Carol Dealey

Statement of the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel —pressure ulcer classification: differentiation between pressure ulcers and moisture lesions

Apressure ulcer is an area of localized damage to the skin and underlying tissue caused by pressure or shear and/or a combination of these. The identification of pressure damage is an essential and integral part of clinical practice and pressure ulcer research. Pressure ulcer classification is a method of determining the severity of a pressure ulcer and is also used to distinguish pressure ulcers from other skin lesions. A classification system describes a series of numbered grades or stages, each determining a different degree of tissue damage. The European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (EPUAP) defined 4 different pressure ulcer grades (Table 1).1 Nonblanchable erythema is a sign that pressure and shear are causing tissue damage and that preventive measures should be taken without delay to prevent the development of pressure ulcer lesions (Grade 2, 3, or 4). The diagnosis of the existence of a pressure ulcer is more difficult than one commonly assumes. There is often confusion between a pressure ulcer and a lesion that is caused by the presence of moisture, for example, because of incontinence of urine and/or feces. Differentiation between the two is clinically important, because prevention and treatment strategies differ largely and the consequences of the outcome for the patient are imminently important. This statement on pressure ulcer classification is limitedto the differentiation between pressure ulcers and moisture lesions. Obviously, there are numerous other lesions that might be misclassified as a pressure ulcer (eg, leg ulcer and diabetic foot). Experience has shown that becauseof their location, moisture lesions are the ones most often misclassified as pressure ulcers.2-3 Wound-related characteristics (causes, location, shape, depth, edges, and color), along with patient-related characteristics, are helpful to differentiate between a pressure ulcer and a moisture lesion

Hip fracture and pressure ulcers – the Pan‐European Pressure Ulcer Study – intrinsic and extrinsic risk factors*

Pressure ulcers (PU) in patients with hip fracture remain a problem. Incidence of between 8·8% and 55% have been reported. There are few studies focusing on the specific patient‐, surgery‐ and care‐related risk indicators in this group. The aims of the study were

Enhancing pressure ulcer prevention using wound dressings: what are the modes of action?

Recent clinical research has generated interest in the use of sacral wound dressings as preventive devices for patients at risk of ulceration. This study was conducted to identify the modes of action through which dressings can add to pressure ulcer prevention, for example, shear and friction force redistribution and pressure distribution. Bench testing was performed using nine commercially available dressings. The use of dressings can reduce the amplitude of shear stress and friction reaching the skin of patients at risk. They can also effectively redirect these forces to wider areas which minimises the mechanical loads upon skeletal prominences. Dressings can redistribute pressure based upon their effective Poisson ratio and larger deflection areas, providing greater load redistribution.

Are Your Patients Sitting Comfortably

Abstract A prevalence survey to establish base-line information about the pressure sore problem within Moseley Hall Hospital found that 38% of all sores were on the buttocks whereas only 28% were on the sacrum, indicating that the seating needed to be investigated as well as the mattresses. A subsequent survey of the armchairs in the hospital showed that only 23% were in a satisfactory condition. . A small scale trial was undertaken to evaluate a new armchair with regard to pressure relief and maintenance of posture. The results showed an overall improvement in pressure relief and improved posture as well as a positive response from the patients involved.

Challenges in pressure ulcer prevention

Although this article is a stand‐alone article, it sets the scene for later articles in this issue. Pressure ulcers are considered to be a largely preventable problem, and yet despite extensive training and the expenditure of a large amount of resources, they persist. This article reviews the current understanding of pressure ulcer aetiology: pressure, shear and microclimate. Individual risk factors for pressure ulceration also need to be understood in order to determine the level of risk of an individual. Such an assessment is essential to determine appropriate prevention strategies. The main prevention strategies in terms of reducing pressure and shear and managing microclimate are studied in this article. The problem of pressure ulceration related to medical devices is also considered as most of the standard prevention strategies are not effective in preventing this type of damage. Finally, the possibility of using dressings as an additional preventive strategy is raised along with the question: is there enough evidence to support their use?

Achieving consensus in pressure ulcer reporting

Pressure ulcers are considered to be a key quality indicator and healthcare providers in England are required to report local pressure ulcer rates. However, there is a lack of standardisation in reporting due to lack of national guidance. The Tissue Viability Society has sought to develop consensus amongst all concerned parties on the most useful and robust methods of data collection. This document has been developed following a consensus meeting and consultation with the majority of Tissue Viability Nurses across England and provides guidance on reporting pressure ulcer rates. It is intended for use all organisations that are involved in the reporting of pressure ulcers. It represents the consensus view of a large number of Tissue Viability Nurses from across England and we recommend its adoption.

Laboratory measurement of the interface pressures applied by active therapy support surfaces : A consensus document

A key element in pressure ulcer prevention and management is the selection of appropriate pressure redistributing (PR) patient support surfaces for use while seated and in bed. However little explicit guidance exists allowing standardised quantitative comparison of different PR surfaces based upon their ability to redistribute pressure from anatomical landmarks such as the heels and sacrum. In 2008 a working group was established in Europe through the US National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (NPUAP) support surface standardisation initiative (S3I) and under the aegis of the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel with the specific remit of developing test methods for the evaluation of active therapy support surfaces (alternating pressure air mattresses). This report describes a consensus development process to agree test methods appropriate to compare active therapy surfaces based upon their ability to redistribute pressure from the sacrum and the heels.

Case study methodology in tissue viability. Part 2: a study to determine the levels of knowledge of nurses providing care for patients with leg ulcers in an acute hospital setting

One of the main components of the clinical governance framework is a comprehensive programme of quality improvement activity that includes the implementation of evidence-based, everyday clinical practice. This paper addresses the challenges surrounding the implementation of one area of evidence-based practice, the management of leg ulcers in an acute hospital trust. The aim of the study was to distinguish the levels of knowledge of nurses providing care for patients with leg ulcers within an acute hospital setting. The design used was that of a collective case study. Each case was a patient with a leg ulcer and the nurses who cared for that patient. They were studied in order to provide insight into the nurses understanding of leg ulcer management. A number of themes were identified as being common to all the cases. They are: evidence-based practice, nursing skills, quality of life, patient understanding of their ulcer and pain. Each of these themes identified areas of knowledge deficit in the nurses. As part of the implementation of a leg ulcer policy an education programme is being developed to address these deficits.

Case study methodology in tissue viability. Part l: methodological considerations

Case studies are often presented in relation to tissue viability problems. Within hierarchies of evidence, case studies are sometimes seen to be on a par with expert opinion. This paper examines the case study as a research method and seeks to determine its value in tissue viability research. The term case study denotes a general strategy for research where several methods of data collection are used to provide an in-depth analysis of an individual, group or institution. Three types of case study are used in research: intrinsic, instrumental and collective. All case studies utilize data triangulation within their design, that is, the use of a variety of sources of data within a study. It is one of the major strengths of the case study method. Data sources include documentary data sources, observation and interviews. As in any research, validity and reliability are important in case study methodology; in particular, construct validity, internal validity and external validity. Case studies are potentially vulnerable to observer error and observer bias. Examples are given of potential case studies in tissue viability and their strengths and weaknesses. If undertaken prospectively, with clearly defined multiple sources of data collection and a documented chain of evidence, case studies can add breadth to our knowledge and experience of caring for patients with tissue viability problems.

A Survey of the Management of Cavity Wounds in the Community

Summary Increasingly, patients with cavity wounds are being cared for in the community. This may cause difficulties for community nurses, as no cavity wound dressings are available on prescription. Anecdotal evidence suggests that these dressings are obtained illegally by nurses exchanging prescription dressings with non-prescription dressings of equal value with the pharmacist. This survey sought to provide evidence regarding this practice. A questionnaire was circulated to 100 randomly selected district nurses and was also included in the Journal of Tissue Viability and the Tissue Viability Supplement in the Nursing Standard. A total of 187 returns gave information on 430 cavity wounds. Twenty seven different treatments were in use, the commonest being alginate dressings (55.8%). Both flat dressings and rope dressings were used. Although 60.5% of dressings were obtained by prescription from the GP, 18.8% were obtained by doing swaps with the chemist.