Nils A Lahmann1, Jan Kottner, Theo Dassen, Antje Tannen. 1. Institut für Medizin-/Pflegepädagogik und Pflegewissenschaft, Department of Nursing Science, Charité- Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany. nils.lahmann@charite.de
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to evaluate the effect of being treated in intensive care units in comparison with general hospital wards regarding pressure ulcer occurrence when controlled for various risk factors. BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcer occurrence is commonly used as an indicator for the quality of care. Large-scale incidence studies are costly and difficult to perform. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of patient data (n = 32,400) collected during 2002-2009 as part of eight multicentre pressure ulcer surveys in 256 German hospitals. METHODS: Ward-acquired pressure ulcer rate was used for the calculation of effect sizes as a surrogate parameter for pressure ulcer incidence. The SRISAG (surface, repositioning, immobility, shear forces, age, gender) logistic regression model was used to control for differences in case mix. RESULTS: Pressure ulcer prevention and intrinsic and extrinsic risk factors differ for patients from hospital wards compared with those from intensive care wards. The ward-acquired pressure ulcer rate in general hospital wards was 3·9% (1·5% excluding grade 1). In intensive care, the rate was 14·9% (8·5% excluding grade 1), which corresponds with an unadjusted odds ratio of 4·3 (95%CI 3·8-4·9). After the SRISAG model was applied, the odds ratio was reduced to 1·5 (CI 1·2-1·7). CONCLUSION: When surface, repositioning, immobility, shear forces, age and gender are controlled for the institutional factor intensive care unit vs. general hospital wards is no longer a high-risk factor for the development of pressure ulcer. The SRISAG model is simple and can be used to compare the occurrence of pressure ulcer between different medical specialties. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Application of this model allows more valuable comparison of the occurrence of pressure ulcer in different specialities and enables clinical practitioners and health care planners to use this outcome as an indicator for the quality of care to avoid confounding.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to evaluate the effect of being treated in intensive care units in comparison with general hospital wards regarding pressure ulcer occurrence when controlled for various risk factors. BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcer occurrence is commonly used as an indicator for the quality of care. Large-scale incidence studies are costly and difficult to perform. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of patient data (n = 32,400) collected during 2002-2009 as part of eight multicentre pressure ulcer surveys in 256 German hospitals. METHODS: Ward-acquired pressure ulcer rate was used for the calculation of effect sizes as a surrogate parameter for pressure ulcer incidence. The SRISAG (surface, repositioning, immobility, shear forces, age, gender) logistic regression model was used to control for differences in case mix. RESULTS: Pressure ulcer prevention and intrinsic and extrinsic risk factors differ for patients from hospital wards compared with those from intensive care wards. The ward-acquired pressure ulcer rate in general hospital wards was 3·9% (1·5% excluding grade 1). In intensive care, the rate was 14·9% (8·5% excluding grade 1), which corresponds with an unadjusted odds ratio of 4·3 (95%CI 3·8-4·9). After the SRISAG model was applied, the odds ratio was reduced to 1·5 (CI 1·2-1·7). CONCLUSION: When surface, repositioning, immobility, shear forces, age and gender are controlled for the institutional factor intensive care unit vs. general hospital wards is no longer a high-risk factor for the development of pressure ulcer. The SRISAG model is simple and can be used to compare the occurrence of pressure ulcer between different medical specialties. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Application of this model allows more valuable comparison of the occurrence of pressure ulcer in different specialities and enables clinical practitioners and health care planners to use this outcome as an indicator for the quality of care to avoid confounding.
Authors: Sookyung Hyun; Xiaobai Li; Brenda Vermillion; Cheryl Newton; Monica Fall; Pacharmon Kaewprag; Susan Moffatt-Bruce; Elizabeth R Lenz Journal: Am J Crit Care Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 2.228
Authors: Angela Kane; Robyn Warwaruk-Rogers; Chester Ho; Ming Chan; Richard Stein; Vivian K Mushahwar; Sean P Dukelow Journal: Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle) Date: 2017-04-01 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Konstantinos Tsaras; Maria Chatzi; Christos F Kleisiaris; Evangelos C Fradelos; Lambrini Kourkouta; Ioanna V Papathanasiou Journal: Med Arch Date: 2016-10-25