8 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

    Developing an international standard set of patient-reported outcome measures for psychotic disorders

    Get PDF
    Objective: The objective of this project was to develop a set of patient-reported outcome measures for adolescents and adults who meet criteria for a psychotic disorder. Methods: A research team and an international consensus working group, including service users, clinicians, and researchers, worked together in an iterative process by using a modified Delphi consensus technique that included videoconferencing calls, online surveys, and focus groups. The research team conducted systematic literature searches to identify outcomes, outcome measures, and risk adjustment factors. After identifying outcomes important to service users, the consensus working group selected outcome measures, risk adjustment factors, and the final set of outcome measures. International stakeholder groups consisting of >100 professionals and service users reviewed and commented on the final set. Results: The consensus working group identified four outcome domains: symptoms, recovery, functioning, and treatment. The domains encompassed 14 outcomes of importance to service users. The research team identified 131 measures from the literature. The consensus working group selected nine measures in an outcome set that takes approximately 35 minutes to complete. Conclusions: A set of patient-reported outcome measures for use in routine clinical practice was identified. The set is free to service users, is available in at least two languages, and reflects outcomes important to users. Clinicians can use the set to improve clinical decision making, and administrators and researchers can use it to learn from comparing program outcomes

    International consensus on patient-centred outcomes in eating disorders

    No full text
    The effectiveness of mental health care can be improved through coordinated and wide-scale outcome measurement. The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) has produced collaborative sets of outcome measures for various mental health conditions, but no universal guideline yet exists for eating disorders (EDs). This position paper presents a set of outcomes and measures for EDs as determined by 24 international experts from professional and lived experience backgrounds. An adapted Delphi technique was used, and provisional results were validated through an open review survey (n=207). Final recommendations suggest tracking outcomes across four domains: ED behaviours/cognitions, physical health, co-occurring mental health conditions and quality of life/social functioning. These outcomes are captured across three to five patient reported measures per individual. For children, the measures include the Children’s Eating Attitude Test (or for those with ARFID, the Eating Disorder in Youth Questionnaire), the KIDSCREEN-10, and the Revised Children’s Anxiety and Depression Screener-25. For adults, this includes the Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (or for ARFID, the Nine-item ARFID Screener), the Patient Health Questionnaire-2/9, the Generalised Anxiety Disorder-2/7, the Clinical Impairment Assessment, and the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0-12. These questionnaires should be supplemented by information on patient characteristics and circumstances that may impact outcomes (i.e., demographic, historical, and clinical factors, including comorbidities). Adoption of these guidelines on a wide scale will allow comparison of research and clinical intervention so the field can better determine which settings and interventions work best and for whom.SAMHSA -Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration(POCI-01-0145-FEDER-028145

    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