Lena Gunningberg

Why is pain still not being assessed adequately? Results of a pain prevalence study in a university hospital in Sweden.

AIM The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of pain and pain assessment among inpatients in a university hospital. BACKGROUND Pain management could be considered an indicator of quality of care. Few studies report on prevalence measures including all inpatients. DESIGN Quantitative and explorative. METHOD Survey. RESULTS Of the inpatients at the hospital who answered the survey, 494 (65%) reported having experienced pain during the preceding 24 hours. Of the patients who reported having experienced pain during the preceding 24 hours, 81% rated their pain >3 and 42.1% rated their pain >7. Of the patients who reported having experienced pain during the preceding 24 hours, 38.7% had been asked to self-assess their pain using a Numeric Rating Scale (NRS); 29.6% of the patients were completely satisfied, and 11.5% were not at all satisfied with their participation in pain management. CONCLUSIONS The result showed that too many patients are still suffering from pain and that the NRS is not used to the extent it should be. Efforts to overcome under-implementation of pain assessment are required, particularly on wards where pain is not obvious, e.g., wards that do not deal with surgery patients. Work to improve pain management must be carried out through collaboration across professional groups. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE Using a pain assessment tool such as the NRS could help patients express their pain and improve communication between nurses and patients in relation to pain as well as allow patients to participate in their own care. Carrying out prevalence pain measures similar to those used here could be helpful in performing quality improvement work in the area of pain management.

Improved quality and comprehensiveness in nursing documentation of pressure ulcers after implementing an electronic health record in hospital care.

AIMS One aim was to compare the quality and comprehensiveness in nursing documentation of pressure ulcers before and after implementation of an electronic health record in a hospital setting. Another aim was to investigate the use of preformulated templates for pressure ulcer recording in the electronic health record. BACKGROUND With the possibilities of the electronic health record to provide information and give accurate and reliable feedback to the healthcare organisation, it is of high priority to develop standardised documentation practices for various areas of care (e.g. such as pressure ulcer care). DESIGN A cross-sectional retrospective review of health records. METHODS Three departments in a Swedish university hospital participated. In 2002, there were 413 patients, including 59 paper-based records identified with notes on pressure ulcers and in 2006, 343 patients, including 71 electronic health records with pressure ulcer recording. Recorded data on pressure ulcers were retrospectively reviewed. Results. Significantly more patient records showed notes of pressure ulcer grade (p < 0.001), size (p = 0.004), risk assessment (p = 0.002), nursing history (p = 0.040), nursing diagnoses (p < 0.001), nursing goals (p < 0.001) and nursing outcomes (p = 0.016) in 2006 than in 2002. One third of the recordings used preformulated templates. CONCLUSIONS Although there were significant improvements in pressure ulcer recording after the change to the electronic health record, several deficiencies remained. Due to the short time of our follow-up after implementation of the electronic health record, we suspect that the quality of recording will improve when nurses become more familiar with the new system. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE Education related to the use of the electronic health record and evidence-based pressure ulcer prevention should be provided to the nurses. To facilitate documentation, the templates need to be refined to be more user-friendly.

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

Tracking quality over time: what do pressure ulcer data show?

OBJECTIVE To compare the prevalence of pressure ulcers and prevention before and after a quality improvement program; determine whether patient characteristics differed for those who did and did not develop pressure ulcers; identify pressure ulcer prevention implemented at admission and whether prevention and risk factors varied by pressure ulcer severity. DESIGN Descriptive comparative study based on two cross-sectional pressure ulcer surveys conducted in 2002 and 2006, complemented with a retrospective audit of the electronic health record and administrative system for patients identified with pressure ulcers. SETTING 1100-bed Swedish university hospital. PARTICIPANTS 612 hospitalized patients in 2002 and 632 in 2006. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Prevalence of pressure ulcers and prevention (pressure-reducing mattresses; planned repositioning; chair, heel and 30 degrees lateral positioning cushions). RESULTS Pressure ulcer prevalence was 23.9% in 2002 and 22.9% in 2006. When non-blanchable erythema was excluded, the prevalence was 8.0 and 12.0%, respectively. The use of pressure-reducing mattresses increased while planned repositioning decreased. Those who developed ulcers were older, at-risk for ulcers, incontinent and had longer length of stay. Little prevention was documented at admission. Some prevention strategies and risk factors were related to severity of ulcers. CONCLUSIONS Pressure ulcer prevalence did not decrease, despite a comprehensive quality improvement program. Special attention is needed to provide prevention to older patients with acute admission. Skin and risk assessment, as well as prevention, should start early in the hospitalization. Identifying those persons with community-acquired versus hospital-acquired ulcers will strengthen pressure ulcers as an accurate marker of quality of care for hospitalized patients. If possible, data should be reported by ward level for comparison over time.

The first national pressure ulcer prevalence survey in county council and municipality settings in Sweden

AIM To report data from the first national pressure ulcer prevalence survey in Sweden on prevalence, pressure ulcer categories, locations and preventive interventions for persons at risk for developing pressure ulcers. METHODS A cross-sectional research design was used in a total sample of 35,058 persons in hospitals and nursing homes. The methodology used was that recommended by the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel. RESULTS The prevalence of pressure ulcers was 16.6% in hospitals and 14.5% in nursing homes. Many persons at risk for developing pressure ulcers did not receive a pressure-reducing mattress (23.3-27.9%) or planned repositioning in bed (50.2-57.5%). CONCLUSIONS Despite great effort on the national level to encourage the prevention of pressure ulcers, the prevalence is high. Public reporting and benchmarking are now available, evidence-based guidelines have been disseminated and national goals have been set. Strategies for implementing practices outlined in the guidelines, meeting goals and changing attitudes must be further developed.

EPUAP Pressure Ulcer Prevalence Survey in Sweden : A Two-Year Follow-Up of Quality Indicators.

OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to determine the effects of quality improvement programs for pressure ulcer prevention by conducting a follow-up survey in a hospital in Sweden. DESIGN A cross-sectional survey design with comparison between data collected in 2002 and 2004. SETTING AND SUBJECTS All inpatient areas were surveyed in the surgical, medical, and geriatric departments in a university hospital. A total of 369 patients were included. INSTRUMENTS The European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel data collection form including some additional questions. METHODS The 1-day survey was conducted on March 23, 2004. Each patient was visited by 2 registered nurses, who inspected the patients skin for any pressure ulcer classified according to the EPUAP grading system. RESULTS There were no significant differences in gender, age, or Braden score between the patients in surgical, medical, or geriatric care in 2002 and 2004. The overall prevalence of pressure ulcers was 33.3% (grade 1 excluded: 10.9%) in 2002 and 28.2% (grade 1 excluded: 14.1%) in 2004. In surgical care, the prevalence was reduced from 26.8% to 17.3% (P = .051). In medical care, the prevalence was 23.6% in 2002 and 26.7% in 2004. Corresponding prevalence figures for geriatric care were 59.3% and 50.0%. A quarter of the patients in surgical care, a third in medical care, and more than half in geriatric care had a pressure ulcer upon arrival at the ward. The use of pressure-reducing mattresses had increased significantly from 16.0% to 42.7% in medical care (P = .000). CONCLUSIONS The EPUAP methodology has facilitated the introduction of pressure ulcer as a quality indicator at hospital level. Pressure ulcer prevalence surveys with a standardized methodology should be repeated on a regular basis in order to stimulate quality improvement.

Accuracy in the recording of pressure ulcers and prevention after implementing an electronic health record in hospital care

Objective: To compare the accuracy in recording of pressure-ulcer prevalence and prevention before and after implementing an electronic health record (EHR) with templates for pressure-ulcer assessment. Methods: All inpatients at the departments of surgery, medicine and geriatrics were inspected for the presence of pressure ulcers, according to the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel—methodology, during 1 day in 2002 (n = 357) and repeated in 2006 (n = 343). The corresponding patient records were audited retrospectively for the presence of documentation on pressure ulcers. Results: In 2002, the prevalence of pressure ulcers obtained by auditing paper-based patient records (n = 413) was 14.3%, compared with 33.3% in physical inspection (n = 357). The largest difference was seen in the geriatric department, where records revealed 22.9% pressure ulcers and skin inspection 59.3%. Four years later, after the implementation of the EHR, there were 20.7% recorded pressure ulcers and 30.0% found by physical examination of patients. The accuracy of the prevalence data had improved most in the geriatric department, where the EHR showed 48.1% and physical examination 43.2% pressure ulcers. Corresponding figures in the surgical department were 22.2% and 14.1%, and in the medical department 29.9% and 10.2%, respectively. The patients received pressure-reducing equipment to a higher degree (51.6%) than documented in the patient record (7.9%) in 2006. Conclusions: The accuracy in pressure-ulcer recording improved in the EHR compared with the paper-based health record. However, there were still deficiencies, which mean that patient records did not serve as a valid source of information on pressure-ulcer prevalence and prevention.

Exploring variation in pressure ulcer prevalence in Sweden and the USA: benchmarking in action

AIM To compare overall unit-level pressure ulcer (PU) prevalence, hospital-acquired pressure ulcer (HAPU) prevalence and prevention strategies, as well as nurse staffing and workload in two hospitals in Sweden with data from the USA. METHODS Medical and surgical units in a university hospital and a general hospital in Sweden were compared with 207 hospitals in the USA participating in the Collaborative Alliance for Nursing Outcomes (CALNOC) benchmarking registry. All adult inpatients in university hospital (n = 630), general hospital (n = 253) and CALNOC hospitals (n = 3506) were included in the study. Outcome indicators were pressure ulcer prevalence for all types (PU) and HAPU prevalence, specifically. Process indicators were risk assessment and PU prevention strategies. Structure indicators were nurse staffing (hours of care, and skill mix) and workload (admissions, discharges and transfers). RESULTS The prevalence of PU (categories 1-4) was 17.6% (university hospital) and 9.5% (general hospital) compared with 6.3-6.7% in the CALNOC sample. The prevalence of full thickness HAPU (categories 3 and 4) was 2.7% (university hospital) and 2.0% (general hospital) compared with 0-0.5% in the CALNOC sample. Risk and skin assessment varied between 6% and 60% in the Swedish hospitals compared with 100% in the CALNOC sample. Total hours per patient day were 8.4 in both Swedish hospitals and 9.5 to 9.8 in the CALNOC hospitals CONCLUSIONS The findings suggest a link between processes of care and outcomes that is exciting to observe internationally and suggest the opportunity to expedite performance improvement through global benchmarking. Using HAPU as a complement to point prevalence of PU in Sweden has revealed this indicator as a more valid measure for patient care quality.

Hospital-acquired pressure ulcers in two Swedish County Councils: cross-sectional data as the foundation for future quality improvement

The objectives of the study were to examine the prevalence of pressure ulcers and hospital‐acquired pressure ulcers (HAPU) and identify modifiable factors in patients who develop HAPU as the basis for subsequent quality assurance studies and improvement in hospital care. The study was conducted in five hospitals in two Swedish County Councils. A 1‐day prevalence study (n = 1192) using the standards of the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel and Collaborative Alliance for Nursing Outcomes was conducted. The prevalence of ulcers was 14·9% and 11·6% were HAPU. Older age, more days of hospitalisation, less activity, problems with shear and friction and reduced sensory perception contributed significantly to HAPU. Pressure ulcer prevention strategies used more often in those with HAPU were risk assessment at admission, provision of a pressure relief mattress, having a turning schedule and using a heel or chair cushion. The prevalence of pressure ulcers continues to be a significant issue in acute care and the prevalence of HAPU is high. There is significant room for quality improvement in pressure ulcer prevention in Swedish hospitals. Future research needs to address both HAPU and community‐acquired pressure ulcers and focus on preventive strategies, including when they are initiated and which are effective in mitigating the high HAPU rate.

Improving assessment of postoperative pain in surgical wards by education and training

Problem: There is a need to improve postoperative pain organisation and management in hospitals. One of the most important factors in achieving this is to improve active assessment of pain in the postoperative phase. Design: Repeated audits on an annual basis over a 3 year period. Ward nurses, appointed as “pain control representatives”, performed the data collection. Setting: Departments of general surgery and orthopaedics in a university hospital with 1200 beds. Key measure for improvement: Assessment of postoperative pain intensity using a numerical rating scale. Strategies for change: On the basis of the first audit in 1999 the team decided to introduce a mandatory training programme in postoperative pain management for all involved staff, including surgeons and ward nurses. Guidelines for postoperative care were upgraded and made accessible through the intranet. Regular staff meetings in the surgical wards with representatives from the acute pain service team were introduced. Effects of change: The assessment of pain according to protocols increased from 71% to 91% in the surgical wards and from 60% to 88% in the orthopaedic wards between 1999 and 2001/2. Lessons learnt: To increase the awareness of pain and improve pain assessment, the importance of mandatory training, regular staff meetings and regular audits must be emphasised. It is also imperative to give feedback on the regular audits to the ward and staff members involved.