Incontinence Management and Pressure Injury Rates in US Acute Care Hospitals: Analysis of Data From the 2018-2019 International Pressure Injury Prevalence™ (IPUP) Survey.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to identify and describe the prevalence of incontinence (urinary and/or fecal) and incontinence management practices among patients in US adult acute care settings, with and without hospital-acquired pressure injuries (HAPIs), using the data from the 2018/2019 International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence™ (IPUP) survey. DESIGN: Observational, cohort study with cross-sectional data collection and retrospective data analysis. SUBJECTS AND SETTING: The sample comprised 296,014 patients hospitalized in 1801 acute care facilities in the United States that participated in 2018 and/or 2019 IPUP survey. Of these, 192,852 (65%) patients had information recorded in the survey on incontinence status and were included in the analytical sample. METHODS: Data from the 2018/2019 IPUP database were analyzed to evaluate the prevalence of incontinence (urinary [UI], fecal [FI], and dual [DI]), and the use of incontinence and moisture management strategies. Incontinence prevalence was analyzed between 3 groups of patients: (1) those without pressure injuries; (2) patients with stage 1 and 2 HAPIs; and (3) those with severe HAPIs (stage 3, 4, unstageable, deep tissue pressure injury). Analysis of the subgroups within acute care was also undertaken and included medical-surgical, critical care, and step-down units. RESULTS: Incontinent patients were older (mean age 69-74 years depending on type of incontinence as compared to 62 years for continent patients) and had lower Braden Scale scores (range, 14.7-16.7, compared to 19.4 for continent patients). Half of the patients were female, 49.6% male, and 0.4% were unknown. Incontinence was identified in 32% of patients. Among patients with incontinence, 33% had UI, 12% had FI, and 55% had DI. Hospital-acquired pressure injuries were present in 27.4% of continent patients and 72.6% of incontinent patients, with DI having the highest rate of HAPIs. Analysis revealed a higher proportion of incontinent patients with unstageable HAPIs than continent patients (14.9% vs 9.6%, P = .00), as well as a higher proportion of incontinent patients with deep tissue HAPIs as compared to continent patients (27.0% vs 22.1%, P = .00). Significantly more incontinent patients regardless of HAPI status were using a bowel or bladder management system (P = .00). CONCLUSION: Results of this study support the importance of incontinence as a risk factor in HAPI development. The prevalence of all types of incontinence was 31.7% for the entire sample. Almost three-fourths (72.6%) of patients with HAPI had UF, FI, or DI. A standardized definition of both UI and FI is needed, given that over 70% of all critical care unit patients with a urinary catheter for incontinence management were still classified as urinary incontinent.

Pressure Injuries in Critical Care Patients in US Hospitals: Results of the International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence Survey.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this secondary analysis was to examine pressure injury (PI) prevalence, PI risk factors, and prevention practices among adult critically ill patients in critical care units in the United States using the International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence™ (IPUP) Survey database from 2018 to 2019. DESIGN: Observational, cohort study with cross-sectional data collection and retrospective data analysis. SUBJECTS AND SETTING: The sample comprised 41,866 critical care patients drawn from a sample of 296,014 patients in US acute care facilities who participated in the 2018 and/or 2019 IPUP surveys. The mean age among critical care patients was 63.5 years (16.3) and 55% were male. All geographic regions of the United States were represented in this sample, with the greatest percentages from the Southeast (47.5%) and Midwest (17.5%) regions. METHODS: Overall critical care PI prevalence and hospital-acquired PI (HAPI) rates were obtained and analyzed using the 2018/2019 IPUP survey database. Critical care PI risk factors included in the database were analyzed using frequency distributions. Prevention practices among critically ill patients were analyzed to evaluate differences in practices between patients with no PIs, superficial PIs (stage 1, stage 2), and severe PIs (stage 3, stage 4, unstageable, deep tissue pressure injury). RESULTS: The overall PI prevalence for critical care patients was 14.3% (n = 5995) and the overall HAPI prevalence was 5.85% (n = 2451). In patients with severe HAPIs, the most common risk factors were diabetes mellitus (29.5%), mechanical ventilation (27.6%), and vasopressor agents (18.9%). Significant differences between patients with no PIs as compared to those with superficial or severe HAPIs (P = .000) for all prevention practices were found. CONCLUSIONS: Study findings support the gaps elucidated in previous critical care studies on PI development in this population. The 2 most persistent gaps currently challenging critical care practitioners are (1) accurate risk quantification in this population and (2) the potential for unavoidability in PI development among critically ill patients.

Pressure Injury Prevalence in Acute Care Hospitals With Unit-Specific Analysis: Results From the International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence (IPUP) Survey Database.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine overall pressure injury (PI) prevalence and hospital-acquired pressure injury (HAPI) prevalence in US acute care hospitals. Additionally, analysis of patient characteristics associated with HAPIs will be presented. DESIGN: Observational, cross-sectional cohort study. SUBJECTS AND SETTING: An in-depth analysis of data was performed from the International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence™ (IPUP) Survey database for years 2018-2019 that included 296,014 patients. There were 914 participating US acute care facilities in 2018 and 887 in 2019. Overall PI prevalence and HAPI prevalence over time were also examined for 2006-2019 acute care data from 2703 unique facilities (1,179,108 patients). METHODS: Overall PI prevalence and HAPI prevalence were analyzed from the 2006-2019 IPUP survey database. Recent data for 2018-2019 PI prevalence are reported separately for medical-surgical, step-down, and critical care unit types. PI stages, anatomic locations, Braden score associated with HAPIs, and body mass index were analyzed. RESULTS: Overall PI prevalence and HAPI prevalence data declined between 2006 and 2019; however, the prevalence plateaued in the years 2015-2019. Data from 2018 to 2019 (N = 296,014) showed that 26,562 patients (8.97%) had at least one PI and 7631 (2.58%) had at least one HAPI. Patients cared for in medical-surgical inpatient care units had the lowest overall PI prevalence (7.78%) and HAPI prevalence (1.87%), while critical care patients had the highest overall PI prevalence (14.32%) and HAPI prevalence (5.85%). Critical care patients developed more severe PIs (stage 3,4, unstageable, and deep-tissue pressure injuries [DTPIs]), which were proportionally higher than those in the step-down or medical-surgical units. The sacrum/coccyx anatomic location had the highest overall PI prevalence and HAPI prevalence, except for DTPIs, which most common occurred on the heel. CONCLUSIONS: Overall and HAPI prevalence has plateaued 2015-2019. Prevalence of HAPIs, especially in critical care units, remain high. While medical advancements have improved survival rates among critically ill patients, survival may come with unintended consequences, including PI development.

Pressure Injuries in the Pediatric Population: Analysis of the 2008-2018 International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence Survey Data.

Pediatric pressure injuries continue to be a worldwide healthcare problem. Studying pediatric pressure injury point prevalence may provide more insight into the problem and drive prevention strategies for at-risk pediatric patients, a truly vulnerable population. This article reports 10 years of longitudinal pediatric pressure injury prevalence data and demographics from around the world.

Examining Prevalence and Risk Factors of Incontinence-Associated Dermatitis Using the International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence Survey.

PURPOSE: To evaluate prevalence and risk factors of incontinence-associated dermatitis (IAD). DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of 2016 International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence survey data. SUBJECTS AND SETTING: Adult patients who were in acute care, long-term acute care, long-term care, and rehabilitation facilities in the United States and Canada. METHODS: IAD prevalence was calculated among all patients surveyed, among the incontinent patients only, across multiple care settings, and by incontinence type. A logistic regression examined risk factors for IAD in the incontinent population. RESULTS: Nearly 1 in 5 incontinent patients had IAD documented. Incontinence-associated dermatitis prevalence in the entire patient population was 4.3% while incontinence prevalence was 18%. Of incontinent patients, prevalence of IAD ranged from 8.4% in long-term care facilities to 19% in acute care facilities. Facilities with higher rates of incontinence did not necessarily have higher prevalence of IAD. Incontinence-associated dermatitis prevalence by incontinence type ranged from 12% for patients with urinary incontinence to 26% for patients with fecal management systems. Regression results support the association of the following factors with an increased likelihood of IAD documented: all types of incontinence, fecal management systems, higher body weight, diminished mobility, additional linen layers, longer length of stay, and lower Braden Scale scores. CONCLUSIONS: Incontinence-associated dermatitis remains a concern in acute care settings. Risk factors associated with IAD were similar to risk factors previously reported for hospital-acquired pressure injuries, such as limited mobility, longer lengths of stay, and additional linen layers. By consistently documenting IAD as well as pressure injury prevalence, facilities may benchmark overall skin prevention models.

Predictors of superficial and severe hospital-acquired pressure injuries: A cross-sectional study using the International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence™ survey.

BACKGROUND: Prevalence of hospital-acquired pressure injuries has declined over time. However, it is unknown if this decline is consistent for different stages of pressure injuries. It is also unknown if risk factors differ between superficial (stage 1 and 2) and severe (stage 3, 4, deep tissue, and unstageable) pressure injuries. OBJECTIVE: To examine changes in prevalence of superficial and severe hospital-acquired pressure injuries from 2011 to 2016. To evaluate differences between risk factors associated with superficial versus severe hospital-acquired pressure injuries. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of the 2011-2016 International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence™ data. SETTING: Acute care hospitals in the USA. PARTICIPANTS: 216,626 patients had complete data. METHODS: Prevalence of all, superficial, and severe hospital-acquired pressure injuries was calculated annually from 2011 to 2016 and linear trendlines were generated. Two logistic regressions examined risk factors for superficial and severe hospital-acquired pressure injuries. RESULTS: Prevalence of superficial hospital-acquired pressure injuries declined significantly from 2011 to 2016. However, prevalence of severe pressure injuries did not show a reduction. Risk factors that significantly increased the risk of both superficial and severe pressure injuries were: increased age, male gender, unable to self-ambulate, all types of incontinence, additional linen layers, longer lengths of stay, and being in an intensive care unit. Body mass index (BMI) had a U-shaped relationship, where the likelihood of having either type of pressure injury was highest for low and high BMIs. CONCLUSIONS: A decline in superficial, but not severe, hospital-acquired pressure injuries suggests current prevention techniques might not adequately prevent severe pressure injuries. Generally, risk factors for superficial and severe pressure injuries were highly similar where all 14 of the risk factors were significant in both regression models. However, five risk factors in particular - ICU stay, presence of an ostomy, patient age, ambulatory status, and presence of a fecal management system - had substantially different effect sizes.

Prevalence and Analysis of Medical Device-Related Pressure Injuries: Results from the International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence Survey.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the prevalence and characteristics of medical device-related pressure injuries (MDR PIs) in a large, generalizable database. METHODS: This study is a retrospective analysis of the 2016 International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence data. Data were limited to US and Canadian facilities. Facilities included acute care, long-term care, rehabilitation, long-term acute care hospitals, and hospice. Analysis included 102,865 adult patients; 99,876 had complete data and were the focus of the analysis and are reported in the results below. RESULTS: The overall PI prevalence was 7.2% (n = 7189), and the facility-acquired prevalence was 3.1% (n = 3113). The prevalence of MDR PIs was 0.60% (n = 601), which included both mucosal and nonmucosal MDR PIs. In this study, 75% of MDR PIs were facility acquired, whereas non-MDR PIs were most commonly present on admission. Facility-acquired MDR PIs formed 3 days faster than facility-acquired non-MDR PIs (12 vs 15 days; P < .05). By stage, most MDR PIs were superficial (58% were Stage 1 or 2), 15% were deep-tissue PIs, and 22% were full-thickness PIs (Stage 3 or 4 or unstageable). The most common anatomic locations for MDR PIs were the ears (29%) and the feet (12%). The most common devices associated with MDR PIs were nasal oxygen tubes, 26%; other, 19%; cast/splints, 12%; and continuous positive airway pressure/bilevel positive airway pressure masks, 9%. CONCLUSIONS: Because MDR PIs form faster than non-MDR PIs, timely proactive assessment and prevention measures are critical. Most MDR PIs occurred at the face and head region, and the ears specifically. The most common devices linked with MDR PIs were oxygen tubing and masks, making assessment and prevention efforts critical for patients who require those devices.

The International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence™ Survey: 2006-2015: A 10-Year Pressure Injury Prevalence and Demographic Trend Analysis by Care Setting.

PURPOSE: Measurement of pressure injury (PI) prevalence allows benchmarking within and across facilities; the International Pressure Ulcer PrevalenceTM (IPUP) Survey includes a variety of care settings. The purpose of this study is to present 10 years of US prevalence and limited demographic data (2006-2015) by care setting. METHODS: Facilities volunteer to participate in the IPUP Survey. Internal clinical teams collect data during a predetermined 24-hour period that includes pressure injury prevalence, demographics, and other pertinent clinical information. Aggregate data was analyzed for this study. RESULTS: The sample for this study was 918,621 patients in the United States; data collection spanned 2006 to 2015. The overall prevalence (OP) of PI in all facilities declined from 13.5% (2006) to 9.3% (2015). Facility-acquired prevalence (FAP) declined from 6.2% (2006) to a range of 3.1% to 3.4% (2013-2015). Acute care OP was 13.3% in 2006 and declined to a range of 8.8% to 9.3% (2012-2015). Facility-acquired prevalence in acute care declined from 6.4% (2006) to 2.9% in 2015, with 2008-2009 showing the most aggressive decline. Long-term acute care (LTAC) had the highest OP at 32.9% in 2006; it declined to 28.8% in 2015. The LTAC-FAP was 9.0% in 2006; it declined to 5.6% in 2015. Recently, the long-term care (LTC) FAP rose from 3.8% in 2013 to 5.4% in 2015. The rehabilitation facility FAP was 2.6% to 2.8% over the last 3 years. Average patient age declined in all care settings with the exception of LTAC and LTC. Braden Scale risk scores remained constant and weight increased in all care settings with the exception of LTC. CONCLUSIONS: The OP and FAP in acute care and rehabilitation have declined significantly over this 10-year period. Analysis of OP and FAP in LTC and LTACs varied without any clear-cut directional trends. General facility demographic trends indicate that mean patient age has decreased, Braden Scale scores for pressure injury risk has remained constant, and weight has increased in most care settings.VIDEO ABSTRACT available for more insights from the authors (see Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/JWOCN/A37).

Pressure Ulcer Risk in the Incontinent Patient: Analysis of Incontinence and Hospital-Acquired Pressure Ulcers From the International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence™ Survey.

PURPOSE: To measure the prevalence of incontinence in the 2013-2014 International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence (IPUP) surveys and determine the relative risk of developing a facility-acquired pressure ulcers (FAPUs) by stage and by Braden Scale score groupings. DESIGN: The IPUP survey is an observational, cross-sectional cohort database designed to determine the frequency and severity of pressure ulcers in various populations. SUBJECTS AND SETTING: The survey includes acute care (91.4%), long-term acute care (1.7%), rehabilitation patients (1.7%) and long-term care residents (5.2%). Geographic distribution included 182,832 patients in the United States, 22,282 patients in Canada, and the rest of the world, primarily in Europe and the Middle East. METHODS: We analyzed data from the 2013 and 2014 IPUP surveys to better understand the relationship between incontinence and the frequency and severity of FAPUs. The IPUP survey is an annual voluntary survey of patients who are hospitalized or who reside in long-term care facilities. Data were collected over a 24-hour period within each participating facility. Data collection included limited demographics, presence and stage of pressure ulcers, and pressure ulcer risk assessment score (Braden Scale for Pressure Sore Risk, Braden Q, Norton, Waterlow, and others). In addition, data were collected on pertinent pressure ulcer risk factors including the number of linen layers, use of a pressure redistributing surface, adherence to repositioning schedule, and whether moisture management was provided in the last 24 hours. We aggregated data by urinary, urinary catheter, fecal, fecal management system, double (urinary and fecal), and ostomy incontinence category. If patients were managed by indwelling urinary catheter or fecal management systems, they were considered incontinent in this analysis. In order to analyze ulcers likely to be affected by incontinence, we defined a subset of ulcers as Relevant Pressure Ulcers, which are ulcers that are facility-acquired, non-device-related, and located in the pelvic region. RESULTS: We analyzed 176,689 patients based on data collected between 2013 and 2014. Slightly less than half (n = 83,800; 47%) of patients did not have incontinence, and 92,889 (53%) were deemed to be incontinent. The prevalence of pressure ulcers was 4.1% for continent patients and 16.3% for incontinent patients; the prevalence of FAPUs was 1.6% and 6.0%, respectively. The relative risk for PU development in incontinent patients was higher than predicted by the Braden Scale risk score. As wound severity increased, the odds ratios for pressure ulcer development for incontinent patients versus continent patients also increased, especially in patients with fecal incontinence. CONCLUSIONS: Incontinent patients had higher Braden Scale scores and higher overall and FAPU prevalence. Incontinence was associated with an increased risk for all pressure ulcers, but especially full-thickness injuries.

The effect of patient migration in bed on torso elevation.

BACKGROUND: Elevating the hospital head of bed (HOB) to at least 30° is recommended practice to reduce the risk of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in mechanically ventilated patients. However, this common practice prescribes the position of the bed and not of the patient, which could be significantly different. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this research was to determine the relationship between patient migration in bed and anatomic torso angle. METHODS: Ten healthy participants were positioned in a hospital bed that was raised from flat to 30° and 45° HOB elevations. Prior to bed movement, participants were aligned to different locations along the length of the bed to represent different amounts of migration. A motion capture system was used to measure torso angle and migration toward the foot of the bed. The relationship between torso angle and migration was estimated by linear regression. RESULTS: Patient migration resulted in lower torso angles for both 30° and 45° HOB articulations. A migration of 10 cm resulted in a loss of 9.1° and 13.0° of torso angle for HOB articulations of 30° and 45°, respectively (for 30° articulations: (Equation is included in full-text article.)= -0.91, R = .96; for 45° articulations: (Equation is included in full-text article.)= -1.30, R = .98). DISCUSSION: Migration toward the foot of the bed flattens the torso. To maintain a torso angle that is likely to protect against VAP, healthcare providers need to manage both HOB angle and migration. Protocols and equipment that minimize patient migration will help support effective clinical practice. Future research on patient migration, as it relates to VAP or other outcomes, should measure patient torso angle to allow accurate translation of the results to care practice.

A laboratory study examining the impact of linen use on low-air-loss support surface heat and water vapor transmission rates.

Layers of linens are frequently placed under patients to manage moisture and/or assist with positioning immobile patients, including persons placed on a therapeutic surface because they are at risk for developing pressure ulcers. Because skin microclimate is believed to affect pressure ulcer risk, some therapeutic surfaces are designed to manage skin temperature and humidity (microclimate management). The purpose of this study was to measure the effects of linens and underpads on a low-air-loss (LAL) surface's ability to disperse heat and evaporate moisture. Underpads and transfer sheet combinations (grouped by three common linen functions: immobility, moisture management, and immobility and moisture management) were tested using the sweating guarded hot plate method, which allows for the measurement of the evaporative capacity (g H2O/m2*hour) and the total rate of heat withdrawal (Watts/m2) associated with nine different linen configurations placed on the support surface. Total heat withdrawal and evaporative capacity of the LAL surface with a fitted sheet only was used for comparison (P <0.05) Compared with fitted sheet only, heat withdrawal was significantly reduced by five of eight combinations, and evaporative moisture reduction was significantly reduced by six of eight linen combinations (P <0.05). All combinations that included plastic-containing underpads significantly reduced the surface's ability to dissipate heat and evaporate moisture, and use of the maximum number of layers (nine) reduced heat withdrawal to the level of a static, nonLAL surface. The results of this study suggest that putting additional linens or underpads on LAL surfaces may adversely affect skin temperature and moisture, thereby reducing the pressure ulcer prevention potential of these surfaces. Additional studies to examine the effect of linens and underpads as well as microclimate management strategies on pressure ulcer risk are needed.

The effect of multiple layers of linens on surface interface pressure: results of a laboratory study.

Underpads and layers of linens are frequently placed under patients who are incontinent, have other moisture-related issues, and/or are immobile and cannot reposition independently. Many of these patients are also at risk for pressure ulcers and placed on pressure-redistribution surfaces. The purpose of this study was to measure the effects of linens and incontinence pads on interface pressure. Interface sacral pressures were measured (mm Hg) using a mannequinlike pelvic indenter that has pressure transducers integrated into the unit and is covered with a soft flesh-like elastomer. The indenter was loaded to simulate a median-weight male (80 kg/176 lb), and the testing was performed at head-of bed (HOB) angles of 0°, 30°, and 45°. Two different surfaces, a high performance low-air-loss support (LAL) surface and a standard foam support surface, were used and covered with a fitted sheet (FS) only or a combination of the FS and various incontinence pads and transfer sheets. Linen combinations typically used for relatively immobile patients (n = 4), moisture management (n = 4), and moisture management and immobility (n = 1) were tested, as was the heavy use of linens/pads (nine layers, n = 1). All combinations were tested 10 times at HOB angles of 0°, 30°, and 45°. The highest pressure observed was recorded (peak pressure). Ninety five percent (95%) confidence interval (CI) surrounding the mean of the 10 trials for each combination was calculated using the t-distribution; differences between means for all surface combinations were determined using one-way ANOVA with follow-up Fisher Hayter test. Results indicated that each incontinence pad, transfer sheet, or combination of linens significantly increased the mean peak sacral pressure when compared to a single FS on both the low-air-loss surface and the foam surface, regardless of the head-of-bed angle. The magnitude of peak sacral interface pressure increase for the LAL surface at 30° head-of-bed angle was 20% to 64% depending on the linen combination. At 30°, the foam surface showed increases 6% to 29% (P <0.0001) compared with a FS baseline. If linens were wet, peak interface sacral pressures were equivalent to or less than pressures measured on the same pads when measured dry. The presence of linens on both surface types adversely affected the pressure redistribution capabilities of the surfaces; added layers increased pressure proportionally. The effect on interface pressure from the linen layers was more pronounced on the LAL than the foam surface. The study results illustrate that significant increases in peak interface pressure occur in a laboratory setting when linen layers are added to pressure redistribution surfaces. Results also indicated wetting incontinence pads on a support surface did not significantly increase interface pressure. Although additional preclinical and clinical studies are needed to guide practice, excessive linen usage for patients on therapeutic support surfaces should be discouraged.

Air-fluidized therapy in patients with suspected deep tissue injury: a case series.

PURPOSE: The evolution of suspected deep tissue injuries from an initial purple bruise to a significant stage III or IV pressure ulcer may be rapid, even with optimal treatment. This case series describes our experience with air-fluidized therapy (AFT) placed upon discovery of suspected deep tissue injury (sDTI) in an acute care setting. CASES: Five patients with 10 sDTIs were placed on AFT within 12 hours of sDTI diagnosis and evaluated for an average of 9 days. Patients were included in the series if they met the height and weight range of the bed and presented with, or developed an sDTI. Standard wound care included the use of an ointment containing trypsin, Balsam of Peru, and castor oil (Vasolex; Stratus Pharmaceuticals Inc, Miami, Florida) applied directly to both intact skin and open areas comprising the sDTI. Patients were repositioned per standard hospital care. Although we were unable to prevent skin breakdown in every case, findings suggest that interventions resulted in a reduction in the magnitude of tissue loss, including prevention of stage III to IV pressure ulceration in all 5 patients. The cost of a 9-day length of stay on the AFT bed is estimated at less than $700 per patient, which is far less than the reported cost to treat a stage III/IV wound ($10,845 US per patient in 2009 dollars). CONCLUSION: Our experience described in these cases suggests that the use of AFT may be clinical and cost-effective for prevention of progression of sDTI in critically ill patients. Additional research in this area should be encouraged.

Estimates of evaporation rates from wounds for various dressing/support surface combinations.

The management of exudate is an essential aspect of wound care. The wound bed must remain moist to promote healing, but care must be taken to remove excess fluid to avoid maceration and subsequent breakdown of the periwound site, which could serve as a possible portal to infection. Excess fluid is typically absorbed into and/or evaporates through the wound dressing or may be managed by a powered vacuum-assisted closure device. Although the moisture vapor permeability has been studied for dressings, the rate of evaporation associated with wound's immediate treatment environment, or dressing/treatment surface interface, has not been addressed to date. It is essential for caregivers to have an understanding of how these 2 interventions work together in order to provide optimal care to the wound patient. The purpose of this study was to provide estimates of evaporative withdrawal rates for various wound dressings and therapeutic support surfaces.

Pressure ulcer prevention in high-risk postoperative cardiovascular patients.

BACKGROUND: Little has been published about how to prevent pressure ulcers in severely debilitated, immobile patients in intensive care units. OBJECTIVE: To present a possible prevention strategy for postoperative cardiovascular surgery patients at high risk for development of pressure ulcers. METHODS: Staff chose to implement air fluidized therapy beds, which provide maximal immersion and envelopment as a measure for preventing pressure ulcers in patients who (1) required vasopressors for at least 24 hours and (2) required mechanical ventilation for at least 24 hours postoperatively. RESULTS: Only 1 of 27 patients had a pressure ulcer develop while on the air fluidized therapy bed (February 2008 through August 2008), and that ulcer was only a stage I ulcer, compared with 40 ulcers in 25 patients before the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Patients spent a mean of 7.9 days on the mattress, and the cost of bed rental was approximately $18000, which was similar to the cost of treatment of 1 pressure ulcer in stage III or IV (about $40000) and was considered cost-effective.

Air-fluidized therapy: physical properties and clinical uses.

Since the late 1960s, air-fluidized therapy (AFT) has been effectively used to treat patients with pressure ulcers, burns, and many other clinical problems. Much of the demonstrated efficacy is believed to be associated with the unique fluid environment provided by AFT that is fundamentally different from the support provided by surfaces made up of conventional solid materials. Fluid support maximizes the envelopment of the body while significantly reducing shear, friction, and pressure, and mechanical stress applied to the skin and subcutaneous tissue. Additionally, the variable temperature airflow allows the microclimate to be controlled according to needs for both therapy and patient comfort. Clinical benefits of AFT include faster and more cost-effective healing of pressure ulcers, a decreased rate of hospitalizations and emergency room visits for long-term care pressure ulcer patients, decreased mortality of patients with extensive burns and inhalation injury and rapid healing and increased comfort in burn patients. The fluid support also results in a substantial decrease in the amount of caregiver effort required for repositioning patients and increased patient comfort in patients with multiple trauma and external fixation devices or deformities that require a conforming bed, and patients with cancer and bony metastasis. This article seeks to evaluate the physical differences in AFT over other mattress types and to review the published literature for this therapy modality.

The demographics of suspected deep tissue injury in the United States: an analysis of the International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence Survey 2006-2009.

OBJECTIVE: Suspected deep tissue injury (sDTI) was identified in 2001 and added as a staging definition by the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel in 2007. Clinical data on sDTI are sparse. This article reports the overall prevalence data and describes the demographics of subjects with sDTI from the International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence survey 2006-2009. METHODS: Participating healthcare facilities performed prevalence surveys in their facility during a pre-determined 24-hour period within a pre-selected 2- to 3-day window. All generated data was incorporated into the database, even if specific data fields were absent. RESULTS: Approximately 79,000 to 92,000 patients were surveyed each year from 2006 to 2009. The overall and nosocomial pressure ulcer (PrU) prevalence decreased by approximately 1% in 2009 (P < .001), after remaining fairly constant in the years 2006-2008. The proportion of ulcers identified as sDTI has increased 3 fold, to 9% of all observed ulcers in 2009 and is more prevalent than either Stage III or IV ulcers. Over the same period, the proportion of Stage I and II ulcers have decreased, and the proportion of Stage III and IV ulcers has remained nearly constant. Patients with sDTIs are older than patients with Stage III, IV, and Unstageable ulcers. The anatomic location of sDTIs are more commonly found at the heel (41%), the sacrum (19%), or the buttocks (13%). Compared with other staged ulcers, sDTIs are significantly more prevalent at the heel (P < .001) and the ankle and foot (P < .001) and less prevalent at the sacrum and coccyx (P < .001) and at the buttocks and ischial tuberosities (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The survey data indicate that a decrease in overall prevalence of PrUs, as well as hospital-acquired PrUs, may have occurred in 2009. Suspected deep tissue injuries have become more commonly identified, which may be secondary to education of staging definitions.

Results of the 2008-2009 International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence Survey and a 3-year, acute care, unit-specific analysis.

The National Quality Forum has identified a pressure ulcer as a hospital-acquired condition (HAC) that is high-cost and high-volume and may be preventable with implementation of evidence-based guidelines. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services no longer reimburses acute care facilities for the ancillary cost of facility-acquired (FA) ulcers. Benchmarking patient safety indicators, such as FA, may help facilities reduce pressure ulcer rates. The purpose of this observational, cross-sectional cohort study was to report the International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence Survey (IPUP) in the United States in 2008 and 2009. In addition, previously collected data (2006/2007) were used to evaluate and report general and unit-specific prevalence rates in acute care facilities. The overall prevalence and FA pressure ulcer rates were 13.5% and 6% (2008, N = 90,398) and 12.3 and 5% (2009, N = 92,408), respectively. In 2008 and 2009, overall prevalence rates were highest in long-term acute care (22%). FA rates were highest in adult intensive care units (ICUs) and ranged from 9.2% (general cardiac care unit [CCU]) to 12.1% (medical ICU) in 2008 and from 8.8% (general CCU) to 10.3% (surgical ICU) in 2009. In 2009, 3.3% of ICU patients developed severe FA ulcers (Stage III, Stage IV, eschar/unable to stage, or deep tissue injury). In 2009, approximately 10% (n = 1,631) of all ulcers were described as device-related. The most common anatomic locations for device-related ulcers were the ear (20%) and sacral/coccyx region (17%). Both the overall and FA pressure ulcer prevalence rates were lower in 2008 and 2009 than in 2006 and 2007. Results indicate that, although overall prevalence trends are encouraging, there is a stark contrast from the desired state, especially in adult ICUs.

Body mass index, weight, and pressure ulcer prevalence: an analysis of the 2006-2007 International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence Surveys.

To assess the relationships among pressure ulcer prevalence, body mass index (BMI), and weight, this report analyzed the US data from the 2006 and 2007 International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence Surveys. Findings indicated an overall reduction in pressure ulcer prevalence from 2004 and 2005 to 2006 and 2007; there was a higher prevalence of pressure ulcers in patients with low BMI and patients with both low and high weights. One in 10 patients were extremely obese.

The effect of using a low-air-loss surface on the skin integrity of obese patients: results of a pilot study.

Obese patients often are immobile, acutely ill, and at high risk for developing pressure ulcers when admitted to acute care facilities. Pressure-relieving mattresses are an integral part of a pressure ulcer prevention plan of care. Patients with a body mass index (BMI) >35, weight between 250 and 500 lb, and a minimum 3-day length of stay were recruited to participate in a pilot study to evaluate the safety and use of a new low-air-loss, continuous lateral rotation bariatric bed. Skin inspection was performed at the beginning and end of the study (maximum 7 days). Participants included 21 consecutively admitted patients (10 men, 11 women, average age 51.7 years [range 32 to 76], average BMI = 51.4 [range 37 to 71]) with an average Braden pressure ulcer risk score of 14.7 (range 9 to 21). Most (n = 11) were receiving treatment in the intensive care unit. Six patients had 10 pressure ulcers (six Stage I, four Stage II). Average length of stay on the surface was 4.8 days (range: 2 to 8 days); ulcers decreased from an average size of 5.2 cm2 to 2.6 cm2. No new pressure ulcers developed. Controlled clinical studies to assess the efficacy of pressure redistribution mattresses in this high-risk population are needed.