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

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

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

The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake

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

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

Selecting a Dynamic Simulation Modeling Method for Health Care Delivery Research—Part 2: Report of the ISPOR Dynamic Simulation Modeling Emerging Good Practices Task Force

In a previous report, the ISPOR Task Force on Dynamic Simulation Modeling Applications in Health Care Delivery Research Emerging Good Practices introduced the fundamentals of dynamic simulation modeling and identified the types of health care delivery problems for which dynamic simulation modeling can be used more effectively than other modeling methods. The hierarchical relationship between the health care delivery system, providers, patients, and other stakeholders exhibits a level of complexity that ought to be captured using dynamic simulation modeling methods. As a tool to help researchers decide whether dynamic simulation modeling is an appropriate method for modeling the effects of an intervention on a health care system, we presented the System, Interactions, Multilevel, Understanding, Loops, Agents, Time, Emergence (SIMULATE) checklist consisting of eight elements. This report builds on the previous work, systematically comparing each of the three most commonly used dynamic simulation modeling methods—system dynamics, discrete-event simulation, and agent-based modeling. We review criteria for selecting the most suitable method depending on 1) the purpose—type of problem and research questions being investigated, 2) the object—scope of the model, and 3) the method to model the object to achieve the purpose. Finally, we provide guidance for emerging good practices for dynamic simulation modeling in the health sector, covering all aspects, from the engagement of decision makers in the model design through model maintenance and upkeep. We conclude by providing some recommendations about the application of these methods to add value to informed decision making, with an emphasis on stakeholder engagement, starting with the problem definition. Finally, we identify areas in which further methodological development will likely occur given the growing “volume, velocity and variety” and availability of “big data” to provide empirical evidence and techniques such as machine learning for parameter estimation in dynamic simulation models. Upon reviewing this report in addition to using the SIMULATE checklist, the readers should be able to identify whether dynamic simulation modeling methods are appropriate to address the problem at hand and to recognize the differences of these methods from those of other, more traditional modeling approaches such as Markov models and decision trees. This report provides an overview of these modeling methods and examples of health care system problems in which such methods have been useful. The primary aim of the report was to aid decisions as to whether these simulation methods are appropriate to address specific health systems problems. The report directs readers to other resources for further education on these individual modeling methods for system interventions in the emerging field of health care delivery science and implementation

Applying dynamic simulation modeling methods in health care delivery research - the SIMULATE checklist: Report of the ISPOR simulation modeling emerging good practices task force

Health care delivery systems are inherently complex, consisting of multiple tiers of interdependent subsystems and processes that are adaptive to changes in the environment and behave in a nonlinear fashion. Traditional health technology assessment and modeling methods often neglect the wider health system impacts that can be critical for achieving desired health system goals and are often of limited usefulness when applied to complex health systems. Researchers and health care decision makers can either underestimate or fail to consider the interactions among the people, processes, technology, and facility designs. Health care delivery system interventions need to incorporate the dynamics and complexities of the health care system context in which the intervention is delivered. This report provides an overview of common dynamic simulation modeling methods and examples of health care system interventions in which such methods could be useful. Three dynamic simulation modeling methods are presented to evaluate system interventions for health care delivery: system dynamics, discrete event simulation, and agent-based modeling. In contrast to conventional evaluations, a dynamic systems approach incorporates the complexity of the system and anticipates the upstream and downstream consequences of changes in complex health care delivery systems. This report assists researchers and decision makers in deciding whether these simulation methods are appropriate to address specific health system problems through an eight-point checklist referred to as the SIMULATE (System, Interactions, Multilevel, Understanding, Loops, Agents, Time, Emergence) tool. It is a primer for researchers and decision makers working in health care delivery and implementation sciences who face complex challenges in delivering effective and efficient care that can be addressed with system interventions. On reviewing this report, the readers should be able to identify whether these simulation modeling methods are appropriate to answer the problem they are addressing and to recognize the differences of these methods from other modeling approaches used typically in health technology assessment applications

Transforming Healthcare Delivery: Integrating Dynamic Simulation Modelling and Big Data in Health Economics and Outcomes Research

In the era of the Information Age and personalized medicine, healthcare delivery systems need to be efficient and patient-centred. The health system must be responsive to individual patient choices and preferences about their care, while considering the system consequences. While dynamic simulation modelling (DSM) and big data share characteristics, they present distinct and complementary value in healthcare. Big data and DSM are synergistic—big data offer support to enhance the application of dynamic models, but DSM also can greatly enhance the value conferred by big data. Big data can inform patient-centred care with its high velocity, volume, and variety (the three Vs) over traditional data analytics; however, big data are not sufficient to extract meaningful insights to inform approaches to improve healthcare delivery. DSM can serve as a natural bridge between the wealth of evidence offered by big data and informed decision making as a means of faster, deeper, more consistent learning from that evidence. We discuss the synergies between big data and DSM, practical considerations and challenges, and how integrating big data and DSM can be useful to decision makers to address complex, systemic health economics and outcomes questions and to transform healthcare delivery