Susan D Horn1, Ryan S Barrett, Caroline E Fife, Brett Thomson. 1. Susan D. Horn, PhD • Adjunct Professor • Department of Population Health Sciences Health System Innovation and Research Program • University of Utah School of Medicine • Salt Lake City • Senior Scientist • Institute for Clinical Outcomes Research • Salt Lake City, Utah Ryan S. Barrett, MStat • Quantitative Modeling Analyst • Zions Bancorporation • Salt Lake City, Utah • Senior Analyst • Institute for Clinical Outcomes Research • Salt Lake City, Utah Caroline E. Fife, MD • Chief Medical Officer • Intellicure, Inc • The Woodlands, Texas • Director • US Wound Registry • The Woodlands, Texas Brett Thomson, BS • Chief Information Officer • Intellicure, Inc • The Woodlands, Texas • Senior Analyst • US Wound Registry • The Woodlands, Texas.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this learning activity is to provide information regarding the creation of a risk-stratification system to predict the likelihood of the healing of body and heel pressure ulcers (PrUs). TARGET AUDIENCE: This continuing education activity is intended for physicians and nurses with an interest in skin and wound care. OBJECTIVES: After participating in this educational activity, the participant should be better able to:1. Explain the need for a PrU risk stratification tool.2. Describe the purpose and methodology of the study.3. Delineate the results of the study and development of the Wound Healing Index. OBJECTIVE: : To create a validated system to predict the healing likelihood of patients with body and heel pressure ulcers (PrUs), incorporating only patient- and wound-specific variables. DESIGN: The US Wound Registry data were examined retrospectively and assigned a clear outcome (healed, amputated, and so on). Significant variables were identified with bivariate analyses. Multivariable logistic regression models were created based on significant factors (P < .05) and tested on a 10% randomly selected hold-out sample. SETTING: Fifty-six wound clinics in 24 states PATIENTS: : A total of 7973 body PrUs and 2350 heel PrUs were eligible for analysis. INTERVENTION: Not applicable MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: : Healed PrU MAIN RESULTS: : Because of missing data elements, the logistic regression development model included 6640 body PrUs, of which 4300 healed (64.8%), and the 10% validation sample included 709 PrUs, of which 477 healed (67.3%). For heel PrUs, the logistic regression development model included 1909 heel PrUs, of which 1240 healed (65.0%), and the 10% validation sample included 203 PrUs, of which 133 healed (65.5%). Variables significantly predicting healing were PrU size, PrU age, number of concurrent wounds of any etiology, PrU Stage III or IV, evidence of bioburden/infection, patient age, being nonambulatory, having renal transplant, paralysis, malnutrition, and/or patient hospitalization for any reason. CONCLUSIONS: Body and heel PrU Wound Healing Indices are comprehensive, user-friendly, and validated predictive models for likelihood of body and heel PrU healing. They can risk-stratify patients in clinical research trials, stratify patient data for quality reporting and benchmarking activities, and identify patients most likely to require advanced therapeutics to achieve healing.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this learning activity is to provide information regarding the creation of a risk-stratification system to predict the likelihood of the healing of body and heel pressure ulcers (PrUs). TARGET AUDIENCE: This continuing education activity is intended for physicians and nurses with an interest in skin and wound care. OBJECTIVES: After participating in this educational activity, the participant should be better able to:1. Explain the need for a PrU risk stratification tool.2. Describe the purpose and methodology of the study.3. Delineate the results of the study and development of the Wound Healing Index. OBJECTIVE: : To create a validated system to predict the healing likelihood of patients with body and heel pressure ulcers (PrUs), incorporating only patient- and wound-specific variables. DESIGN: The US Wound Registry data were examined retrospectively and assigned a clear outcome (healed, amputated, and so on). Significant variables were identified with bivariate analyses. Multivariable logistic regression models were created based on significant factors (P < .05) and tested on a 10% randomly selected hold-out sample. SETTING: Fifty-six wound clinics in 24 states PATIENTS: : A total of 7973 body PrUs and 2350 heel PrUs were eligible for analysis. INTERVENTION: Not applicable MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: : Healed PrU MAIN RESULTS: : Because of missing data elements, the logistic regression development model included 6640 body PrUs, of which 4300 healed (64.8%), and the 10% validation sample included 709 PrUs, of which 477 healed (67.3%). For heel PrUs, the logistic regression development model included 1909 heel PrUs, of which 1240 healed (65.0%), and the 10% validation sample included 203 PrUs, of which 133 healed (65.5%). Variables significantly predicting healing were PrU size, PrU age, number of concurrent wounds of any etiology, PrU Stage III or IV, evidence of bioburden/infection, patient age, being nonambulatory, having renal transplant, paralysis, malnutrition, and/or patient hospitalization for any reason. CONCLUSIONS: Body and heel PrU Wound Healing Indices are comprehensive, user-friendly, and validated predictive models for likelihood of body and heel PrU healing. They can risk-stratify patients in clinical research trials, stratify patient data for quality reporting and benchmarking activities, and identify patients most likely to require advanced therapeutics to achieve healing.
Authors: Clara Bender; Simon Lebech Cichosz; Louise Pape-Haugaard; Merete Hartun Jensen; Susan Bermark; Anders Christian Laursen; Ole Hejlesen Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2020-07-22
Authors: David A Jenkins; Sundus Mohamed; Joanne K Taylor; Niels Peek; Sabine N van der Veer Journal: Int Wound J Date: 2019-02-28 Impact factor: 3.315
Authors: Andrew S Khalil; Xiaohua Yu; Jennifer M Umhoefer; Connie S Chamberlain; Linzie A Wildenauer; Gaoussou M Diarra; Timothy A Hacker; William L Murphy Journal: Sci Adv Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 14.136