Pakize Ozyurek1, Meryem Yavuz. 1. Author Affiliations: Lecturer, Doctor, Department of Surgical Nursing (Dr Ozyurek), Afyon Kocatepe University School of Nursing, Afyonkarahisar; and Lecturer, Associate Professor, Department of Surgical Nursing (Dr Yavuz), Ege University School of Nursing, Izmir, Turkey.
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to compare whether differences exist between 2 viscoelastic foam support surfaces in the development of new pressure ulcers. BACKGROUND: There is evidence to support the use of viscoelastic foam over standard hospital foam to reduce pressure. A comparative effectiveness study was done to compare 2 viscoelastic foam support surfaces. DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial was carried out. METHOD: The study was performed in 2 intensive care units between October 1, 2008, and January 4, 2010. Patients (n = 105) admitted to intensive care unit were randomly assigned to viscoelastic foam 1 (n = 53) or viscoelastic foam 2 support surface (n = 52). RESULTS: In total, 42.8% of all patients developed a new pressure ulcer of stage 1 or worse. By stages, pressure ulcer incidence was 28.6%, 13.3%, and 1.0% for stages 1, 2, and 3, respectively. There was no significant difference in pressure ulcer incidence between the viscoelastic foam 1 and 2 groups (X2 = 0.07, df = 1, P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: No difference was found between 2 different viscoelastic foam surfaces in the prevention of pressure ulcers in patients treated in intensive care. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Pressure ulcer incidence in critically ill patients remains high. Nurses must compare current products for effectiveness and develop innovative systems, processes, or devices to deliver best practices.
RCT Entities:
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to compare whether differences exist between 2 viscoelastic foam support surfaces in the development of new pressure ulcers. BACKGROUND: There is evidence to support the use of viscoelastic foam over standard hospital foam to reduce pressure. A comparative effectiveness study was done to compare 2 viscoelastic foam support surfaces. DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial was carried out. METHOD: The study was performed in 2 intensive care units between October 1, 2008, and January 4, 2010. Patients (n = 105) admitted to intensive care unit were randomly assigned to viscoelastic foam 1 (n = 53) or viscoelastic foam 2 support surface (n = 52). RESULTS: In total, 42.8% of all patients developed a new pressure ulcer of stage 1 or worse. By stages, pressure ulcer incidence was 28.6%, 13.3%, and 1.0% for stages 1, 2, and 3, respectively. There was no significant difference in pressure ulcer incidence between the viscoelastic foam 1 and 2 groups (X2 = 0.07, df = 1, P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: No difference was found between 2 different viscoelastic foam surfaces in the prevention of pressure ulcers in patients treated in intensive care. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Pressure ulcer incidence in critically illpatients remains high. Nurses must compare current products for effectiveness and develop innovative systems, processes, or devices to deliver best practices.
Authors: Chunhu Shi; Jo C Dumville; Nicky Cullum; Sarah Rhodes; Asmara Jammali-Blasi; Victoria Ramsden; Elizabeth McInnes Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2021-05-10
Authors: Wesley Henrique Bueno de Camargo; Rita de Cassia Pereira; Marcos T Tanita; Lidiane Heko; Isadora C Grion; Josiane Festti; Ana Luiza Mezzaroba; Cintia Magalhães Carvalho Grion Journal: Crit Care Res Pract Date: 2018-12-18