Clinical and Cost Effectiveness of a Cleanser Protectant Lotion for Treatment of Perineal Skin Breakdown in Low-Risk Patients wi
- Wed, 9/3/08 - 10:25am
- 0 Comments
- 4913 reads
P erineal dermatitis is a potentially serious sequela of urinary and/or fecal incontinence. If untreated, denuded skin may rapidly progress to ulceration and secondary infection,1 including bacterial (Staphylococcus) and yeast (Candida albicans) infections. This often results in physical discomfort, functioning limitations, and increased treatment costs. Frequent urinary incontinence and/or liquid stool have been cited by several authors2,3 as causes of perineal skin breakdown; therefore, patients with incontinence may benefit from prophylactic care and expedited treatment of perineal dermatitis.
Standard protocols for care of perineal dermatitis due to incontinence typically include a cleansing product and a barrier cream (two-step process).4,5 A new, one-step, cleanser protectant lotion, Baza® Cleanse and Protect™ Lotion (Coloplast Corp., Marietta, Ga.), was recently developed to improve effectiveness and ease of perineal care in patients with incontinence. The primary objective of this multicenter, phase II product evaluation study was to determine the effectiveness of a new cleanser protectant lotion in reducing perineal erythema and pain in low-risk patients with incontinence. The secondary objective of this study was to determine the cost per application and caregiver time of the standard and study products.
Methods
This study was conducted at two sites. Site One was Vencor Hospital in Minneapolis, Minn. (a long-term, acute care hospital). Site Two was the Minnesota Veterans Home, Minneapolis, Minn. (a skilled, long-term care facility). Institutional review board approval was obtained at each site and standard procedures were instituted to ensure the dignity and rights of study participants.
Inclusion criteria included: 1) low-risk incontinence defined as a total score of 6 or less on Perineal Assessment Tool6 (PAT) (see Table 1); 2) grade 2 or 3 erythema (see Table 2); and 3) ability to provide informed consent or having a family member willing to provide informed consent. Exclusion criteria included: 1) younger than 18 years of age; 2) use of topical corticosteroids on the perineum within 2 weeks prior to enrollment; 3) current use of oral or parenteral corticosteroids equivalent to oral prednisone, 10 mg or greater; 4) known hypersensitivity to ingredients in the study lotion; 5) clinical signs and symptoms of skin infection; and 6) participation in a perineal skin care study within 4 weeks of enrollment. Incontinence was defined as the inability to control urinary and/or fecal output.5
The Perineal Assessment Tool (PAT) is a valid and reliable risk assessment tool developed by Nix6 based on literature review (see Table 1).2,7-13 The framework for the PAT is based on four factors that are determinants in perineal skin breakdown. These constructs include duration of irritant, intensity/type of irritant, perineal skin condition, and
contributing factors that may cause diarrhea. Each subscale reflects degrees of risk factors. All subscales are rated from 1 (least risk) to 3 (most risk). Each rating has a descriptor and a description of each level of the scale. Total scores can range from 4 (least risk) to 12 (most risk).6 The PAT was used to categorize patients into high-, medium-, and low-risk patients. Only low-risk patients were eligible to participate in this study.
1. Fiers SA. Breaking the cycle: the etiology of incontinence dermatitis and evaluating and using skin care products. Ostomy/Wound Management. 1996;42(3):32-40.
2. Brown DS, Sears M. Perineal dermatitis: a conceptual framework. Ostomy/Wound Management. 1993;39(7):20-26.
3. Faria DT, Shwayder T, Krull EA. Perineal skin injury: extrinsic environmental risk factors. Ostomy/Wound Management. 1996;42(7):28-37.
4. Fantl JA, Newman DK, Colling AJ, et al. Clinical Practice Guideline Number 2: Urinary Incontinence in Adults: Acute and Chronic Management. Rockford, Md: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, Publication No. 96-0682 March 1996: 85-86.
5. Fiers S, Thayer D. Management of intractable incontinence. In: Dougherty DB. Urinary and Fecal Incontinence: Nursing Management, 2nd ed. St. Louis, Mo.:Mosby; 2000:183-207.
6. Nix DP. Validity and reliability of the perineal risk assessment tool. Ostomy/Wound Management. 2002;48(2):43-49.
7. Fantl JA, Newman DK, Colling AJ, et al. Clinical Practice Guideline Number 2: Urinary Incontinence in Adults: Acute and Chronic Management. Rockford, Md: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, 1996, Publication No. 96-0682.
8. Lyder CH. Perineal dermatitis in the elderly. A critical review of the literature. J Gerontol Nurs. 1997;23(12):5-10.
9. Garvin G. Skin care considerations in the neonate for the ET nurse. J Enterostomal Ther. 1990;17(6):225-230.
10. Bergstrom N, Braden B. A conceptual schema for the study of the etiology of pressure sores. Rehabil Nurs. 1987;12(1):8-12.
11. Anderson PH, Bucher AP, Saeed I, Lee JA, Davis JA, Maibach HI. Faecal enzymes: in vivo human skin irritation. Contact Dermatitis. 1994;30:152-158.
12. Scardillo J, Araonovitch SA Successfully managing incontinence-related irritant dermatitis across the lifespan. Ostomy/Wound Management. 1999;45(4):36-44.
13. Haugen V. Perineal skin care for patients with frequent diarrhea or fecal incontinence. Gastroenterol Nurs. 1997;20(3):87-90.
14. Charbonnier V, Morrison BM, Paye M, Maibach HI. Open application assay in investigation of subclinical irritant dermatitis induced be sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) in man: advantage of squamometry. Skin Research and Technology. 1998;4(4):244-250.
15. Clayton J, Smith K, Qureshi H, Ferguson B. Collecting patients' views and perceptions of continence services: the development of research instruments. J Adv Nurs. 1998;28(2):353-361.
16. Wyman JF. The "costs" of urinary incontinence. Eur Urol. 1997;32(Suppl 2):13-19.
17. Byers PH, Ryan PA, Regan MB, Shields A, Carta SG. Effects of incontinence care cleansing regimens on skin integrity. JWOCN. 1995;22(4):187-192.
18. McMurdo ME, Davey PG, Elder MA, Miller RM, Old DC, Malek M. A cost-effectiveness study of the management of intractable urinary incontinence by urinary catherterisation or incontinence pads. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1992;46(3):222-226.






Post new comment