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
22 Reads
  • [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
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study sought to establish if nurses at a community hospital could correctly identify patients at high risk for skin breakdown and determine whether the resources needed to reposition high-risk patients per protocol were available. The sample comprised 101 registered nurses from 8 acute care units in a 246-bed community-owned district Magnet® hospital. The study facility serves patients from a wide geographic area in the "panhandle" of Idaho with a largely rural population. Face-to-face interviews were conducted on all shifts for 4 days. The instrument consisted of demographic questions and patient assignment questions including which patients the nurse identified at high risk for skin breakdown, which patients the nurse received information on about skin risks at change of shift, whether the nurse knew the Norton Pressure Ulcer Scale scores for their patients, whether patients were repositioned, who performed the repositioning, and how many times that shift. Surveyors obtained patients' Norton scores from computer records and recorded whether the nurse correctly identified patients at high-risk for skin breakdown. Most nurses (73%) stated they did not know their patients' Norton scores. About 60% of nurses reported turning their high-risk patients every 2 to 4 hours. The repositioning was completed most often by RNs alone (39%), RN and CNA (36%), and by patients themselves (35%). Reasons for not repositioning included the following: allowed to sleep, off unit, patient refused, not enough time, family refused, pain, not enough help, and patient receiving end-of-life care. Assessment of patient's skin risk status was correct in 232 out of 348 patients (66%). Nurses predicted high risk when the Norton score indicated low risk in 35.9% of patients and low risk when the Norton scale indicated high risk in 35.1%. Nurses reported receiving information about skin risk in 33% of their assigned patients. Nurses reported adequate resources to reposition patients. Most were not aware of their patients' Norton scores and were found to have poor accuracy when identifying patients' risk status.
    Journal of wound, ostomy, and continence nursing: official publication of The Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nurses Society / WOCN 01/2011; 38(4):413-8. DOI:10.1097/WON.0b013e318220b6ec · 1.18 Impact Factor
Show more