Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers: Quick Reference Guide

Aviso de responsabilidade: Este guia de consulta rápida foi desenvolvido pelo National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, pelo European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel e pela Pan Pacific Pressure Injury Alliance. Apresenta uma análise e avaliação abrangentes da melhor evidência disponível no momento da pesquisa da literatura relacionada com avaliação, diagnóstico, prevenção e tratamento das úlceras por pressão. As presentes recomendações apresentam orientações gerais para uma prática clínica adequada e devem ser implementadas por profissionais de saúde qualificados e sujeitas ao seu juízo clínico de cada situação tendo em conta as preferências individuais de cada doente e os recursos disponíveis. O guia deve ser implementado de forma culturalmente consciente e respeitosa de acordo com os princípios de proteção, participação e parceria.Prefácio: Este Guia de Consulta Rápida sumariza as recomendações e os excertos da evidência disponível sobre a prevenção e o tratamento das úlceras por pressão. A versão mais abrangente, Diretrizes da Prática Clínica, fornece uma análise detalhada e discussão da investigação existente, uma avaliação crítica dos pressupostos e conhecimentos da área e uma descrição da metodologia utilizada no desenvolvimento das diretrizes. Este Guia de Consulta Rápida destina-se a profissionais de saúde ocupados que necessitam de efetuar uma consulta rápida para prestarem cuidados em ambientes clínicos. Os utilizadores não devem usar excertos do Guia de Consulta Rápida de forma isolada. A primeira edição deste Guia foi desenvolvida ao longo de quatro anos de colaboração entre o National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (NPUAP) e o European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (EPUAP). Nesta segunda edição do Guia, a Pan Pacific Pressure Injury Alliance (PPPIA) juntou-se ao NPUAP e ao EPUAP. O objetivo desta colaboração internacional foi o de desenvolver recomendações baseadas em evidência para a prevenção e tratamento das úlceras por pressão que possam ser usadas por profissionais de saúde em todo o mundo. Foi utilizada uma metodologia científica específica para identificar e avaliar de forma crítica a investigação disponível. Na ausência de evidência definitiva, recorreu-se à opinião de peritos (muitas vezes fundamentada em evidência indireta e outras diretrizes) com vista à formulação de recomendações. As versões preliminares das recomendações e a evidência disponível foram disponibilizadas a 986 stakeholders convidados (pessoas individuais e organizações) em todo o mundo. A versão final do Guia baseia-se na investigação existente e na sabedoria acumulada do NPUAP, do EPUAP, da PPPIA e de parceiros internacionais. Nesta edição do Guia, a força de cada recomendação foi avaliada através de um processo de votação consensual (GRADE). A força da recomendação identifica a importância da recomendação com base no respetivo potencial para melhorar os resultados dos doentes. Indica também ao profissional de saúde o grau de confiança que poderá ter na recomendação para saber se esta será mais benéfica do que prejudicial. Pode ainda ser utilizada para auxiliar na priorização de intervenções relacionadas com úlceras por pressão.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Finite Element Analysis to model ischemia experienced in the development of device related pressure ulcers.

Pressure ulcers are a common occurrence of damage to skin. Severity ranges from slightly discoloured skin to full thickness tissue damage which can be fatal in some cases. Engineering effort, typically developing computational models had made significant progress in the understanding and demonstration of the formation mechanism of pressure ulcers with the aetiology of excessive stress however relatively limited attempts had been made to develop relevant models for pressure ulcers caused by ischemia. The aim of this paper is to present evidence of a computational model developed to simulate ischemic pressure ulcer formation and demonstrate the established relationship between the computational data and the acquired clinically relevant experimental data by utilising laser Doppler velocimetry. The application of the presented computational model and the established relationship allows the evaluation of the effect of a mechanical loading to the cutaneous blood flow velocity which is a step closing to understand and evaluate a mechanical load to the formation of pressure ulcers caused by ischemia

The impact of hoist sling materials on interface pressure whilst sitting in healthy volunteers and wheelchair users : a comparative study

Aim of the study To evaluate the effect of three sling fabrics on gluteal interface pressure whilst sitting in a population of wheelchair users and to compare these to data previously collected in a pilot study with a healthy population. Materials and methods A repeated measures experimental design was used with 32 adult wheelchair users (15 women, 17 men). Healthy population pilot study consisted of 61 participants (51 women, 10 men) recruited from staff and students at The University of Salford. Methods Gluteal pressures at six pressure zones were recorded using the X-sensor PX100 pressure sensor at 30 second intervals for 10 minutes. Data were collected in 4 conditions with participants seated in a standardised chair, followed by the chair with slings made of three different fabrics. Results The spacer fabric reduced the mean gluteal pressure more effectively than slipfit and polyester (p=0.014 and p=0.01 respectively, 95%CI) and reduced peak pressure at the left ischial tuberosity and coccyx when compared to the slipfit (p=0.003 and p=0.005) with the wheelchair users. When comparing data with the pilot study, the mean gluteal pressure and peak pressures at the ischial tuberosities and coccyx were significantly higher in the wheelchair user group (p<0.005). Conclusion The fabric identified as the most effective in reducing mean and peak pressures in both groups was the spacer fabric, suggesting that a spacer fabric sling is more likely to reduce the risk of pressure ulcer development. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors

EPUAP classification system for pressure ulcers: European reliability study

‘The definitive version is available at www3.interscience.wiley.com .' Copyright Blackwell PublishingPeer reviewe

Initial psychometric testing and validation of the Patient Participation in Pressure Injury Prevention scale

Aims: The aim of this study was to develop the Patient Participation in Pressure Injury Prevention (PPPIP) scale and undertake initial testing of some of its psychometric properties. Background: Clinical practice guidelines recommend patient involvement in pressure injury prevention. There is some evidence that patients are willing to participate in this activity but there are currently no instruments to measure this participation. Design: This methodological study used data collected as part of a cluster randomised trial to modify and test the PPPIP scale. Methods: A sample of 688 of patients with complete PPPIP scale data was used. A stratified random subsample, (Subsample A) was created and the remainder became Subsample B. Item analysis, exploratory factor analysis and Cronbach’s alpha reliability were undertaken in Subsample A. Confirmatory factor analysis and Cronbach’s alpha reliability were undertaken in Subsample B. Data collection occurred between June, 2014 and May, 2015. Results: In Subsample A (n = 320), inter-item correlations, item total correlations met the acceptance criteria and an exploratory factor analysis identified a one factor solution. In subsample B (n = 368) the confirmatory factor analysis supported this one factor. In both subsamples the Cronbach’s alpha was 0.86. Conclusion: This study provides preliminary evidence of acceptable reliability and validity of the PPPIP scale in two subsamples of hospitalised patients who have limited mobility. It may be used in research and quality improvement activities. As a better conceptual understanding of patient participation emerges, the PPPIP scale may require refinement

TEAM-UP for quality: a cluster randomized controlled trial protocol focused on preventing pressure ulcers through repositioning frequency and precipitating factors

Background: Pressure ulcers/injuries (PrUs), a critical concern for nursing homes (NH), are responsible for chronic wounds, amputations, septic infections, and premature deaths. PrUs occur most commonly in older adults and NH residence is a risk factor for their development, with at least one of every nine U.S. NH residents experiencing a PrU and many NHs having high incidence and prevalence rates, in some instances well over 20%. PrU direct treatment costs are greater than prevention costs, making prevention-focused protocols critical. Current PrU prevention protocols recommend repositioning residents at moderate, high, and severe risk every 2 h. The advent of visco- elastic (VE) high-density foam support-surfaces over the past decade may now make it possible to extend the repositioning interval to every 3 or 4 h without increasing PrU development. The TEAM-UP (Turn Everyone And Move for Ulcer Prevention) study aims to determine: 1) whether repositioning interval can be extended for NH residents without compromising PrU incidence and 2) how changes in medical severity interact with changes in risk level and repositioning schedule to predict PrU development. Methods: In this proposed cluster randomized study, 9 NHs will be randomly assigned to one of three repositioning intervals (2, 3, or 4 h) for a 4-week period. Each enrolled site will use a single NH-wide repositioning interval as the standard of care for residents at low, moderate, and high risk of PrU development (N = 951) meeting the following criteria: minimum 3-day stay, without PrUs, no adhesive allergy, and using VE support surfaces (mattresses). An FDA-cleared patient monitoring system that records position/movement of these residents via individual wireless sensors will be used to visually cue staff when residents need repositioning and document compliance with repositioning protocols. Discussion: This study will advance knowledge about repositioning frequency and clinically assessed PrU risk level in relation to PrU incidence and medical severity. Outcomes of this research will contribute to future guidelines for more precise preventive nursing practices and refinement of PrU prevention guidelines. Trial registration: Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02996331

Risk factors for pressure injury development in critically ill patients in the intensive care unit: a systematic review protocol

BACKGROUND: Pressure injuries (PIs) create a significant burden in the health care system. Up to 49% of critically ill patients develop PIs. Identifying and understanding potential risk factors is essential to the provision of effective targeted prevention strategies to mitigate risk. The objectives of this review are to identify patient-centred clinical factors that may be associated with PI development in the adult intensive care environment and to determine the effect size of the relationship between identified factors and PI development in this unique population. METHOD/DESIGN: The review will follow the PRISMA reporting guidelines for systematic reviews. Electronic databases (Cochrane; PubMed/MEDLINE; CINAHL (EBSCOhost); Embase; Scopus; PsycINFO; Proquest; Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations; Australian Digital Theses Program, Grey literature, Google scholar, and Clinical Trial Registries) will be systematically searched. A suite of search terms will identify articles that have examined the patient-centred risk factors for PI development in adult intensive care units. The search strategy will be designed to retrieve studies published since inception to 2016 in English language. Quality of the studies will be assessed by using an assessment framework designed to appraise quality in prognostic studies and methodological considerations in the analysis and publication of observational studies. Screening, study selection process, and data extraction will be undertaken by two independent reviewers. Disagreement will be resolved by discussion and, if required, a third independent reviewer. Clinical and methodological heterogeneity across studies will be assessed and, if possible, meta-analyses will be performed. DISCUSSION: The evidence synthesis arising from this review will identify person-centred risk factors that are associated with PI development among critically ill patients in intensive care. Findings from this review will demonstrate potential patient risk factors that may influence practice and research priorities to prevent PI development and improve the quality of care provided. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016037690 ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-017-0451-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users