Pressure Ulcer Preventive Device Use Among Elderly Patients Early in the Hospital Stay

Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Maryland, 660 West Redwood Street, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA.
Nursing research (Impact Factor: 1.36). 03/2009; 58(2):95-104. DOI: 10.1097/NNR.0b013e31818fce8e
Source: PubMed


Clinical guidelines for the prevention of pressure ulcers advise that pressure-reducing devices should be used for all patients at risk of or with pressure ulcers and that all pressure ulcers should be documented in the patient record. Adherence to these guidelines among elderly hospital patients early in the hospital stay has not been examined in prior studies.
The objective of this study was to examine adherence to guidelines by determining the frequency and correlates of use of preventive devices early in the hospital stay of elderly patients and by determining the frequency and correlates of recording pressure ulcers in the patient record.
This was a cross-sectional study of 792 patients aged 65 years or older admitted through the emergency department to the inpatient medical service at two teaching hospitals in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, between 1998 and 2001. Patients were examined by a research nurse on Hospital Day 3 (median of 48 hours after admission) to determine the use of preventive devices, presence of pressure ulcers, and risk of pressure ulcers (by Norton scale). Data on additional risk factors were obtained from the admission nursing assessment in the patient record. Data on documentation of pressure ulcers were obtained by chart abstraction.
Only 15% of patients had any preventive devices in use at the time of the examination. Among patients considered at risk of pressure ulcers (Norton score < or =14), only 51% had a preventive device. In multivariable analyses, high risk of pressure ulcers was associated with use of preventive devices (odds ratio = 41.8, 95% confidence interval = 14.0-124.6), whereas the type and stage of pressure ulcer were not. Documentation of a pressure ulcer was present for only 68% of patients who had a pressure ulcer according to the research examination.
Use of preventive devices and documentation of pressure ulcers are suboptimal even among patients at high risk.

Download full-text


Available from: David Joel Margolis, Apr 01, 2014
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: To provide the wound care practitioner with information about the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) pressure ulcer present-on-admission (POA) indicators. TARGET AUDIENCE: This continuing education activity is intended for physicians and nurses with an interest in skin and wound care. OBJECTIVES: After reading this article and taking this test, the reader should be able to: 1. Describe the history and rationale for the CMS financial incentives for pressure ulcer (PrU) prevention. 2. Identify the CMS Pressure Ulcer POA indicators and 2009 ICD-9 coding for PrU staging. 3. Discuss the implications of the new CMS reimbursement for PrUs on healthcare organization practices with examples of successful interventions for PrU reduction.
    Advances in skin & wound care 10/2009; 22(10):476-84. DOI:10.1097/01.ASW.0000361385.97489.51 · 1.11 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a pressure ulcer risk assessment for acute hospitals. This tool was developed in a cohort of 342 patients with a mean age 63 years (SD 19.82) and validated in a second cohort of 165 patients with a mean age 68 years (SD 18.40). Risk factors for inclusion on The Northern Hospital Pressure Ulcer Prevention Plan (TNH-PUPP) were identified from the literature then examined and weighted using logistic regression. Risk factors included on the TNH-PUPP were requires assistance to move in bed (odds ratio [OR] 5.15; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.49-10.65), admission to intensive care during current admission (OR 2.98; 95% CI: 1.33-6.67), aged ≥ 65 years (OR 2.81; 95% CI: 1.24-6.36), reduced sensation (OR 2.29; 95% CI: 1.19-4.42), and cognitive impairment (OR 2.26; 95% CI: 1.09-4.67). The TNH-PUPP was validated in a prospective sample. The new tool had high diagnostic validity (area under the receiver operating curve=0.86), consistent in the validation sample (area under the receiver operating curve=0.90). The TNH-PUPP has a moderate positive predictive value (development=0.50; validation=0.13), and a high negative predictive value (development=0.94; validation=0.99) enabling low-risk patients to be screened out, as noncandidates for pressure ulcer prevention interventions. An accurate pressure ulcer risk assessment has been developed and validated, which identifies a high-risk group to whom limited pressure ulcer prevention resources should be directed. The TNH-PUPP facilitates effective resource allocation and is likely to reduce unnecessary patient harm and costs from pressure ulcers in acute hospitals.
    Wound Repair and Regeneration 01/2011; 19(1):31-7. DOI:10.1111/j.1524-475X.2010.00647.x · 2.75 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Emergency nurses rescue patients from emergencies everyday through expert prioritization in a rapidly changing environment. After stabilization, the emergency nurse can focus attention on other risk factors that predispose the patient to unnecessary health care events. The demographics of patients visiting the emergency department have changed over the past 5 years, and the length of time spent in an emergency department has increased. A pressure ulcer can develop in several hours, depending upon risk factors and use of pressure ulcer prevention activities. The emergency nurse holds a key position in pressure ulcer prevention. However, the emergency nurse's role in preventing the development of a pressure ulcer warrants further delineation. This focused literature review intends to summarize and analyze pressure ulcer research pertinent to the emergency nurse as a starting point for developing emergency nurse pressure ulcer prevention guidelines.
    Advanced emergency nursing journal 04/2011; 33(2):155-62. DOI:10.1097/TME.0b013e3182157743
Show more