7 research outputs found

    Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

    Get PDF
    Funder: European Society of Intensive Care Medicine; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100013347Funder: Flemish Society for Critical Care NursesAbstract: Purpose: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients are particularly susceptible to developing pressure injuries. Epidemiologic data is however unavailable. We aimed to provide an international picture of the extent of pressure injuries and factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries in adult ICU patients. Methods: International 1-day point-prevalence study; follow-up for outcome assessment until hospital discharge (maximum 12 weeks). Factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injury and hospital mortality were assessed by generalised linear mixed-effects regression analysis. Results: Data from 13,254 patients in 1117 ICUs (90 countries) revealed 6747 pressure injuries; 3997 (59.2%) were ICU-acquired. Overall prevalence was 26.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25.9–27.3). ICU-acquired prevalence was 16.2% (95% CI 15.6–16.8). Sacrum (37%) and heels (19.5%) were most affected. Factors independently associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries were older age, male sex, being underweight, emergency surgery, higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, Braden score 3 days, comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, immunodeficiency), organ support (renal replacement, mechanical ventilation on ICU admission), and being in a low or lower-middle income-economy. Gradually increasing associations with mortality were identified for increasing severity of pressure injury: stage I (odds ratio [OR] 1.5; 95% CI 1.2–1.8), stage II (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4–1.9), and stage III or worse (OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.3–3.3). Conclusion: Pressure injuries are common in adult ICU patients. ICU-acquired pressure injuries are associated with mainly intrinsic factors and mortality. Optimal care standards, increased awareness, appropriate resource allocation, and further research into optimal prevention are pivotal to tackle this important patient safety threat

    A psychometric study of an executive function assessment instrument (TDI-FE)

    No full text
    Abstract Background This study aims to present and discuss the psychometric properties of executive functions, which were measured using the TDI-FE instrument. The analysis encompasses its internal structure, potential sensitivity to fatigue factors, relationships with external criteria, and diagnostic accuracy. Methods The study sample comprised 382 students from Brazil, aged 6–8 years. Child development variables were screened using the TDI-FE and gold standard tests (Cancellation Attention and Trail Making Tests). The proposed scale comprised four activities: a test with fruit images with three tasks, and one memory game. Results The one-factor model of EF of the TDI-FE failed to fit to the data. However, fit substantially improved once a latent fatigue factor was controlled in the model. The latent factor of EF assessed by the TDI-FE tasks was coherently associated with a series of external variables, including two popular collateral measures of EF. The diagnostic accuracy was reasonable, and a cut-off of 37 points produced 70% of sensitivity and 60% of specificity. Conclusion Results indicated that the TDI-FE demonstrated sound psychometric properties and diagnostic accuracy, then consisting of an efficient alternative for the assessment of EFs in early childhood education. The study also proved the need to control for response biases such as fatigue in the latent variable models of EF. The TDI-FE is notable because of its low cost and easy application, and it might fulfill a need for instruments for individuals from different contexts at this stage of development in Brazil

    Correction to: Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study (Intensive Care Medicine, (2021), 47, 2, (160-169), 10.1007/s00134-020-06234-9)

    No full text
    The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake. The members of the ESICM Trials Group Collaborators were not shown in the article but only in the ESM. The full list of collaborators is shown below. The original article has been corrected
    corecore