Joyce Black

Moisture-associated skin damage: Overview and pathophysiology

Moisture-associated skin damage (MASD) is caused by prolonged exposure to various sources of moisture, including urine or stool, perspiration, wound exudate, mucus, saliva, and their contents. MASD is characterized by inflammation of the skin, occurring with or without erosion or secondary cutaneous infection. Multiple conditions may result in MASD; 4 of the most common forms are incontinence-associated dermatitis, intertriginous dermatitis, periwound moisture-associated dermatitis, and peristomal moisture-associated dermatitis. Although evidence is lacking, clinical experience suggests that MASD requires more than moisture alone. Instead, skin damage is attributable to multiple factors, including chemical irritants within the moisture source, its pH, mechanical factors such as friction, and associated microorganisms. To prevent MASD, clinicians need to be vigilant both in maintaining optimal skin conditions and in diagnosing and treating minor cases of MASD prior to progression and skin breakdown.

Medical device related pressure ulcers in hospitalized patients

Most pressure ulcers occur over bony prominences such as heels and the sacrum. However, the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel recognises that pressure ulcers can also occur on any tissue under pressure and thereby can develop beneath medical devices. This article reports on results from a secondary analysis of existing data collected by The Nebraska Medical Center on pressure ulcer quality improvement initiatives and outcomes. The purpose of this study was to quantify the extent of the problem and identify risk factors for medical device related (MDR) pressure ulcer development in hospitalised patients. A subset of data collected during eight quarterly pressure ulcer incidence and prevalence studies (N = 2178) was created and analysed. The overall rate of hospital‐acquired pressure ulcers was 5·4% (113 of 2079). The proportion of patients with hospital‐acquired ulcers related to medical devices was 34·5% (39 of 113). Findings indicate that if a patient had a medical device, they were 2·4 times more likely to develop a pressure ulcer of any kind. Numerous risk factors for pressure ulcer development were identified; however, none differentiated between those with MDR and traditional pressure ulcers.

Dilemmas in measuring and using pressure ulcer prevalence and incidence: an international consensus

Pressure ulcer prevalence and incidence data are increasingly being used as indicators of quality of care and the efficacy of pressure ulcer prevention protocols. In some health care systems, the occurrence of pressure ulcers is also being linked to reimbursement. The wider use of these epidemiological analyses necessitates that all those involved in pressure ulcer care and prevention have a clear understanding of the definitions and implications of prevalence and incidence rates. In addition, an appreciation of the potential difficulties in conducting prevalence and incidence studies and the possible explanations for differences between studies are important. An international group of experts has worked to produce a consensus document that aims to delineate and discuss the important issues involved, and to provide guidance on approaches to conducting and interpreting pressure ulcer prevalence and incidence studies. The groups main findings are summarised in this paper.

MASD part 2: Incontinence-associated dermatitis and intertriginous dermatitis: A consensus

A consensus panel was convened to review current knowledge of moisture-associated skin damage (MASD) and to provide recommendations for prevention and management. This article provides a summary of the discussion and the recommendations in regards to 2 types of MASD: incontinence-associated dermatitis (IAD) and intertriginous dermatitis (ITD). A focused history and physical assessment are essential for diagnosing IAD or ITD and distinguishing these forms of skin damage from other types of skin damage. Panel members recommend cleansing, moisturizing, and applying a skin protectant to skin affected by IAD and to the perineal skin of persons with urinary or fecal incontinence deemed at risk for IAD. Prevention and treatment of ITD includes measures to ensure that skin folds are dry and free from friction; however, panel members do not recommend use of bed linens, paper towels, or dressings for separating skin folds. Individuals with ITD are at risk for fungal and bacterial infections and these infections should be treated appropriately; for example, candidal infections should be treated with antifungal therapies.

MASD Part 3: Peristomal moisture-associated dermatitis and periwound moisture-associated dermatitis: A consensus

Moisture-associated skin damage (MASD) occurs when excessive moisture in urine, stool, and wound exudate leads to inflammation of the skin, with or without erosion or secondary cutaneous infection. This article, produced by a panel of clinical experts who met to discuss moisture as an etiologic factor in skin damage, focuses on peristomal moisture-associated dermatitis and periwound moisture-associated dermatitis. The principles outlined here address assessment, prevention, and treatment of MASD affecting the peristomal or periwound skin.

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.

Infected pressure ulcers in the long-term-care facility

Pressure ulcers occur with some frequency in the elderly, debilitated population in long-term-care facilities. Pressure ulcers cause morbidity and mortality and, by virtue of breaking the integumentary barrier, predispose to skin and soft-tissue infections. The latter often are deep and require lengthy medical and surgical therapy. Prevention depends on avoidance of pressure, as well as providing adequate nutrition and meticulous skin care.

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.