Carina Bååth1, Ewa Idvall, Lena Gunningberg, Ami Hommel. 1. Faculty of Health, Science and Technology, Department of Health Sciences, Karlstad University and Research, County Council of Värmland, Karlstad, Sweden.
Abstract
RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The overall aim of this study was to describe preventive interventions among persons with pressure ulcer (PU) in three nationwide PU prevalence surveys in Sweden. METHODS: A cross-sectional research design was used; more than 70 000 persons from different hospitals and nursing homes participated in the three prevalence surveys conducted in March 2011, October 2011 and March 2012. The methodology used was that recommended by the European Pressure Ulcers Advisory Panel. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of PU categories I-IV in hospitals was 16.6%, 14.4% and 16.1%, respectively. Corresponding figures for nursing homes were 14.5%, 14.2% and 11.8%, respectively. Heel protection/floating heels and sliding sheets were more frequently planned for persons with PU category I. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the three prevalence studies that have showed high prevalence of PU the use of preventing interventions is still not on an acceptable level. Heel protection/floating heels and sliding sheets were more frequently planned for persons with PUs, and individual-planned repositioning also increased. However, when persons already have a PU they should all have pressure-reducing preventive interventions to prevent the development of more PUs. Preventing PUs presents a challenge even when facilities have prevention programmes. A PU prevention programme requires an enthusiastic leader who will maintain the team's focus and direction for all staff involved in patient care.
RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The overall aim of this study was to describe preventive interventions among persons with pressure ulcer (PU) in three nationwide PU prevalence surveys in Sweden. METHODS: A cross-sectional research design was used; more than 70 000 persons from different hospitals and nursing homes participated in the three prevalence surveys conducted in March 2011, October 2011 and March 2012. The methodology used was that recommended by the European Pressure Ulcers Advisory Panel. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of PU categories I-IV in hospitals was 16.6%, 14.4% and 16.1%, respectively. Corresponding figures for nursing homes were 14.5%, 14.2% and 11.8%, respectively. Heel protection/floating heels and sliding sheets were more frequently planned for persons with PU category I. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the three prevalence studies that have showed high prevalence of PU the use of preventing interventions is still not on an acceptable level. Heel protection/floating heels and sliding sheets were more frequently planned for persons with PUs, and individual-planned repositioning also increased. However, when persons already have a PU they should all have pressure-reducing preventive interventions to prevent the development of more PUs. Preventing PUs presents a challenge even when facilities have prevention programmes. A PU prevention programme requires an enthusiastic leader who will maintain the team's focus and direction for all staff involved in patient care.
Authors: Grace Suva; Tanvi Sharma; Karen E Campbell; Ronald Gary Sibbald; Diana An; Kevin Woo Journal: Int Wound J Date: 2018-03-30 Impact factor: 3.315
Authors: Kevin Y Woo; Kim Sears; Joan Almost; Rosemary Wilson; Marlo Whitehead; Elizabeth G VanDenKerkhof Journal: Int Wound J Date: 2015-11-20 Impact factor: 3.315