Zena Moore1, Seamus Cowman. 1. Wound Healing and Tissue Repair and Research Methodology, Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland. zmoore@rcsi.ie
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to establish pressure ulcer prevalence and prevention in the long-term care setting. BACKGROUND: There is no information on pressure ulcers prevalence in care of the older person in Ireland; therefore, a prevalence study was undertaken to investigate key aspects related to current practices in pressure ulcer prevention. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey design was employed. METHOD: Ethical approval was received. Participants included 1100 older individuals residing in 12 long-term care settings. Data were collected using the Braden scale, the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel minimum data set and pressure ulcer grading system. RESULTS: All participants were Irish and white, 70% were women, and 75% were aged 80 years or older. Prevalence was 9%, with 28% of pressure ulcers grade 1, 33% grade 2, 15% grade 3 and 24% grade 4, mainly located on the sacrum (58%) and the heel (25%). Seventy-seven per cent scored Braden low risk or not at risk; however, 53% were completely immobile/very limited mobility and 58% were chair/bedfast. There was a significant association between activity and mobility and pressure ulcer development (χ(2) = 45·50, p < 0·001 and χ(2) = 46·91, p = 0·0001, respectively). Fifty per cent had a pressure redistribution device in bed, and 48% had one in use on the chair; however, 9% had a repositioning regime planned for when in bed and 5% planned for when seated in the chair. CONCLUSIONS: This paper reports on the first ever pressure ulcer prevalence survey conducted in long-term care in Ireland, and results provide significant insights into decision-making and use of resources in the prevention of pressure ulcers. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Pressure ulcers are common, costly and impact negatively on individuals. Current practices in prevention show several areas for improvement, namely, risk assessment, care planning and documentation.
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to establish pressure ulcer prevalence and prevention in the long-term care setting. BACKGROUND: There is no information on pressure ulcers prevalence in care of the older person in Ireland; therefore, a prevalence study was undertaken to investigate key aspects related to current practices in pressure ulcer prevention. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey design was employed. METHOD: Ethical approval was received. Participants included 1100 older individuals residing in 12 long-term care settings. Data were collected using the Braden scale, the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel minimum data set and pressure ulcer grading system. RESULTS: All participants were Irish and white, 70% were women, and 75% were aged 80 years or older. Prevalence was 9%, with 28% of pressure ulcers grade 1, 33% grade 2, 15% grade 3 and 24% grade 4, mainly located on the sacrum (58%) and the heel (25%). Seventy-seven per cent scored Braden low risk or not at risk; however, 53% were completely immobile/very limited mobility and 58% were chair/bedfast. There was a significant association between activity and mobility and pressure ulcer development (χ(2) = 45·50, p < 0·001 and χ(2) = 46·91, p = 0·0001, respectively). Fifty per cent had a pressure redistribution device in bed, and 48% had one in use on the chair; however, 9% had a repositioning regime planned for when in bed and 5% planned for when seated in the chair. CONCLUSIONS: This paper reports on the first ever pressure ulcer prevalence survey conducted in long-term care in Ireland, and results provide significant insights into decision-making and use of resources in the prevention of pressure ulcers. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Pressure ulcers are common, costly and impact negatively on individuals. Current practices in prevention show several areas for improvement, namely, risk assessment, care planning and documentation.
Authors: Charlotte Anrys; Hanne Van Tiggelen; Sofie Verhaeghe; Ann Van Hecke; Dimitri Beeckman Journal: Int Wound J Date: 2018-11-09 Impact factor: 3.315
Authors: Antonio Díaz-Valenzuela; Francisco P García-Fernández; PedroJ Carmona Fernández; M Jesús Valle Cañete; Pedro L Pancorbo-Hidalgo Journal: Int Wound J Date: 2019-09-02 Impact factor: 3.315
Authors: Emer Shanley; Zena Moore; Declan Patton; Tom O Connor; Pinar Avsar; Linda Nugent; Dimitri Beeckman Journal: Int Wound J Date: 2019-12-10 Impact factor: 3.315