Evan Call

Systematic review of the use of prophylactic dressings in the prevention of pressure ulcers

This systematic review considers the evidence supporting the use of prophylactic dressings for the prevention of pressure ulcer. Electronic database searches were conducted on 25 July 2013. The searches found 3026 titles and after removal of duplicate records 2819 titles were scanned against the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Of these, 2777 were excluded based on their title and abstract primarily because they discussed pressure ulcer healing, the prevention and treatment of other chronic and acute wounds or where the intervention was not a prophylactic dressing (e.g. underpads, heel protectors and cushions). Finally, the full text of 42 papers were retrieved. When these 42 papers were reviewed, 21 were excluded and 21 were included in the review. The single high‐quality randomised controlled trial (RCT) and the growing number of cohort, weak RCT and case series all suggest that the introduction of a dressing as part of pressure ulcer prevention may help reduce pressure ulcer incidence associated with medical devices especially in immobile intensive care unit patients. There is no firm clinical evidence at this time to suggest that one dressing type is more effective than other dressings.

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.

Dressings as an adjunct to pressure ulcer prevention: consensus panel recommendations.

The formulation of recommendations on the use of wound dressings in pressure ulcer prevention was undertaken by a group of experts in pressure ulcer prevention and treatment from Australia, Portugal, UK and USA. After review of literature, they concluded that there is adequate evidence to recommend the use of five‐layer silicone bordered dressings (Mepilex Border Sacrum® and 3 layer Mepilex Heel® dressings by Mölnlycke Health Care, Gothenburg, Sweden) for pressure ulcer prevention in the sacrum, buttocks and heels in high‐risk patients, those in Emergency Department (ED), intensive care unit (ICU) and operating room (OR). Literature on which this recommendation is based includes one prospective randomised control trial, three cohort studies and two case series. Recommendations for dressing use in patients at high risk for pressure injury and shear injury were also provided.

Use of wound dressings to enhance prevention of pressure ulcers caused by medical devices.

Medical device related pressure ulcers (MDR PUs) are defined as pressure injuries associated with the use of devices applied for diagnostic or therapeutic purposes wherein the PU that develops has the same configuration as the device. Many institutions have reduced the incidence of traditional PUs (sacral, buttock and heel) and therefore the significance of MDR PU has become more apparent. The highest risk of MDR PU has been reported to be patients with impaired sensory perception, such as neuropathy, and an impaired ability for the patient to communicate discomfort, for example, oral intubation, language barriers, unconsciousness or non‐verbal state. Patients in critical care units typify the high‐risk patient and they often require more devices for monitoring and therapeutic purposes. An expert panel met to review the evidence on the prevention of MDR PUs and arrived at these conclusions: (i) consider applying dressings that demonstrate pressure redistribution and absorb moisture from body areas in contact with medical devices, tubing and fixators, (ii) in addition to dressings applied beneath medical devices, continue to lift and/or move the medical device to examine the skin beneath it and reposition for pressure relief and (iii) when simple repositioning does not relieve pressure, it is important not to create more pressure by placing dressings beneath tight devices.

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?

Off loading wheelchair cushion provides best case reduction in tissue deformation as indicated by MRI

Off-loading or the Orthotic approach to wheelchair seating has been used successfully to provide seating that optimizes tissue protection at the ischial tuberosities (ITs), sacrum and greater trochanters. Recent publications indicate the significance of preventing tissue compression to reduce ulcer formation. Comparative Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) of individuals seated on two cushion types provides direct evidence of tissue unloading resulting in the reduction in tissue compression. Measurement of tissue compression in MRI images provides the cumulative impact of compression and shear resulting in ultimate tissue thickness documented here. In this studys application of MRI to off-loading cushions (OLC), an alternate form of tissue protection was observed. Instead of incorporating immersion and envelopment, loads were transferred from high-risk areas, such as bony prominences, to lower risk soft tissues. This method shows both shearing and compression of load bearing tissues in seated individuals with the OLC in place. Tissue thickness measurements determined by MRI analysis indicate that the OLC provides greater reduction in tissue deformation than the air cell cushion (ACC). Deformation of tissues loaded by the OLC is not significantly different from the deformations seen with the ACC. This research represents the first reported use of MRI to document the comparative off-loading capabilities of two cushions and the resultant tissue compression and ulceration risk. While MRI analysis may not be incorporated in daily cushion prescription, this paper proposes a methodology in which MRI analysis of tissue deformation on comparative cushions allows the determination of best-case cushion selection for reduction of ischial pressure ulcer (PU) risk.

Orthotic-Style Off-Loading Wheelchair Seat Cushion Reduces Interface Pressure Under Ischial Tuberosities and Sacrococcygeal Regions.

OBJECTIVE To assess the efficacy of an off-loading wheelchair seat cushion in removing pressure from high-risk ischial tuberosities and the coccyx/sacrum in wheelchair sitting. DESIGN Repeated-measures design. SETTING Private research laboratory. PARTICIPANTS Manual wheelchair users with chronic spinal cord injuries (N=10). INTERVENTIONS Three configurations of an off-loading wheelchair seat cushion compared with a flotation style (10-cm air inflation) wheelchair seat cushion. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Outcome measures included peak pressure index (PPI), ischial tuberosity peak pressures, and the dispersion index or ratio of pressures under the ischial and sacral regions to the total of all pressures recorded. RESULTS PPI and ischial tuberosities peak pressure ranged from a low of 39±18 and 68±46mmHg in the fully off-loaded cushion to a high of 97±30 and 106±34mmHg, respectively, for the flotation style cushion (2-way analysis of variance main effect across 4 conditions, P<.001). Dispersion index ranged from a low of 8%±3% in the fully off-loaded cushion to a high of 16%±3% in the flotation style cushion. Pairwise comparisons yielded significance in all cushion-pair analyses (P<.05 after multiple corrections). CONCLUSIONS The force-removal approach of this orthotic off-loading cushion design effectively reduces a known extrinsic risk factor for pressure ulcers-interface pressure-in the high-risk ischial tuberosity and sacral/coccygeal regions of the buttocks.

Microclimate: A critical review in the context of pressure ulcer prevention

&NA; Pressure ulcers are caused by sustained mechanical loading and deformation of the skin and subcutaneous layers between internal stiff anatomical structures and external surfaces or devices. In addition, the skin microclimate (temperature, humidity and airflow next to the skin surface) is an indirect pressure ulcer risk factor. Temperature and humidity affect the structure and function of the skin increasing or lowering possible damage thresholds for the skin and underlying soft tissues. From a pressure ulcer prevention research perspective, the effects of humidity and temperature next to the skin surface are inextricably linked to concurrent soft tissue deformation. Direct clinical evidence supporting the association between microclimate and pressure ulceration is sparse and of high risk of bias. Currently, it is recommended to keep the skin dry and cool and/or to allow recovery periods between phases of occlusion. The stratum corneum must be prevented from becoming overhydrated or from drying out but exact ranges of an acceptable microclimate are unknown. Therefore, vague terms like ‘microclimate management’ should be avoided but product and microclimate characteristics should be explicitly stated to allow an informed decision making. Pressure ulcer prevention interventions like repositioning, the use of special support surfaces, cushions, and prophylactic dressings are effective only if they reduce sustained deformations in soft tissues. This mode of action outweighs possible undesirable microclimate properties. As long as uncertainty exists efforts must be taken to use as less occlusive materials as possible. There seems to be individual intrinsic characteristics making patients more vulnerable to microclimate effects.

Hazardous Drug Contamination of Drug Preparation Devices and Staff: A Contamination Study Simulating the Use of Chemotherapy Drugs in a Clinical Setting:

Background: Hazardous drug contamination (HD) in healthcare environments continues, placing healthcare staff at risk of significantly chronic health problems, despite the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) and closed system transfer device systems (CSTDs). Objective: This study’s aim was to determine how HD might spread through touch after handling contaminated vials in simulated pharmacy and nursing environments. Methods: UV fluorescent powder Glo Germ (Glo Germ Co., Moab, UT), composed of melamine resin, was used to simulate HD. Following manufacturer’s exact usage specifications, five commercially available CSTDs were tested in the simulated pharmaceutical preparation environment under controlled conditions. UV fluorescence was used to detect the test medium powder that simulated HD following each trial. Photographs, using a Nikon D40X (10.2 mp) camera, were taken at selected stages of testing to document the presence of HD. Results: Transfer of the HD testing medium (Glo Germ) to IV sets, pharmacy PPE, and nursing PPE was observed in 4 of 5 CSTDs tested. The only CSTDs that showed no observable contamination was the Allison Medical Safety Enclosed Vial Adapter (SEVA) system (Littleton, CO). Conclusions: Results show residue from HD vials spread as vial was handled in a pharmacy environment in 4 of 5 CSTDs, contaminating pharmacy PPE, ancillary products, and nursing PPE. No HD residue was detected on PPE, ancillary products, or nursing PPE in the pharmacy after using the SEVA system, providing an effective means to contain HD for drug transfer from vial to delivery system.