Zena Moore

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

Pressure ulcer prevalence and prevention practices in care of the older person in the Republic of Ireland

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to establish pressure ulcer prevalence and prevention in the long-term care setting. BACKGROUND There is no information on pressure ulcers prevalence in care of the older person in Ireland; therefore, a prevalence study was undertaken to investigate key aspects related to current practices in pressure ulcer prevention. DESIGN A cross-sectional survey design was employed. METHOD Ethical approval was received. Participants included 1100 older individuals residing in 12 long-term care settings. Data were collected using the Braden scale, the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel minimum data set and pressure ulcer grading system. RESULTS All participants were Irish and white, 70% were women, and 75% were aged 80 years or older. Prevalence was 9%, with 28% of pressure ulcers grade 1, 33% grade 2, 15% grade 3 and 24% grade 4, mainly located on the sacrum (58%) and the heel (25%). Seventy-seven per cent scored Braden low risk or not at risk; however, 53% were completely immobile/very limited mobility and 58% were chair/bedfast. There was a significant association between activity and mobility and pressure ulcer development (χ(2) = 45·50, p < 0·001 and χ(2) = 46·91, p = 0·0001, respectively). Fifty per cent had a pressure redistribution device in bed, and 48% had one in use on the chair; however, 9% had a repositioning regime planned for when in bed and 5% planned for when seated in the chair. CONCLUSIONS This paper reports on the first ever pressure ulcer prevalence survey conducted in long-term care in Ireland, and results provide significant insights into decision-making and use of resources in the prevention of pressure ulcers. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE Pressure ulcers are common, costly and impact negatively on individuals. Current practices in prevention show several areas for improvement, namely, risk assessment, care planning and documentation.

A randomised controlled clinical trial of repositioning, using the 30 tilt, for the prevention of pressure ulcers

UNLABELLED BACKGROUNDL: Pressure ulcers are common, costly and impact negatively on individuals. Pressure is the prime cause, and immobility is the factor that exposes individuals to pressure. International guidelines advocate repositioning; however, there is confusion surrounding the best method and frequency required. DESIGN A pragmatic, multi-centre, open label, prospective, cluster-randomised controlled trial was conducted to compare the incidence of pressure ulcers among older persons nursed using two different repositioning regimens. METHOD Ethical approval was received. Study sites (n=12) were allocated to study arm using cluster randomisation. The experimental group (n=99) were repositioned three hourly at night, using the 30° tilt; the control group (n=114) received routine prevention (six-hourly repositioning, using 90° lateral rotation). Data analysis was by intention to treat; follow-up was for four weeks. RESULTS All participants (n=213) were Irish and white, among them 77% were women and 65% aged 80 years or older. Three patients (3%) in the experimental group and 13 patients (11%) in the control group developed a pressure ulcer (p=0·035; 95% CI 0·031-0·038; ICC=0·001). All pressure ulcers were grade 1 (44%) or grade 2 (56%). Mobility and activity were the highest predictors of pressure ulcer development (β=-0·246, 95% CI=-0·319 to -0·066; p=0·003); (β=0·227, 95% CI=0·041-0·246; p = 0·006). CONCLUSION Repositioning older persons at risk of pressure ulcers every three hours at night, using the 30° tilt, reduces the incidence of pressure ulcers compared with usual care. The study supports the recommendations of the 2009 international pressure ulcer prevention guidelines. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE An effective method of pressure ulcer prevention has been identified; in the light of the problem of pressures ulcers, current prevention strategies should be reviewed. It is important to implement appropriate prevention strategies, of which repositioning is one.

Meta-analysis in context.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES To provide a detailed description of the concept, practice and relevance of meta-analysis. BACKGROUND An increasing abundance of research contributes to a gap between research and clinical practice. The conduct of meta-analysis, when carried out appropriately, provides a means by which data may be summarised such that it provides important answers for practising clinicians pertaining to the strength and direction of the evidence base. DESIGN A discursive design was adopted to encapsulate the current thinking regarding the use of meta-analysis. METHODS A literature review approach was employed to provide a narrative summary of the subject of meta-analysis. Meta-analysis is a statistical procedure, which involves quantitatively pooling the data from a group of independent studies that have looked at the same or similar clinical problems, using the same or similar research methods. The data are then reanalysed to calculate a pooled estimate of effect and a confidence interval around this estimate. RESULTS The findings from this review indicate that meta-analysis is a statistical procedure, which involves quantitatively pooling the data from a group of independent studies that have looked at the same or similar clinical problems, using the same or similar research methods. Correctly conducted, meta-analysis provides useful information for practice, identifying the strength and direction of the evidence base pertaining to important clinical problems. CONCLUSION Meta-analysis is a useful means by which those in the clinical practice setting may clarify the evidence base surrounding a wide variety of clinical problems. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE The value of meta-analysis is that this information may be used to guide clinical practice decision-making and also to direct the development of future research strategies.

A systematic review of wound cleansing for pressure ulcers

AIM The aim of this study was to use a Cochrane systematic review process to explore the effect of wound cleansing solutions and techniques on pressure ulcer healing. BACKGROUND Pressure ulcers impose a significant financial burden on health care systems and negatively affect the quality of life. Wound cleansing is an important component of pressure ulcer care; however, there is uncertainty regarding best practice. DESIGN Systematic review. METHODS The Specialised Trials Register of the Cochrane Wounds Group, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and bibliographies of relevant publications were searched. Drug companies and experts in the field were also contacted. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing wound cleansing with no wound cleansing, or different wound cleansing solutions, or different cleansing techniques, were eligible for inclusion. For dichotomous outcomes, relative risk (RR) plus 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated; for continuous outcomes, weighted mean difference plus 95% CI were calculated. Meta analysis was not conducted because of the small number of diverse RCTs identified. RESULTS No studies compared cleansing with no cleansing. A statistically significant improvement in healing occurred for wounds cleansed with saline spray containing Aloe vera, silver chloride and decyl glucoside (Vulnopur) compared with isotonic saline (p = 0.025). No statistically significant change in healing was seen when water was compared with saline (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.21, 41.89). No statistically significant change in healing was seen for ulcers cleansed with, or without, a whirlpool (RR 2.10, 95% CI 0.93-4.76). CONCLUSION There is little trial evidence to support the use of any particular wound cleansing solution or technique for pressure ulcers. Relevance to clinical practice. No firm recommendations for ways of cleansing pressure ulcers in clinical practice can be made, the lack of RCT evidence should be a concern for health care providers.

An international eDelphi study identifying the research and education priorities in wound management and tissue repair

AIM To incorporate an international and multidisciplinary consensus in the determination of the research and education priorities for wound healing and tissue repair. BACKGROUND A compelling reason for the study is the lack of an agreed list of priorities for wound care research and education. Furthermore, there is a growth in the prevalence of chronic wounds, a growth in wound care products and marketing, and an increase in clinician attendance at conferences and education programmes. DESIGN The study used a survey method. METHODS A four-round eDelphi technique was used to collect responses from an international population of health professionals across 24 countries. RESULTS Responses were obtained from 360 professionals representing many health care settings. The top education priorities related to the standardisation of all foundation education programmes in wound care, the inclusion of wound care in all professional undergraduate and postgraduate education programmes, selecting dressings and the prevention of pressure ulcers. The top research priorities related to the dressing selection, pressure ulcer prevention and wound infection. conclusion: Professionals from different backgrounds and countries who are engaged in wound management share a common set of priorities for research and education. Most notably, the priorities identified relate to long-established clinical challenges in wound care and underpin the principles of good patient care practices. The priorities are closely allied to an ageing population and identify many challenges ahead for practitioners engaged in wound management services. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE The provision of wound care is a major investment of health service resources and remains a clinical challenge today. Research is essential to building evidence-based practice and fundamental to development of quality in standards of practice; education is central to achieving competence to deliver effective care. The determination of research and education priorities is therefore an absolute requirement in developing services.

An economic analysis of repositioning for the prevention of pressure ulcers.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES To compare pressure ulcer incidence and costs associated with repositioning older individuals in long-term care using two different repositioning regimes. BACKGROUND Repositioning has not always been integrated into pressure ulcer preventative methods, with arguments that it is an expensive procedure in terms of personnel and time. DESIGN Participants were randomly allocated to the experimental group (n = 99; repositioned every 3 hours, using the 30° tilt) and the control group (n = 114 standard care, repositioned every 6 hours, using the 90° lateral rotation). The analysis explored the incidence of pressure ulcer development and the cost difference between the two repositioning schedules, over a 4-week period. RESULTS The mean daily nurse time for repositioning was 18·5 minutes (experimental) and 24·5 minutes (control). Nurse time cost per patient over the study period was €206·6 (experimental) and €253·1 (control), 96·6% of participants (experimental) remained free of pressure ulcers, compared with 88·1% (control). The cost per patient free of ulcer was €213·9 (experimental) and €287·3 (control). Projected annual costs were estimated for the 588 (53·5%) residents in the 12 study sites requiring repositioning. The cost would be €1·59 m (experimental) and €2·10 m (control), a cost difference of €510,000. This represents a difference of 58·8 hours of nurse time, equivalent to approximately 12 full time nurses across the 12 sites. CONCLUSION Repositioning every 3 hours, using 30° tilt, has been shown to be more effective in less costly in terms of nurse time compared with standard care. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE Repositioning individuals at risk of pressure ulcer development makes both economic and clinical sense, thereby supporting the EPUAP/NPUAP 2009 guidelines.

Pressure ulcer prevalence and prevention practices: a cross-sectional comparative survey in Norway and Ireland

OBJECTIVE This study explored whether the risk assessment method, structured versus clinical judgment, influences pressure ulcer (PU) prevalence or prevention strategies. METHOD A cross section survey design was employed with use of a pre-designed data collection instrument. Following ethical approval and consent, data was gathered from two acute care settings, one in Norway (clinical judgment) and one in Ireland (structured risk assessment using the Maelor Score). RESULTS Data were obtained from 180 patients, 59 in Norway and 121 in Ireland. Of the patients 48% were male and 49% were female, gender was not recorded for 3%. The most common age bracket was 70-99 years of age, 46% of the study population. PU prevalence was 54% in the Norwegian site with the majority of PUs (69%) being category 1, and 12% in the Irish site with the majority (50%) being category 2. Only 8% of patients in the Norwegian site were risk assessed on admission compared with 85% in the Irish site. No dynamic mattresses and four pressure redistribution cushions were in use in the Norwegian site, whereas, in the Irish site, 27 dynamic mattresses and 11 pressure redistribution cushions were used, the majority (44%) for high-risk individuals. Of those at risk of PU development, 15% in the Norwegian site and 56% in the Irish site had a documented repositioning care plan when in bed, and 0% in the Norwegian site and 13% in the Irish site for when seated on a chair. CONCLUSION There were inconsistencies in approach to PU risk assessment and prevention across the two clinical settings. However, prevalence rates differed, mainly relating to category 1 PU damage. Even though formal risk assessment is well established in the Irish site, this is not necessarily followed up with appropriated PU prevention. Thus, the method of risk assessment does not seem to influence subsequent care planning, questioning the role of formal risk assessment; however, despite this, risk assessment does put a focus on an important clinical problem. In the Norwegian site, a lack of risk assessment and appropriate equipment may be a confounding factor worthy of further exploration.

Fundamentals of randomized clinical trials in wound care: Design and conduct

The care for chronic and acute wounds is a substantial problem around the world. This has led to a plethora of products to accelerate healing. Unfortunately, the quality of studies evaluating the efficacy of such wound care products is frequently low. Randomized clinical trials are universally acknowledged as the study design of choice for comparing treatment effects, as they eliminate several sources of bias. We propose a framework for the design and conduct of future randomized clinical trials that will offer strong scientific evidence for the effectiveness of wound care interventions. While randomization is a necessary feature of a robust comparative study, it is not sufficient to ensure a study at low risk of bias. Randomized clinical trials should also ensure adequate allocation concealment and blinding of outcome assessors, apply intention‐to‐treat analysis, and use patient‐oriented outcomes. This article proposes strategies for improving the evidence base for wound care decision making.

Treatment of the diabetic foot by offloading: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE To compare the literature on the strengths and limitations of different offloading devices in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers. METHOD Systematic review of the literature in the following databases: the Cumulative Index to Nursing an Allied Health Literature (CINAHL); Medline; Embase; Cochrane Library and Web of Knowledge. The search strategy used the terms: diabetic foot; orthosis/orthotic devices/orthoses; foot orthosis/foot orthoses; casts/plaster cast/surgical cast; shoes. RESULTS Our results identified 15 studies, which are included in this review. Healing rates, healing times and reduction in ulcer size were improved with the use of total contact casting, when compared with other offloading devices. The main adverse effects associated with the use of the device were infection, maceration and abrasion. Cost, compliance and quality of life issues were rarely included within the studies. CONCLUSION Offloading is a key treatment strategy for the management of diabetic foot ulcers and total contact casts were found to be the most effective devices to achieve ulcer healing. However, they are not without complications and their impact on cost, compliance and quality of life is not well understood.