Literature DB >> 26778371

Pressure ulcer and wounds reporting in NHS hospitals in England part 1: Audit of monitoring systems.

Isabelle L Smith1, Jane Nixon2, Sarah Brown2, Lyn Wilson3, Susanne Coleman2.   

Abstract

Internationally, health-care systems have attempted to assess the scale of and demonstrate improvement in patient harms. Pressure ulcer (PU) monitoring systems have been introduced across NHS in-patient facilities in England, including the Safety Thermometer (STh) (prevalence), Incident Reporting Systems (IRS) and the Strategic Executive Information System (STEIS) for serious incidents. This is the first of two related papers considering PU monitoring systems across NHS in-patient facilities in England and focusses on a Wound Audit (PUWA) to assess the accuracy of these systems. Part 2 of this work and recommendations are reported pp *-*. The PUWA was undertaken in line with 'gold-standard' PU prevalence methods in a stratified random sample of NHS Trusts; 24/34 (72.7%) invited NHS Trusts participated, from which 121 randomly selected wards and 2239 patients agreed to participate. PREVALENCE OF EXISTING PUS: The PUWA identified 160 (7.1%) patients with an existing PU, compared to 105 (4.7%) on STh. STh had a weighted sensitivity of 48.2% (95%CI 35.4%-56.7%) and weighted specificity of 99.0% (95%CI 98.99%-99.01%). EXISTING/HEALED PUS: The PUWA identified 189 (8.4%) patients with an existing/healed PU compared to 135 (6.0%) on IRS. IRS had an unweighted sensitivity of 53.4% (95%CI 46.3%-60.4%) and unweighted specificity of 98.3% (95%CI 97.7%-98.8%). 83 patients had one or more potentially serious PU on PUWA and 8 (9.6%) of these patients were reported on STEIS. The results identified high levels of under-reporting for all systems and highlighted data capture challenges, including the use of clinical staff to inform national monitoring systems and the completeness of clinical records for PUs.
Copyright © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Adverse event; Incident reporting; Patient safety; Pressure ulcer; Prevalence; Sensitivity

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26778371     DOI: 10.1016/j.jtv.2015.11.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Tissue Viability        ISSN: 0965-206X            Impact factor:   2.932


  10 in total

1.  An exploration of nursing home residents' experiences of a non-powered static air mattress overlay to prevent pressure ulcers.

Authors:  Brecht Serraes; Ann Van Hecke; Hanne Van Tiggelen; Charlotte Anrys; Sofie Verhaeghe; Dimitri Beeckman
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2020-06-30       Impact factor: 3.315

Review 2.  Measuring the quality of pressure ulcer prevention: A systematic mapping review of quality indicators.

Authors:  Jan Kottner; Elisabeth Hahnel; Andrea Lichterfeld-Kottner; Ulrike Blume-Peytavi; Andreas Büscher
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2017-11-27       Impact factor: 3.315

Review 3.  Turning frequency in adult bedridden patients to prevent hospital-acquired pressure ulcer: A scoping review.

Authors:  H-S Jocelyn Chew; Emelia Thiara; Violeta Lopez; Shefaly Shorey
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2017-12-15       Impact factor: 3.315

4.  Pressure RElieving Support SUrfaces: a Randomised Evaluation 2 (PRESSURE 2): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Sarah Brown; Isabelle L Smith; Julia M Brown; Claire Hulme; Elizabeth McGinnis; Nikki Stubbs; E Andrea Nelson; Delia Muir; Claudia Rutherford; Kay Walker; Valerie Henderson; Lyn Wilson; Rachael Gilberts; Howard Collier; Catherine Fernandez; Suzanne Hartley; Moninder Bhogal; Susanne Coleman; Jane E Nixon
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2016-12-20       Impact factor: 2.279

5.  Clinical evaluation of a new pressure ulcer risk assessment instrument, the Pressure Ulcer Risk Primary or Secondary Evaluation Tool (PURPOSE T).

Authors:  Susanne Coleman; Isabelle L Smith; Elizabeth McGinnis; Justin Keen; Delia Muir; Lyn Wilson; Nikki Stubbs; Carol Dealey; Sarah Brown; E Andrea Nelson; Jane Nixon
Journal:  J Adv Nurs       Date:  2017-09-28       Impact factor: 3.187

6.  A patient-reported pressure ulcer health-related quality of life instrument for use in prevention trials (PU-QOL-P): psychometric evaluation.

Authors:  Claudia Rutherford; Julia M Brown; Isabelle Smith; Elizabeth McGinnis; Lyn Wilson; Rachael Gilberts; Sarah Brown; Susanne Coleman; Howard Collier; Jane Nixon
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2018-12-10       Impact factor: 3.186

Review 7.  Mepilex Border Sacrum and Heel Dressings for the Prevention of Pressure Ulcers: A NICE Medical Technology Guidance.

Authors:  C Marshall; J Shore; M Arber; M Cikalo; T Oladapo; A Peel; R McCool; Michelle Jenks
Journal:  Appl Health Econ Health Policy       Date:  2019-08       Impact factor: 2.561

8.  Pressure Relieving Support Surfaces for Pressure Ulcer Prevention (PRESSURE 2): Clinical and Health Economic Results of a Randomised Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Jane Nixon; Isabelle L Smith; Sarah Brown; Elizabeth McGinnis; Armando Vargas-Palacios; E Andrea Nelson; Susanne Coleman; Howard Collier; Catherine Fernandez; Rachael Gilberts; Valerie Henderson; Delia Muir; Nikki Stubbs; Kay Walker; Lyn Wilson; Claire Hulme
Journal:  EClinicalMedicine       Date:  2019-09-03

9.  Pressure Relieving Support Surfaces: a Randomised Evaluation 2 (PRESSURE 2): using photography for blinded central endpoint review.

Authors:  Elizabeth McGinnis; Isabelle L Smith; Howard Collier; Lyn Wilson; Susanne Coleman; Nikki Stubbs; Sarah Brown; Rachael Gilberts; Valerie Henderson; Kay Walker; E Andrea Nelson; Jane Nixon
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2021-04-28       Impact factor: 2.279

10.  Validation of two case definitions to identify pressure ulcers using hospital administrative data.

Authors:  Chester Ho; Jason Jiang; Cathy A Eastwood; Holly Wong; Brittany Weaver; Hude Quan
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-08-28       Impact factor: 2.692

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.