Effect of Varying Repositioning Frequency on Pressure Injury Prevention in Nursing Home Residents: TEAM-UP Trial Results

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical effectiveness of three nursing-home-wide repositioning intervals (2-, 3-, or 4-hour) without compromising pressure injury (PrI) incidence in 4 weeks. METHODS: An embedded pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial was conducted in nine nursing homes (NHs) that were randomly assigned to one of three repositioning intervals. Baseline (12 months) and 4-week intervention data were provided during the TEAM-UP (Turn Everyone And Move for Ulcer Prevention) study. Intervention residents were without current PrIs, had PrI risk (Braden Scale score) ≥10 (not severe risk), and used viable 7-inch high-density foam mattresses. Each arm includes three NHs with an assigned single repositioning interval (2-, 3-, or 4-hour) as standard care during the intervention. A wireless patient monitoring system, using wearable single-use patient sensors, cued nursing staff by displaying resident repositioning needs on conveniently placed monitors. The primary outcome was PrI incidence; the secondary outcome was staff repositioning compliance fidelity. RESULTS: From May 2017 to October 2019, 1,100 residents from nine NHs were fitted with sensors; 108 of these were ineligible for some analyses because of missing baseline data. The effective sample size included 992 residents (mean age, 78 ± 13 years; 63% women). The PrI incidence during the intervention was 0.0% compared with 5.24% at baseline, even though intervention resident clinical risk scores were significantly higher (P < .001). Repositioning compliance for the 4-hour repositioning interval (95%) was significantly better than for the 2-hour (80%) or 3-hour (90%) intervals (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that current 2-hour protocols can be relaxed for many NH residents without compromising PrI prevention. A causal link was not established between repositioning interval treatments and PrI outcome; however, no new PrIs developed. Compliance improved as repositioning interval lengthened

Diffusing an Innovation: Clinician Perceptions of Continuous Predictive Analytics Monitoring in Intensive Care

Background The purpose of this article is to describe neonatal intensive care unit clinician perceptions of a continuous predictive analytics technology and how those perceptions influenced clinician adoption. Adopting and integrating new technology into care is notoriously slow and difficult; realizing expected gains remain a challenge. Methods Semistructured interviews from a cross-section of neonatal physicians (n ¼ 14) and nurses (n ¼ 8) from a single U.S. medical center were collected 18 months following the conclusion of the predictive monitoring technology randomized control trial. Following qualitative descriptive analysis, innovation attributes from Diffusion of Innovation Theory-guided thematic development. Results Results suggest that the combination of physical location as well as lack of integration into work flow or methods of using data in care decisionmaking may have delayed clinicians from routinely paying attention to the data. Once data were routinely collected, documented, and reported during patient rounds and patient handoffs, clinicians came to view data as another vital sign. Through clinicians’ observation of senior physicians and nurses, and ongoing dialogue about data trends and patient status, clinicians learned how to integrate these data in care decision making (e.g., differential diagnosis) and came to value the technology as beneficial to care delivery. Discussion The use of newly created predictive technologies that provide early warning of illness may require implementation strategies that acknowledge the risk–benefit of treatment cliniciansmust balance and take advantage of existing clinician trainingmethods

WHS Guidelines for the Treatment of Pressure Ulcers: 2023 Update

The major populations at risk for developing pressure ulcers are older adults who have multiple risk factors that increase their vulnerability, people who are critically ill and those with spinal cord injury/disease. The reported prevalence of pressure ulcers in the United States is 2.5 million. However, this estimate is derived from acute care facilities and does not include people who are living at home or in nursing facilities. Despite the implementation of hospital and facility-based preventive measures, the incidence of pressure ulcers has not decreased in decades. In addition to the burden of pain, infection and death, it is estimated that hospital-acquired pressure ulcers cost the health system $26.8 billion annually with over 50% of the cost attributed to treating Stage 3 and 4 pressure injuries. Thus, it is critical to examine the literature and develop guidelines that will improve the outcomes of this complex and costly condition. This guideline update is a compendium of the best available evidence for the treatment of Pressure Ulcers published since the last update in 2015 and includes a new section based on changing demographics entitled ‘Palliative wound care for seriously ill patients with pressure ulcers’. The overall goal of the Wound Healing Society Guideline project is to present clear, concise and commercial free guidelines that clinicians can use to guide care, that researchers can use to develop studies that will improve treatment and that both clinicians and researchers can use to understand the gaps in our knowledge base

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

Expanding global access to radiotherapy

Radiotherapy is a critical and inseparable component of comprehensive cancer treatment and care. For many of the most common cancers in low-income and middle-income countries, radiotherapy is essential for effective treatment. In high-income countries, radiotherapy is used in more than half of all cases of cancer to cure localised disease, palliate symptoms, and control disease in incurable cancers. Yet, in planning and building treatment capacity for cancer, radiotherapy is frequently the last resource to be considered. Consequently, worldwide access to radiotherapy is unacceptably low. We present a new body of evidence that quantifies the worldwide coverage of radiotherapy services by country. We show the shortfall in access to radiotherapy by country and globally for 2015-35 based on current and projected need, and show substantial health and economic benefits to investing in radiotherapy. The cost of scaling up radiotherapy in the nominal model in 2015-35 is US$26·6 billion in low-income countries,$62·6 billion in lower-middle-income countries, and $94·8 billion in upper-middle-income countries, which amounts to$184·0 billion across all low-income and middle-income countries. In the efficiency model the costs were lower: $14·1 billion in low-income,$33·3 billion in lower-middle-income, and $49·4 billion in upper-middle-income countries-a total of$96·8 billion. Scale-up of radiotherapy capacity in 2015-35 from current levels could lead to saving of 26·9 million life-years in low-income and middle-income countries over the lifetime of the patients who received treatment. The economic benefits of investment in radiotherapy are very substantial. Using the nominal cost model could produce a net benefit of $278·1 billion in 2015-35 ($265·2 million in low-income countries, $38·5 billion in lower-middle-income countries, and$239·3 billion in upper-middle-income countries). Investment in the efficiency model would produce in the same period an even greater total benefit of $365·4 billion ($12·8 billion in low-income countries, $67·7 billion in lower-middle-income countries, and$284·7 billion in upper-middle-income countries). The returns, by the human-capital approach, are projected to be less with the nominal cost model, amounting to $16·9 billion in 2015-35 (-$14·9 billion in low-income countries; -$18·7 billion in lower-middle-income countries, and$50·5 billion in upper-middle-income countries). The returns with the efficiency model were projected to be greater, however, amounting to $104·2 billion (-$2·4 billion in low-income countries, $10·7 billion in lower-middle-income countries, and$95·9 billion in upper-middle-income countries). Our results provide compelling evidence that investment in radiotherapy not only enables treatment of large numbers of cancer cases to save lives, but also brings positive economic benefits