Literature DB >> 28053866

The Use of a No-sting Barrier Film Treatment Protocol Compared to Routine Clinical Care for the Treatment of Stage 1 and 2 Pressure Injuries in Long-term Care.

Adrian Chan1, Henry Yu-Hin Siu2.   

Abstract

Pressure injuries increase morbidity and mortality in geriatric patients by 400%. Residents in long-term care (LTC) are at high risk of developing pressure injuries because of limited mobility, poor nutritional status, impaired cognition, and incontinence. This study aims to determine whether a no-sting barrier film (NSBF) treatment protocol is more effective than current physician practices for treating stage 1 and 2 pressure injuries in LTC. A retrospective cohort study of 129 residents from one LTC facility was performed after a six-month implementation trial of a NSBF treatment protocol. The six-month incidence rate of stage 1 and 2 pressure injuries was 9% and 38% respectively. There was a statistically significant reduction in healing time in those treated with the NSBF protocol. In summary, the NSBF protocol reduces healing time of stage 1 and 2 pressure injuries; this protocol could be easily incorporated into existing pressure injury treatment strategies in LTC.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Long-term care; No-sting barrier film; Nursing; Pressure injury

Year:  2016        PMID: 28053866      PMCID: PMC5197044          DOI: 10.1016/j.jccw.2016.11.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Clin Wound Spec        ISSN: 2213-5103


  10 in total

Review 1.  Pressure ulcer staging revisited: superficial skin changes & Deep Pressure Ulcer Framework©.

Authors:  R Gary Sibbald; Diane L Krasner; Kevin Y Woo
Journal:  Adv Skin Wound Care       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 2.347

2.  Preventing pressure ulcers in long-term care: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Ba' Pham; Anita Stern; Wendong Chen; Beate Sander; Ava John-Baptiste; Hla-Hla Thein; Tara Gomes; Walter P Wodchis; Ahmed Bayoumi; Márcio Machado; Steven Carcone; Murray Krahn
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2011-09-26

3.  Beyond diagnosis: rising to the multimorbidity challenge.

Authors:  Dee Mangin; Iona Heath; Marc Jamoulle
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2012-06-13

4.  Frequency of risk factors that potentially increase harm from medications in older adults receiving primary care.

Authors:  L McCarthy; L Dolovich; M Haq; L Thabane; J Kaczorowski
Journal:  Can J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2007-11-01

5.  Comparison of pressure ulcer treatments in long-term care facilities: clinical outcomes and impact on cost.

Authors:  Siva Narayanan; John Van Vleet; Billy Strunk; Robert N Ross; Mikel Gray
Journal:  J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs       Date:  2005 May-Jun       Impact factor: 1.741

Review 6.  A liquid film-forming acrylate for peri-wound protection: a systematic review and meta-analysis (3M Cavilon no-sting barrier film).

Authors:  Jan Schuren; Anja Becker; R Gary Sibbald
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 3.315

7.  Development of the interRAI Pressure Ulcer Risk Scale (PURS) for use in long-term care and home care settings.

Authors:  Jeff Poss; Katharine M Murphy; M Gail Woodbury; Heather Orsted; Kimberly Stevenson; Gail Williams; Shirley Macalpine; Nancy Curtin-Telegdi; John P Hirdes
Journal:  BMC Geriatr       Date:  2010-09-20       Impact factor: 3.921

8.  Management of chronic pressure ulcers: an evidence-based analysis.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ont Health Technol Assess Ser       Date:  2009-07-01

9.  The cost of pressure ulcers in the United Kingdom.

Authors:  C Dealey; J Posnett; A Walker
Journal:  J Wound Care       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 2.072

10.  Stage 2 pressure ulcer healing in nursing homes.

Authors:  Nancy Bergstrom; Randall Smout; Susan Horn; William Spector; Arthur Hartz; M Rhona Limcangco
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2008-05-14       Impact factor: 5.562

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.