OBJECTIVE: To identify and update the prevalence and incidence of pressure ulcers (PUs) in several countries, in people with long-term conditions resident in care homes or nursing homes. METHODS: We followed the PRISMA guideline for systematic reviews. However, due to funding constraints we do not claim this review to be systematic but it is a narrative review informed by PRISMA. Medline, Embase and CINHAL were searched for observational studies reporting incidence or prevalence data. Data reported relevant head-to-toe examination of PUs in residence in care or nursing homes. Internal and external validity of the included studies were assessed using the checklist devised by Hoy et al.1. RESULTS: Inclusion criteria was met by 17 studies and included in the study. Some studies gave a full breakdown by category, some only gave overall figures, and others excluded category I PUs. However, within those constraints certain patterns are clear. Prevalence rates varied from 3.4-32.4%. Large differences in prevalence in different countries were not explained by methodological differences. While some countries, such as Germany, the Netherlands and the US had robust data, other countries, such as the UK, had none. CONCLUSION: PUs are a common problem in long-term care. However, there are substantial differences between countries and many countries have no published data.
OBJECTIVE: To identify and update the prevalence and incidence of pressure ulcers (PUs) in several countries, in people with long-term conditions resident in care homes or nursing homes. METHODS: We followed the PRISMA guideline for systematic reviews. However, due to funding constraints we do not claim this review to be systematic but it is a narrative review informed by PRISMA. Medline, Embase and CINHAL were searched for observational studies reporting incidence or prevalence data. Data reported relevant head-to-toe examination of PUs in residence in care or nursing homes. Internal and external validity of the included studies were assessed using the checklist devised by Hoy et al.1. RESULTS: Inclusion criteria was met by 17 studies and included in the study. Some studies gave a full breakdown by category, some only gave overall figures, and others excluded category I PUs. However, within those constraints certain patterns are clear. Prevalence rates varied from 3.4-32.4%. Large differences in prevalence in different countries were not explained by methodological differences. While some countries, such as Germany, the Netherlands and the US had robust data, other countries, such as the UK, had none. CONCLUSION: PUs are a common problem in long-term care. However, there are substantial differences between countries and many countries have no published data.
Authors: Vincent Falanga; Roslyn Rivkah Isseroff; Athena M Soulika; Marco Romanelli; David Margolis; Suzanne Kapp; Mark Granick; Keith Harding Journal: Nat Rev Dis Primers Date: 2022-07-21 Impact factor: 65.038
Authors: María Dolores López-Franco; Laura Parra-Anguita; Inés María Comino-Sanz; Pedro L Pancorbo-Hidalgo Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-04-28 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Emilio Mota-Romero; Beatriz Tallón-Martín; María P García-Ruiz; Daniel Puente-Fernandez; María P García-Caro; Rafael Montoya-Juarez Journal: Medicina (Kaunas) Date: 2021-01-14 Impact factor: 2.430
Authors: N Jannah M Nasir; Alberto Corrias; Hans Heemskerk; Eng Tat Ang; Julia H Jenkins; S J Sebastin; Lisa Tucker-Kellogg Journal: J R Soc Interface Date: 2022-02-23 Impact factor: 4.118