J Stausberg1, K Kröger, I Maier, W Niebel, H Schneider. 1. Institut für Medizinische Informatik, Biometrie und Epidemiologie, Universitätsklinikum Essen, Hufelandstrasse 55, 45122 Essen. stausberg@uni-essen.de
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Pressure ulcer is a relevant issue for quality management and cost containment of hospitals. Cross-sectional studies are the typical design to estimate the frequency of pressure ulcers. The derived point prevalence rate is not as good for a case related reference value as the period prevalence rate. The interdisciplinary pressure ulcer project at the University Clinics in Essen combined a routine documentation with a cross-sectional survey, thus providing both measurements for the first time. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The routine and computer-based collection of information about pressure ulcers started in March 2003, using the patient administration system medico//s from Siemens. Findings are presented from 49,904 admissions, starting on 91/03/2004, discharged by 31/03/2004. The mean age was 48.7 +/- 22.4 years; 51.2 % were males, 48.8 % females. Additionally, a decubitus team examined patients from randomly selected wards each work-day. The real period prevalence rate was calculated using the observed period prevalence rate, the sensitivity and the point prevalence rate. RESULTS: In the routine documentation, 700 pressure ulcers had been recorded from 49,904 inpatient cases (period prevalence rate 1.4 %). The decubitus team did 5,415 examinations and 294 times detected at least one pressure ulcer (point prevalence rate 5.4 %). Estimated results in three different period prevalence rates: 3.0 % using sensitivity of the routine documentation, 3.7 % using sensitivity stratified for departments, and 2.3 % using the point prevalence rate for cases with short, medium, and long length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: The project presents for the first time reference values for pressure ulcer frequency in university clinics. A comparison with international rates is hindered by unpublished sensitivity values. In view of the higher point prevalence rate of 10 % present in the literature, a period prevalence rate of 5 % is a realistic reference value.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Pressure ulcer is a relevant issue for quality management and cost containment of hospitals. Cross-sectional studies are the typical design to estimate the frequency of pressure ulcers. The derived point prevalence rate is not as good for a case related reference value as the period prevalence rate. The interdisciplinary pressure ulcer project at the University Clinics in Essen combined a routine documentation with a cross-sectional survey, thus providing both measurements for the first time. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The routine and computer-based collection of information about pressure ulcers started in March 2003, using the patient administration system medico//s from Siemens. Findings are presented from 49,904 admissions, starting on 91/03/2004, discharged by 31/03/2004. The mean age was 48.7 +/- 22.4 years; 51.2 % were males, 48.8 % females. Additionally, a decubitus team examined patients from randomly selected wards each work-day. The real period prevalence rate was calculated using the observed period prevalence rate, the sensitivity and the point prevalence rate. RESULTS: In the routine documentation, 700 pressure ulcers had been recorded from 49,904 inpatient cases (period prevalence rate 1.4 %). The decubitus team did 5,415 examinations and 294 times detected at least one pressure ulcer (point prevalence rate 5.4 %). Estimated results in three different period prevalence rates: 3.0 % using sensitivity of the routine documentation, 3.7 % using sensitivity stratified for departments, and 2.3 % using the point prevalence rate for cases with short, medium, and long length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: The project presents for the first time reference values for pressure ulcer frequency in university clinics. A comparison with international rates is hindered by unpublished sensitivity values. In view of the higher point prevalence rate of 10 % present in the literature, a period prevalence rate of 5 % is a realistic reference value.
Authors: Maria Eberlein-Gonska; Thomas Petzold; Gitta Helaß; D Michael Albrecht; Jochen Schmitt Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2013-08-19 Impact factor: 5.594