scale Assessment Tool in place of the Norton Risk Scale, developing a pressure ulcer prevention protocol, creating Pressure Ulcer/Skin Tear Physician orders for nurses, establishing a Skin Resource Team, and providing additional education, training, and other relevant resources. Better appreciation for and enhanced utilization of Certified Wound Ostomy Continence Nurses were encouraged. New support surfaces were purchased. Implementing these changes resulted in a decrease in the quarterly hospital-acquired pressure ulcer prevalence in participating units, including the Medical Intensive Care Unit where rates dropped from a high of 29% to near 0%. Clinicians now approach pressure ulcers as preventable rather than inevitable and view Certified Wound Ostomy Continence Nurses as resources and clinical experts for prevention and treatment. Overall quality of care and financial resource utilization also have substantially improved.

Comparison of air-fluidized therapy with other support surfaces used to treat pressure ulcers in nursing home residents.

To provide empirical evidence comparing pressure ulcer healing rates between different support surfaces, data were analyzed from eligible residents with pressure ulcers (N = 664) enrolled in the National Pressure Ulcer Long-Term Care Study, a retrospective pressure ulcer prevention and treatment study. Support surfaces were categorized as: Group 1 (static overlays and replacement mattresses), Group 2 (low-air-loss beds, alternating pressure, and powered/non-powered overlays/mattresses), and Group 3 (air-fluidized beds). Calculation of healing rates, using the largest ulcer from each resident, found mean healing rates greatest for air-fluidized therapy (Group 3) (mean = 5.2 cm(2)/week) versus Group 1 (mean =1.5 cm(2)/week) and Group 2 (mean = 1.8 cm(2)/week) surfaces (P = 0.007). Healing rates also were assessed using 7- to 10-day "episodes"; each ulcer generated separate episode(s) that included all ulcers when residents had multiple ulcers. Mean healing rates were significantly greater for Stage III/IV ulcers on Group 3 surfaces (mean = 3.1 cm(2)/week) versus Group 1 (mean = 0.6 cm(2)/week) and Group 2 (mean = 0.7 cm(2)/week) surfaces (Group 2 versus Group 3: P = 0.0211). This finding persisted for ulcers with comparable initial baseline areas (20 cm(2) to 75 cm(2)) on Group 2 and Group 3 surfaces; healing improved on Group 3 surfaces (+2.3 cm(2)/week) versus Group 2 surfaces (-2.1 cm(2)/week, P = 0.0399). Residents on Group 3 (6 out of 82; 7.3%) and Group 1 (47 out of 461; 10.2%) surfaces had fewer hospitalizations and emergency room visits than those on Group 2 surfaces (23 out of 121; 19.0%, P = 0.01) despite significantly greater illness in residents on Group 2 and 3 versus Group 1 surfaces (P is less than 0.0001). Despite limitations inherent in retrospective studies, ulcers on Group 3 surfaces versus Groups 1 and Group 2 surfaces had statistically significant faster healing rates (particularly for Stage III/IV ulcers) with significantly fewer hospitalizations and emergency room visits (Group 3 versus Group 2), despite significantly more illness in residents on Group 2 or Group 3 versus Group 1 surfaces. Episode analyses -- providing greater power, uniform treatment duration, and comparable baseline sizes -- confirmed these findings. Air-fluidized support surfaces represent great healing potential that justifies further exploration.