Pressure ulcer related pain in community populations: a prevalence survey.

BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers are costly to the healthcare provider and can have a major impact on patient's quality of life. One of the most distressing symptoms reported is pain. There is very little published data on the prevalence and details of pain experienced by patients with pressure ulcers, particularly in community populations. The study was conducted in two community NHS sites in the North of England. METHODS: The aim was to estimate the prevalence of pressure area related pain within a community population. We also explored the type and severity of the pain and its association with pressure ulcer classification. A cross-sectional survey was performed of community nurses caseloads to identify adult patients with pressure ulcers and associated pain. Consenting patients then had a full pain assessment and verification of pressure ulcer grade. RESULTS: A total of 287 patients were identified with pressure ulcers (0.51 per 1000 adult population). Of the 176 patients who were asked, 133 (75.6%) reported pain. 37 patients consented to a detailed pain assessment. Painful pressure ulcers of all grades and on nearly all body sites were identified. Pain intensity was not related to number or severity of pressure ulcer. Both inflammatory and neuropathic pain were reported at all body sites however the proportion of neuropathic pain was greater in pressure ulcers on lower limbs. CONCLUSIONS: This study has identified the extent and type of pain suffered by community patients with pressure ulcers and indicates the need for systematic and regular pain assessment and treatment

Exploring the role of pain as an early predictor of category 2 pressure ulcers: a prospective cohort study

Objective To explore pressure area related pain as a predictor of category ≥2 pressure ulcer (PU) development. Design Multicentre prospective cohort study. Setting UK hospital and community settings. Participants inclusion Consenting acutely ill patients aged ≥18 years, defined as high risk (Braden bedfast/chairfast AND completely immobile/very limited mobility; pressure area related pain or; category 1 PU). Exclusion Patients too unwell, unable to report pain, 2 or more category ≥2 PUs. Follow-up Twice weekly for 30 days. Primary and secondary outcome measures Development and time to development of one or more category ≥2 PUs. Results Of 3819 screened, 1266 were eligible, 634 patients were recruited, 32 lost to follow-up, providing a 602 analysis population. 152 (25.2%) developed one or more category ≥2 PUs. 464 (77.1%) patients reported pressure area related pain on a healthy, altered or category 1 skin site of whom 130 (28.0%) developed a category ≥2 PU compared with 22 (15.9%) of those without pain. Full stepwise variable selection was used throughout the analyses. (1) Multivariable logistic regression model to assess 9 a priori factors: presence of category 1 PU (OR=3.25, 95% CI (2.17 to 4.86), p<0.0001), alterations to intact skin (OR=1.98, 95% CI (1.30 to 3.00), p=0.0014), pressure area related pain (OR=1.56, 95% CI (0.93 to 2.63), p=0.0931). (2) Multivariable logistic regression model to account for overdispersion: presence of category 1 PU (OR=3.20, 95% CI (2.11 to 4.85), p<0.0001), alterations to intact skin (OR=1.90, 95% CI (1.24 to 2.91), p=0.0032), pressure area related pain (OR=1.85, 95% CI (1.07 to 3.20), p=0.0271), pre-existing category 2 PU (OR=2.09, 95% CI (1.35 to 3.23), p=0.0009), presence of chronic wound (OR=1.66, 95% CI (1.06 to 2.62), p=0.0277), Braden activity (p=0.0476). (3) Accelerated failure time model: presence of category 1 PU (AF=2.32, 95% CI (1.73 to 3.12), p<0.0001), pressure area related pain (AF=2.28, 95% CI (1.59 to 3.27), p<0.0001). (4) 2-level random-intercept logistic regression model: skin status which comprised 2 levels (versus healthy skin); alterations to intact skin (OR=4.65, 95% CI (3.01 to 7.18), p<0.0001), presence of category 1 PU (OR=17.30, 95% CI (11.09 to 27.00), p<0.0001) and pressure area related pain (OR=2.25, 95% CI (1.53 to 3.29), p<0.0001). Conclusions This is the first study to assess pain as a predictor of category ≥2 PU development. In all 4 models, pain emerged as a risk factor associated with an increased probability of category ≥2 PU development

Pressure injury in Australian public hospitals: a cost-of-illness study

Objective: Pressure injuries (PI) are largely preventable and can be viewed as an adverse outcome of a healthcare admission, yet they affect millions of people and consume billions of dollars in healthcare spending. The existing literature in Australia presents a patchy picture of the economic burden of PI on society and the health system. The aim of the present study was to provide a more comprehensive and updated picture of PI by state and severity using publicly available data. Methods: A cost-of-illness analysis was conducted using a prevalence approach and a 1-year time horizon based on data from the existing literature extrapolated using simulation methods to estimate the costs by PI severity and state subgroups. Results: The treatment cost across all states and severity in 2012–13 was estimated to be A$983 million per annum, representing approximately 1.9$820 million per annum. These estimates were associated with a total number of 121 645 PI cases in 2012–13 and a total number of 524 661 bed days lost. Conclusions: The costs estimated in the present study highlight the economic waste for the Australian health system associated with a largely avoidable injury. Wastage can also be reduced by preventing moderate injuries (Stage I and II) from developing into severe cases (Stage III and IV), because the severe cases, accounting for 12% of cases, mounted to 30% of the total cost

Pressure-relieving devices for preventing heel pressure ulcers

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: To determine the effects of pressure-relieving devices in preventing heel pressure ulcers

Developing a pressure ulcer risk factor minimum data set and risk assessment framework

AIM: To agree a draft pressure ulcer risk factor Minimum Data Set to underpin the development of a new evidenced-based Risk Assessment Framework.BACKGROUND: A recent systematic review identified the need for a pressure ulcer risk factor Minimum Data Set and development and validation of an evidenced-based pressure ulcer Risk Assessment Framework. This was undertaken through the Pressure UlceR Programme Of reSEarch (RP-PG-0407-10056), funded by the National Institute for Health Research and incorporates five phases. This article reports phase two, a consensus study.DESIGN: Consensus study.METHOD: A modified nominal group technique based on the Research and Development/University of California at Los Angeles appropriateness method. This incorporated an expert group, review of the evidence and the views of a Patient and Public Involvement service user group. Data were collected December 2010-December 2011.FINDINGS: The risk factors and assessment items of the Minimum Data Set (including immobility, pressure ulcer and skin status, perfusion, diabetes, skin moisture, sensory perception and nutrition) were agreed. In addition, a draft Risk Assessment Framework incorporating all Minimum Data Set items was developed, comprising a two stage assessment process (screening and detailed full assessment) and decision pathways.CONCLUSION: The draft Risk Assessment Framework will undergo further design and pre-testing with clinical nurses to assess and improve its usability. It will then be evaluated in clinical practice to assess its validity and reliability. The Minimum Data Set could be used in future for large scale risk factor studies informing refinement of the Risk Assessment Framework

EPUAP classification system for pressure ulcers: European reliability study

‘The definitive version is available at www3.interscience.wiley.com .' Copyright Blackwell PublishingPeer reviewe

Development of a model to demonstrate the effects of friction and pressure on skin in relation to pressure ulcer formation

© 2017 The Authors Pressure ulcers are a common injury of the skin which leads to pain and potential infection for patients and financial burden to the healthcare providers across the global due to treatment costs, litigation and extended hospital stays. The current study focuses on one of the causes of pressure ulcer formation, ischemia. Blood vessels are deemed to be deformed and blood flow restricted when skin is subjected to external mechanical loads including friction, pressure and the combination of both. Hence, normal oxygen delivery to cells or metabolic waste removal are locally stopped which causes cells deaths and ultimately pressure ulcers. The current study proposes a 3D finite element analysis model which is capable of demonstrating the effect of friction, pressure and the combination of both to the deformation of blood vessels. The results of simulation suggested that applied pressure collapsed the blood vessels while friction opened up the blood vessels. However, as a combination effect of pressure and friction, the cross-sectional areas of blood vessels were reduced significantly. This model is clinically and physiologically relevant in terms of loading regime and blood vessels structures. The model with further development can be adopted to be an effective tool to evaluate the effects of medical devices to the possibility of pressure ulcer formation

The cost-effectiveness of a patient centred pressure ulcer prevention care bundle: findings from the INTACT cluster randomised trial

Background: Pressure ulcers are serious, avoidable, costly and common adverse outcomes of healthcare. Objectives: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a patient-centred pressure ulcer prevention care bundle compared to standard care. Design: Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses of pressure ulcer prevention performed from the health system perspective using data collected alongside a cluster-randomised trial. Settings: Eight tertiary hospitals in Australia. Participants: Adult patients receiving either a patient-centred pressure ulcer prevention care bundle (n = 799) or standard care (n = 799). Methods: Direct costs related to the intervention and preventative strategies were collected from trial data and supplemented by micro-costing data on patient turning and skin care from a 4-week substudy (n = 317). The time horizon for the economic evaluation matched the trial duration, with the endpoint being diagnosis of a new pressure ulcer, hospital discharge/transfer or 28 days; whichever occurred first. For the cost-effectiveness analysis, the primary outcome was the incremental costs of prevention per additional hospital acquired pressure ulcer case avoided, estimated using a two-stage cluster-adjusted non-parametric bootstrap method. The cost-benefit analysis estimated net monetary benefit, which considered both the costs of prevention and any difference in length of stay. All costs are reported in AU$(2015). Results: The care bundle cost AU$144.91 (95%CI: $74.96 to$246.08) more per patient than standard care. The largest contributors to cost were clinical nurse time for repositioning and skin inspection. In the cost-effectiveness analysis, the care bundle was estimated to cost an additional $3,296 (95$144,525) per pressure ulcer avoided. This estimate is highly uncertain. Length of stay was unexpectedly higher in the care bundle group. In a cost-benefit analysis which considered length of stay, the net monetary benefit for the care bundle was estimated to be −$2,320 (95$3,900, −$1,175) per patient, suggesting the care bundle was not a cost-effective use of resources. Conclusions: A pressure ulcer prevention care bundle consisting of multicomponent nurse training and patient education may promote best practice nursing care but may not be cost-effective in preventing hospital acquired pressure ulcer

The impact of hoist sling materials on interface pressure whilst sitting in healthy volunteers and wheelchair users : a comparative study

Aim of the study To evaluate the effect of three sling fabrics on gluteal interface pressure whilst sitting in a population of wheelchair users and to compare these to data previously collected in a pilot study with a healthy population. Materials and methods A repeated measures experimental design was used with 32 adult wheelchair users (15 women, 17 men). Healthy population pilot study consisted of 61 participants (51 women, 10 men) recruited from staff and students at The University of Salford. Methods Gluteal pressures at six pressure zones were recorded using the X-sensor PX100 pressure sensor at 30 second intervals for 10 minutes. Data were collected in 4 conditions with participants seated in a standardised chair, followed by the chair with slings made of three different fabrics. Results The spacer fabric reduced the mean gluteal pressure more effectively than slipfit and polyester (p=0.014 and p=0.01 respectively, 95%CI) and reduced peak pressure at the left ischial tuberosity and coccyx when compared to the slipfit (p=0.003 and p=0.005) with the wheelchair users. When comparing data with the pilot study, the mean gluteal pressure and peak pressures at the ischial tuberosities and coccyx were significantly higher in the wheelchair user group (p&lt;0.005). Conclusion The fabric identified as the most effective in reducing mean and peak pressures in both groups was the spacer fabric, suggesting that a spacer fabric sling is more likely to reduce the risk of pressure ulcer development. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors