The impact of pressure ulcer risk assessment on patient outcomes among hospitalised patients. Clinical utility and cost-effectiveness of an air suspension bed in the prevention of pressure ulcers. Profiling beds versus standard hospital beds: effects on pressure ulcer incidence outcomes. Using telehealth interventions to prevent pressure ulcers in newly injured spinal cord injury patients post-discharge. Results from a pilot study. Randomised controlled trial of two pressure-relieving systems. Pressure ulcer prevention in intensive care - a randomised control trial of two pressure-relieving devices. Effectiveness of an alternating pressure air mattress for the prevention of pressure ulcers. A comparative study of an alternating air mattress for the prevention of pressure ulcers in surgical patients. Randomized comparison trial of the RIK and the Nimbus 3 mattresses.
To determine whether use of a risk assessment scale reduces nosocomial pressure ulcers.
                There is contradictory evidence concerning the validity of risk assessment scales. The interaction of education, clinical judgement and use of risk assessment scales has not been fully explored. It is not known which of these is most important, nor whether combining them results in better patient care.
                Pretest-posttest comparison.
                A risk assessment scale namely the Braden was implemented in a group of wards after appropriate education and training of staff in addition to mandatory wound care study days. Another group of staff received the same education programme but did not implement the risk assessment scale and a third group carried on with mandatory study days only.
                Nosocomial Pressure Ulcer was reduced in all three groups, but the group that implemented the risk assessment scale showed no significant additional improvement. Allowing for age, gender, medical speciality, level of risk and other factors did not explain this lack of improvement. Clinical judgement seemed to be used by nurses to identify patients at high risk to implement appropriate risk reduction strategies such as use of pressure relieving beds. Clinical judgement was not significantly different from the risk assessment scale score in terms of risk evaluation.
                It is questioned whether the routine use of a risk assessment scale is useful in reducing nosocomial pressure ulcer. It is suggested clinical judgement is as effective as a risk assessment scale in terms of assessing risk (though neither show good sensitivity and specificity) and determining appropriate care.
                Clinical judgement may be as effective as employing a risk assessment scale to assess the risk of pressure ulcers. If this were true it would be simpler and release nursing time for other tasks. To determine, in critically ill patients at risk, both the clinical utility and cost-effectiveness of using an air suspension bed in the prevention of pressure ulcers.
                Randomized, parallel group, controlled clinical trial with accompanying cost-effectiveness analysis.
                30-bed multidisciplinary intensive care unit.
                100 consecutive patients at risk for the development of pressure ulcers randomly assigned to receive treatment on either an air suspension bed or a standard intensive care unit bed. Patients considered at risk were those at least 17 years of age with an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score greater than 15 who had an expected intensive care unit stay of at least 3 days.
                The development of pressure ulcers by site and severity and the costs associated with each of the two programs.
                The air suspension bed was associated with fewer patients developing single, multiple, or severe pressure ulcers. In patients at risk, the use of an air suspension bed in the prevention of pressure ulcers was a cost-effective therapy.
                Despite intense nursing care, pressure ulcers are more prevalent in the critically ill patient population than in the general hospital population. Air suspension therapy provides a clinically effective means of preventing pressure ulcers in these patients. In patients at risk, air suspension therapy was a cost-effective means of managing pressure ulcers compared with the standard hospital bed. Most standard hospital beds are flat based with a pull-out backrest, resulting in a tendency for the patient to slide down the bed. This study aimed to compare the outcome for patients at high risk of developing pressure ulcers nursed on either this type of bed or an electrically operated, multi-sectioned profiling bed. A total of 100 patients were randomly assigned either to the profiling bed with a pressure-reducing foam mattress (experimental group) or a flat-based bed with an appropriate pressure-redistributing mattress (control group) for a maximum of 10 days. Risk status and pressure damage were assessed daily. Both a patient and a nurse questionnaire were completed. Data from 70 patients who participated in the study for five days or more were included in the analysis. Pressure ulcer incidence was 0% in both groups. All patients (35) in the experimental group were able to maintain a sitting position compared with only 12/35 in the control group (p = 0.0001). While the questionnaire results suggest there were significant differences in postural control and ease of transfer between patients in the two groups, it was not possible to map this to pressure ulcer formation. Poor recruitment into the study was due to the 'blocking' of electric beds by heavily dependent patients who did not meet the inclusion criteria, precluding a significant result in terms of pressure ulcer outcomes. This nurse-led use of the profiling beds was examined alongside the main study to investigate why they were allocated in this way. To determine which of three approaches to care produces the lowest incidence of pressure ulcers, promotes the most effective care of sores that develop, and leads to the fewest hospitalizations in newly injured patients with spinal cord injury after discharge.
                Spinal cord injury patients (n = 12) were recruited for a telehealth intervention after initial injury, and matched cases were recruited for telephone counseling and standard care groups. Patients were monitored for 6-8 months after discharge.
                The video group had the greatest number of reported and identified pressure ulcers. Differences in health care utilization between the video and telephone telehealth groups were small. The standard care group reported the lowest number of pressure ulcers and lowest frequency of health care utilization. Substantial differences existed in employment rates before and after injury. The video group had the lowest pre-injury rate of employment and the highest post-injury rate of employment.
                Tracking pressure ulcer incidence, particularly stage I sores, is difficult. Self-report is likely to lead to substantial underreporting. Similarly, self-report on health care utilization over extended periods may lead to undercounting of encounters. Telehealth interventions appear to improve ulcer tracking and management of all ulcer occurrences. Video interventions may affect outcomes, such as employment rates, which are not conventionally measured. The primary objective of this randomised controlled trial was to determine whether there were significant differences between two pressure-relieving systems. A secondary aim was to investigate whether the availability of extra pressure-relieving equipment would reduce the incidence of ulcers in an acute hospital setting. A total of 141 patients in a care-of-the-elderly unit, who were assessed to have a high risk of developing pressure ulcers using the Waterlow score, were recruited; 70 were nursed using Huntleigh Nimbus 3 in conjunction with the Aura cushion (Group A), and 71 using the Pegasus Cairwave Therapy System in conjunction with the Proactive 2 Seating cushion (Group B). The main outcome measure was visual assessment, supported by a photographic record. There were three main findings: for non-heel ulcers and overall improvement, there was no statistically significant difference between the two products tested; for heel ulcers there was a significant difference (P = 0.019) with more patients healing in Group A than in Group B. The average length of stay of patients who completed the trial was 21.6 days (Group A) and 21.7 days (Group B) for patients completing a live (range 1-121 days) and for patients who died 29.7 days (Group A) and 24.3 days (Group B). Routine monitoring showed that, before the trial, the incidence of hospital-acquired pressure ulcers (Torrance grade 2+) was 0.2%; during the trial, this dropped to 0.13%. The study showed differences in the efficacy of different mattress products; with a sufficiently large study, it is possible to demonstrate statistically significant results. Provision of extra pressure-relieving equipment can reduce the incidence of pressure ulcers but may not influence length of stay. Pressure sores are a potential complication of intensive care. Modern methods of pressure sore prevention centre around the use of pressure-relieving devices. Few studies exist that confirm the effectiveness of these devices. This study evaluates the effectiveness of two devices, the Hill-Rom Duo mattress and the KCI TheraPulse. High-risk patients were randomly assigned to receive one of two devices. We excluded those patients who had pressure sores upon admission. Those patients that did develop a pressure sore had their wound digitally photographed and graded by two independent tissue viability nurses. Sixty-two patients were included (30 TheraPulse, 32 Duo. Nine developed a pressure sore (6 Duo, 3 TheraPulse). No statistical differences between the two devices could be found. The longer a patient was nursed on a device, the greater the risk of pressure sore development. Despite the use of these devices, pressure sores can still develop in the Intensive Care patient population. studies of the effectiveness of alternating pressure air mattresses (APAMs) for the prevention of pressure ulcers are scarce and in conflict.
                evaluating whether an APAM is more or equally effective as the standard prevention.
                randomised controlled trial. Setting and subjects: patients admitted to 19 surgical, internal, or geriatric wards in seven Belgian hospitals were included if they were in need of prevention of pressure ulcers. To define this need, two methods were used randomly: the Braden Scale or the presence of non-blanchable erythema (NBE).
                447 patients were randomised into either an experimental or a control group. In the experimental group, 222 patients were lying on an APAM (Alpha-X-Cell, Huntleigh Healthcare, UK). In the control group, 225 patients were lying on a visco-elastic foam mattress (Tempur, Tempur-World Inc., USA) in combination with turning every 4 hours. Both groups had identical sitting protocols.
                there was no significant difference in incidence of pressure ulcers (grade 2-4) between the experimental (15.6%) and control group (15.3%) (P = 1). There were significantly more heel pressure ulcers in the control group (P = 0.006). There was an interaction effect between the risk assessment method and preventive measures for the development of all pressure ulcers and sacral pressure ulcers.
                fewer patients developed heel pressure ulcers on an APAM. Patients identified as being in need of prevention based on the presence of NBE had a tendency to develop fewer pressure ulcers on an APAM. Patients identified as being in need of prevention, based on the Braden Scale, appeared to develop more sacral pressure ulcers on an APAM. Research indicates that 8.5% of all patients undergoing surgical procedures for more than 3 hours develop pressure ulcers. In some types of surgery, incidence rates in excess of 25% have been reported. An 11-month study was conducted on the safety and efficacy of an experimental alternating air device in comparison with a tertiary care facility's conventional practice. A series of 217 patients undergoing surgical procedures scheduled for a minimum of 3 hours were enrolled. No ulcers developed in the experimental group and 11 ulcers developed in seven patients in the control group (8.75% incidence rate). Of the 11 ulcers, one was Stage I, four were Stage II, and six were unstageable secondary to eschar. The difference between the groups is significant at the P = 0.005 level. Individuals who developed ulcers had a length of stay approximately 7 days longer than the hospital average for comparable patients who did not develop ulcers. A randomized comparison trial was carried out at Queen's Hospital, Burton-on-Trent, to compare patient outcomes on the RIK mattress (KCI) and the Nimbus 3 mattress (Huntleigh Healthcare). One hundred and fifty-eight patients, who were assessed to be at particular risk of development of pressure ulcers using the Waterlow score (85 on RIK mattress, 83 on Nimbus), completed the trial. There were no statistically significant differences in baseline parameters at recruitment or pressure ulcer progress. Lack of difference can be as useful as evidence of superiority. Other factors such as nursing interventions required accessible equipment, and costs are important when making equipment choices. For a significant proportion of patients, a static (RIK) mattress can be as effective as an active (Nimbus 3) mattress for management of pressure ulcers.
One small RCT was identified which evaluated the effect of risk assessment on patient outcomes; there was no statistically significant difference in pressure ulcer incidence between patients who were assessed using structured risk assessment compared with those receiving unstructured risk assessment. Methodological limitations of this study prevent firm conclusions regarding whether the use of structured, systematic pressure ulcer risk assessment tools, in any healthcare setting, reduces the incidence of pressure ulcers. The effect of structured risk assessment tools on pressure ulcer incidence needs to be evaluated.