Literature DB >> 18382042

Results of nine international pressure ulcer prevalence surveys: 1989 to 2005.

Catherine Vangilder1, Gordon D Macfarlane, Stephanie Meyer.   

Abstract

Pressure ulcers continue to be a significant problem for patients and healthcare facilities. Since 1989, results from the International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence surveys--observational, cross-sectional cohort studies--conducted by Hill-Rom, Batesville, Ind, have been used to document aggregate prevalence rates and provide acute care, long-term acute care, and long-term care facilities with internal and external benchmarks of process improvement. During each of the nine surveys conducted between 1989 and 2005, clinical teams in participating facilities predominantly in the US (some facilities in Canada, Saudi Arabia, and Australia participated after 2003) assessed admitted patients on assigned study dates. For this study, trends using all records (n = 447,930; average, 49,770 per year) were reviewed. The majority of facilities in each survey year were in the US (99% overall). Overall and nosocomial pressure ulcer prevalence rates ranged from 9.2% and 5.6% in 1989 to 15.5% and 10% in 2003 and 2004, respectively. The highest prevalence was documented in long-term acute care (27.3% overall, 8.5% nosocomial). Most commonly, ulcers were located at the sacrum (28%), heels (23.6%), and buttocks (17.2%). Ulcers were more commonly assessed as Stage I and Stage II (>70%). However, in patients with dark skin tone (2004 and 2005 data, n = 162,296), 13% of identified ulcers were Stage I compared to 32% in patients with medium and 38% in patients with light skin tone. Using the most complete data sets (2003, 2004, and 2005), more severe pressure ulcer prevalence (Stage III+) was not found to be age-related. Approximately 48% of all patients who had pressure ulcers and 48% of patients with nosocomial pressure ulcers were assessed at mild or no risk (Braden scale score >14). Prevalence within the Braden Score risk categories aligned with risk for developing pressure ulcers. Despite increased attention to the pressure ulcer problem, prevalence rates from the last five survey years are relatively unchanged.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18382042

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ostomy Wound Manage        ISSN: 0889-5899            Impact factor:   2.629


  36 in total

Review 1.  Adjustability and Adaptability Are Critical Characteristics of Pediatric Support Surfaces.

Authors:  Ayelet Levy; Kara Kopplin; Amit Gefen
Journal:  Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle)       Date:  2015-10-01       Impact factor: 4.730

2.  Dilemmas in measuring and using pressure ulcer prevalence and incidence: an international consensus.

Authors:  Mona M Baharestani; Joyce M Black; Keryln Carville; Michael Clark; Janet E Cuddigan; Carol Dealey; Tom Defloor; Keith G Harding; Nils A Lahmann; Maarten J Lubbers; Courtney H Lyder; Takehiko Ohura; Heather L Orsted; Steve I Reger; Marco Romanelli; Hiromi Sanada
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 3.315

Review 3.  Vacuum-assisted closure home care training: a process to link education to improved patient outcomes.

Authors:  Kevin Y Woo; R Gary Sibbald
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 3.315

4.  Phantom testing of the sensitivity and precision of a sub-epidermal moisture scanner.

Authors:  Lea Peko Cohen; Amit Gefen
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2019-04-16       Impact factor: 3.315

5.  Subepidermal moisture detection of pressure induced tissue damage on the trunk: The pressure ulcer detection study outcomes.

Authors:  Barbara M Bates-Jensen; Heather E McCreath; Anabel Patlan
Journal:  Wound Repair Regen       Date:  2017-05-31       Impact factor: 3.617

6.  Inter-rater reliability of three most commonly used pressure ulcer risk assessment scales in clinical practice.

Authors:  Li-Hua Wang; Hong-Lin Chen; Hong-Yan Yan; Jian-Hua Gao; Fang Wang; Yue Ming; Li Lu; Jing-Jing Ding
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2014-09-16       Impact factor: 3.315

7.  Concordance of Shape Risk Scale, a new pressure ulcer risk tool, with Braden Scale.

Authors:  Esa T Soppi; Ansa K Iivanainen; Pasi A Korhonen
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2012-12-10       Impact factor: 3.315

Review 8.  A review of the surgical management of heel pressure ulcers in the 21st century.

Authors:  David C Bosanquet; Ann M Wright; Richard D White; Ian M Williams
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2015-02-16       Impact factor: 3.315

9.  Subepidermal moisture detection of heel pressure injury: The pressure ulcer detection study outcomes.

Authors:  Barbara M Bates-Jensen; Heather E McCreath; Gojiro Nakagami; Anabel Patlan
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2017-12-17       Impact factor: 3.315

10.  Effects of ambient conditions on the risk of pressure injuries in bedridden patients-multi-physics modelling of microclimate.

Authors:  Tal Zeevi; Ayelet Levy; Neima Brauner; Amit Gefen
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2017-12-17       Impact factor: 3.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.