Literature DB >> 27977509

The International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence™ Survey: 2006-2015: A 10-Year Pressure Injury Prevalence and Demographic Trend Analysis by Care Setting.

Catherine VanGilder1, Charlie Lachenbruch, Corrine Algrim-Boyle, Stephanie Meyer.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Measurement of pressure injury (PI) prevalence allows benchmarking within and across facilities; the International Pressure Ulcer PrevalenceTM (IPUP) Survey includes a variety of care settings. The purpose of this study is to present 10 years of US prevalence and limited demographic data (2006-2015) by care setting.
METHODS: Facilities volunteer to participate in the IPUP Survey. Internal clinical teams collect data during a predetermined 24-hour period that includes pressure injury prevalence, demographics, and other pertinent clinical information. Aggregate data was analyzed for this study.
RESULTS: The sample for this study was 918,621 patients in the United States; data collection spanned 2006 to 2015. The overall prevalence (OP) of PI in all facilities declined from 13.5% (2006) to 9.3% (2015). Facility-acquired prevalence (FAP) declined from 6.2% (2006) to a range of 3.1% to 3.4% (2013-2015). Acute care OP was 13.3% in 2006 and declined to a range of 8.8% to 9.3% (2012-2015). Facility-acquired prevalence in acute care declined from 6.4% (2006) to 2.9% in 2015, with 2008-2009 showing the most aggressive decline. Long-term acute care (LTAC) had the highest OP at 32.9% in 2006; it declined to 28.8% in 2015. The LTAC-FAP was 9.0% in 2006; it declined to 5.6% in 2015. Recently, the long-term care (LTC) FAP rose from 3.8% in 2013 to 5.4% in 2015. The rehabilitation facility FAP was 2.6% to 2.8% over the last 3 years. Average patient age declined in all care settings with the exception of LTAC and LTC. Braden Scale risk scores remained constant and weight increased in all care settings with the exception of LTC.
CONCLUSIONS: The OP and FAP in acute care and rehabilitation have declined significantly over this 10-year period. Analysis of OP and FAP in LTC and LTACs varied without any clear-cut directional trends. General facility demographic trends indicate that mean patient age has decreased, Braden Scale scores for pressure injury risk has remained constant, and weight has increased in most care settings.VIDEO ABSTRACT available for more insights from the authors (see Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/JWOCN/A37).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 27977509     DOI: 10.1097/WON.0000000000000292

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs        ISSN: 1071-5754            Impact factor:   1.741


  27 in total

1.  The prevalence, incidence, and associated factors of pressure injuries among immobile inpatients: A multicentre, cross-sectional, exploratory descriptive study in China.

Authors:  Ying Liu; Xinjuan Wu; Yufen Ma; Zhen Li; Jing Cao; Jing Jiao; Ge Liu; Fangfang Li; Baoyun Song; Jingfen Jin; Yilan Liu; Xianxiu Wen; Shouzhen Cheng; Frances Lin
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2019-01-22       Impact factor: 3.315

2.  Subepidermal moisture detection of heel pressure injury: The pressure ulcer detection study outcomes.

Authors:  Barbara M Bates-Jensen; Heather E McCreath; Gojiro Nakagami; Anabel Patlan
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2017-12-17       Impact factor: 3.315

3.  Preventing pressure injuries in the emergency department: Current evidence and practice considerations.

Authors:  Nick Santamaria; Sue Creehan; Jacqui Fletcher; Paulo Alves; Amit Gefen
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2019-02-27       Impact factor: 3.315

4.  Sub-epidermal moisture measurement: an evidence-based approach to the assessment for early evidence of pressure ulcer presence.

Authors:  Aglecia Moda Vitoriano Budri; Zena Moore; Declan Patton; Tom O'Connor; Linda Nugent; Pinar Avsar
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2020-07-19       Impact factor: 3.315

5.  The biomechanical protective effects of a treatment dressing on the soft tissues surrounding a non-offloaded sacral pressure ulcer.

Authors:  Dafna Schwartz; Amit Gefen
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2019-01-29       Impact factor: 3.315

6.  The national cost of hospital-acquired pressure injuries in the United States.

Authors:  William V Padula; Benjo A Delarmente
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2019-01-28       Impact factor: 3.315

7.  Pressure injury identification, measurement, coding, and reporting: Key challenges and opportunities.

Authors:  Carolina D Weller; Esther R Gershenzon; Sue M Evans; Victoria Team; John J McNeil
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2017-12-21       Impact factor: 3.315

8.  Improving the quality of pressure ulcer management in a skilled nursing facility.

Authors:  Yunghan Au; Mary Holbrook; Adam Skeens; Jessica Painter; James McBurney; Amy Cassata; Sheila C Wang
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2019-03-12       Impact factor: 3.315

9.  Assessing pressure injury risk using a single mobility scale in hospitalised patients: a comparative study using case-control design.

Authors:  Siti Zubaidah Mordiffi; Bridie Kent; Nicole M Phillips; Gerald Koh Choon Huat
Journal:  J Res Nurs       Date:  2018-05-24

10.  Electrical Stimulation for Pressure Injuries: A Health Technology Assessment.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ont Health Technol Assess Ser       Date:  2017-11-08
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.