Preventing Hospital-acquired Pressure Ulcers: A Point Prevalence Study

Author(s): 
Suzanne Stewart, MS, RN, CWOCN; and Janet S. Box-Panksepp, BSN, RN, CWOCN

P ressure ulcers are all-too-often an outcome of acute and chronic illness. They occur across the continuum of care and their prevalence among patients in acute care ranges from 3.5% to 29.5%.1,2

Determining prevalence can be useful for benchmarking over time. Serial prevalence audits can serve as a pressure ulcer outcomes-management tool, reflecting the way changes in practice affect pressure ulcer prevention and treatment. One way to impact the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers is through allocation of resources, specifically implementation of support surfaces.

Literature Review

The role of mechanical forces on the development of pressure ulcers has long been recognized. Many investigators3-7 have measured the relative contribution of shear and pressure in diminishing blood flow. Considerable investigation has concluded that a relationship exists between external pressure loading and tissue damage. Shear also has been identified as a major mechanical force that causes tissue damage; specifically, an inverse relationship exists between pressure and shear. As the amount of shear increases, the amount of pressure required to cause pressure ulcers is reduced.

Utilizing support surfaces is one way to impact the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers.8 The Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR) guidelines recommend that patients at risk for the development of pressure ulcers should be placed on pressure-reducing support surfaces.9 One acute care facility used serial prevalence audits to determine the effect of a new support surface protocol on the number of nosocomial pressure ulcers.10

When evaluating the efficacy of a support surface, measuring its ability to relieve direct downward pressure and shear pressure is important. The pressure-relieving capability of a support surface added to a multiple of its ability to relieve shear yields a measurement of the major mechanical forces that are known to cause pressure ulcers. This relationship between pressure and shear has been referred to as the "isolibrium factor".11

In 1999, a new technology became available in the support surface market with the introduction of ISOFLEX® (Gaymar Industries, Inc, Orchard Park, NY). The pressure and shear management technology consists of a grid-like matrix of vertical columns constructed of an elastomer material. A column design manages pressure by redistributing a patient's weight; thereby, optimizing low tissue interface pressures. Additionally, this support surface has the ability to reduce shearing forces in the supine and Fowler positions.

Purpose

A study was conducted to compare prevalence rates, the number of patients with hospital-acquired pressure ulcers, and the total number of facility-acquired pressure ulcers before and after a hospital-wide change in support surfaces. The goal was to determine if a change in support surface technology would impact the occurrence of facility-acquired pressure ulcers. Implementing the new pressure and shear management support surface was the only change in practice in the period of time between the first and second prevalence audits.

Methods

Subjects and setting. The study facility is a 243-bed acute care medical center in rural northeastern Pennsylvania. All individuals hospitalized on five medical-surgical units and two intensive care units on each of the study days were eligible to participate. One hundred, nine (109) inpatients (two African American and 107 Caucasian patients) participated in the first audit in June 1999, and 128 (one African American and 127 Caucasian patients) inpatients participated in the second audit in October 2000.

References: 

1. Gawron CL. Risk factors for and prevalence of pressure ulcers among hospitalized patients. JWOCN. 1994;21:232-240.
2. Bergstrom N, Bennet MA, Carlson CE, et al. Clinical Practice Guideline Number 15: Treatment of Pressure Ulcers. Rockville, Md.: US Department of Health and Human Services. Public Health Service. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research:December 1994. AHCPR Publication No. 95-0652 .
3. Reichel S. Shearing force as a factor in decubitus ulcers in paraplegics. JAMA. 1958;166:762-763.
4. Bennett L, Kavner D, Lee B, Trainor F. Shear vs. pressure as causative factors in skin blood flow occlusion. Arch Phys Med Rehab. 1979;60:309-314.
5. Bennett L, Lee B. Pressure versus shear in pressure sore causation. In: Lee B, ed. Chronic Ulcers of the Skin, 1st ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill;1985:39-56.
6. Goossens R, Snijders C, Holscher T, Heerens W, Holman A. Shear stress measured on beds and wheelchairs. Scand. J Rehab Med. 1997;2:131-136.
7. Jay E. How different constant low pressure support surfaces address pressure and shear forces. Journal of Tissue Viability. 1995;5:118-123.
8. Stewart T. Support systems. In: Parish LC, Witkowski JT, Crissey JT, eds. The Decubitus Ulcer in Clinical Practice. New York, NY: Springer;1997:168.
9. Panel for the Prediction and Prevention of Pressure Ulcers in Adults. Clinical Practice Guideline Number 3: Pressure Ulcers in Adults: Prediction and Prevention. Rockville, Md.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Public Health Service. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. May 1992: AHCPR Publication No. 92-0047.
10. Dukich J, O'Connor D. Impact of practice guidelines on support surface selection, incidence of pressure ulcers, and fiscal dollars. Ostomy/Wound Management. 2001;47(3):44-53.
11. Perla J, Sylvia C, Stewart T. Quantifying the relationship between pressure and shear in the etiology of pressure ulcers. Poster Presentation at the Fourth European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel Meeting. Piza, Italy: September 2000.
12. Cuddigan, J, Berlowitz DR, Ayello, E, Pressure ulcers in America: Prevalence, incidence, and implications for the future. An executive summary of the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel Monograph. Advances in Skin & Wound Care. 2001;14 (4):208-215.
13. Braden B, Bergstrom N. Clinical utility of the Braden Scale for predicting pressure sore risk. Decubitus. 1989;8(2):44-51.
14. Braden BJ, Bergstrom, N. Risk assessment and risk-based programs of prevention in various settings. Ostomy/Wound Management. 1996;42(10A):6-12.



Post new comment

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Use to create page breaks.

More information about formatting options

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.