AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: This article establishes the prevalence of pressure ulcers in hospitals and nursing homes for national and international comparison. BACKGROUND: Although many European countries evaluate the prevalence of pressure ulcers, it has not recently been examined in German healthcare facilities. DESIGN: Descriptive study design, point prevalence survey in 2001 and 2002. A total of 11 584 patients and residents in 66 institutions throughout Germany took part in the study. METHODS: Prevalence rates were calculated for the different types of institutions, different years, different risk groups and different disciplines. All calculations were made by including as well as excluding pressure ulcer grade 1. The Braden scale (cut-off < or =20) was applied to define at risk and not at risk patients/residents. RESULTS: The prevalence including (excluding) grade 1 pressure ulcers was 11.7% (5.2%) for the whole sample, while in the group at risk it was 24.5% (11.5%). The size of the group at risk in the nursing homes was 63.9% and less than 40% in the hospitals. Comparisons between disciplines showed a great range of prevalence rates. The use of special surface devices for persons at risk was more common in nursing homes than in hospitals. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of pressure ulcers bears resemblance to results produced by other studies, but it is uncertain if these similarities are more than coincidental. Due to the influence of sampling the use of a standardized samples method is essential. For comparisons of groups with differences regarding their risk assessment it would be more appropriate to use the prevalence of patients and residents at risk. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The study provides accurate data about the extent of the problem of pressure ulcers in German healthcare facilities.
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: This article establishes the prevalence of pressure ulcers in hospitals and nursing homes for national and international comparison. BACKGROUND: Although many European countries evaluate the prevalence of pressure ulcers, it has not recently been examined in German healthcare facilities. DESIGN: Descriptive study design, point prevalence survey in 2001 and 2002. A total of 11 584 patients and residents in 66 institutions throughout Germany took part in the study. METHODS: Prevalence rates were calculated for the different types of institutions, different years, different risk groups and different disciplines. All calculations were made by including as well as excluding pressure ulcer grade 1. The Braden scale (cut-off < or =20) was applied to define at risk and not at risk patients/residents. RESULTS: The prevalence including (excluding) grade 1 pressure ulcers was 11.7% (5.2%) for the whole sample, while in the group at risk it was 24.5% (11.5%). The size of the group at risk in the nursing homes was 63.9% and less than 40% in the hospitals. Comparisons between disciplines showed a great range of prevalence rates. The use of special surface devices for persons at risk was more common in nursing homes than in hospitals. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of pressure ulcers bears resemblance to results produced by other studies, but it is uncertain if these similarities are more than coincidental. Due to the influence of sampling the use of a standardized samples method is essential. For comparisons of groups with differences regarding their risk assessment it would be more appropriate to use the prevalence of patients and residents at risk. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The study provides accurate data about the extent of the problem of pressure ulcers in German healthcare facilities.
Authors: Donna Z Bliss; Olga Gurvich; Kay Savik; Lynn E Eberly; Susan Harms; Christine Mueller; Judith Garrard; Kristen Cunanan; Kjerstie Wiltzen Journal: Arch Gerontol Geriatr Date: 2017-06-27 Impact factor: 3.250
Authors: Mona Baumgarten; David Margolis; Denise Orwig; William Hawkes; Shayna Rich; Patricia Langenberg; Michelle Shardell; Mary H Palmer; Patrick McArdle; Robert Sterling; Patricia S Jones; Jay Magaziner Journal: Gerontologist Date: 2009-07-08
Authors: Anna Lechner; Nils Lahmann; Andrea Lichterfeld-Kottner; Ursula Müller-Werdan; Ulrike Blume-Peytavi; Jan Kottner Journal: Nurs Open Date: 2018-09-27
Authors: María Dolores López-Franco; Laura Parra-Anguita; Inés María Comino-Sanz; Pedro L Pancorbo-Hidalgo Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-04-28 Impact factor: 3.390