A scoping review and narrative synthesis of neonatal skin injury severity scales.

Abstract

Background: Mechanical force skin injuries are common for critical care patients, especially neonates. Currently, identification and severity assessments of injuries are dependent on clinical experience and/or utilization of severity tools. Compared with adults, neonates sustain skin injuries in different anatomical locations and have decreased layers of healthy tissue (from 0.9 to 1.2 mm) creating questions around direct application of adult injury severity scales reliant on visual assessment.

Aim: The aim of this scoping review (ScR) was to investigate severity scales used to report hospital acquired skin injuries for neonates.

Methods: This study utilized the 2015 Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews and is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Scoping Reviews extension. PubMed, CINAHL, COCHRANE Central, Scopus, and the reference lists of included studies were searched for studies published between 2001 and 2023, that included severity scales use within neonatal population. Two authors independently identified studies for full review, data extraction, and quality assessment.

Results: A systematic database search returned 1163 records. After full test review of 109 studies, 35 studies were included. A majority of studies included were cohort or action research and conducted in the United States of America. Most studies (57%, n = 20) reported skin injuries acquired throughout the body, 14 (40%) of the studies reported the nasal area alone and one study reported no anatomical location. A total of nine severity scales or combination of scales were utilized within studies (n = 31) and four studies did not report a scale. Various versions of scales from the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (n = 16), European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (n = 8) or Neonatal Skin Condition Score (n = 4) were reported, compared with locally developed classifications/scales (n = 4). Scales were predominantly of ordinal grouping (74%, n = 26) or categorical assessment (14%, n = 5). Only one scale from 2004 was validated for neonates.

Conclusion: Neonatal skin injuries will continue to be reported subjectively until severity scales are consistently applied or other measurements are identified to support assessment. Additionally, without skin injury assessment uniformity, critical examination of effectiveness of skin care treatment practices will have subjective comparison. This review suggests there is a need for consistent skin assessment and severity scales that are valid for the neonatal population and their unique skin considerations.

Relevance to clinical practice: In the context of neonatal skin, with its unique characteristics and heightened risk for injury, clinicians must stage, categorise, and describe injury locations to provide objective information on injury severity. Given the risk for injuries across the entire body, including mucous membranes, describing the depth of the injury is essential regardless of the anatomical site. Although not originally designed for this population, a modified version of the National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel (NPIAP) classification system, which incorporates additional classifications (e.g., skin tears), remains the most applicable severity assessment system currently available. This should be supplemented by clinical images or detailed descriptive language (e.g., subtle redness) until rigorously validated severity and assessment scales, based on neonatal data, are developed-particularly for infants born at less than 27 weeks gestation. [Correction added on 25 October 2024, after first online publication: The Relevance to Clinical Practice subsection in Abstract has been added on this version.].