Lauren Walden, Oleg Teleten, Lisa Peterson, Aubrey Yao, Holly Kirkland-Kyhn
{"title":"Comparative occipital pressure mapping in the operating room.","authors":"Lauren Walden, Oleg Teleten, Lisa Peterson, Aubrey Yao, Holly Kirkland-Kyhn","doi":"10.25270/wmp.23005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Hospital-acquired occipital pressure injuries are a preventable cause of morbidity and mortality in the perioperative setting.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To find the occipital cushion/pillow with the lowest measured peak pressures and the highest measured surface area using pressure mapping technology.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A quality improvement project involving 3 operating room staff volunteers was conducted using pressure mapping. Five different pillows were tested based on what the study location commonly used and had available. The pillows included: standard pillow with pillowcase, non-powered fluidized positioner, medium-sized (17 × 17 × 1.5 inches) static seat cushion placed under the shoulders and head, pediatric-sized (13 × 13 × 2 inches) static air cushion placed under the head, and foam donut.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The non-powered fluidized positioner had the highest average pressure and peak pressure for all 3 volunteers. The medium static air seat cushion had the lowest average and peak pressures for 2 out of 3 volunteers. None of the head cushions consistently demonstrated a larger surface area of pressure distribution.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The medium-sized static air seat cushion, placed under the shoulders and head, demonstrated the most favorable pressure redistribution properties. The non-powered fluidized positioner demonstrated the least favorable pressure redistribution properties.</p>","PeriodicalId":23741,"journal":{"name":"Wound management & prevention","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wound management & prevention","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25270/wmp.23005","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DERMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Hospital-acquired occipital pressure injuries are a preventable cause of morbidity and mortality in the perioperative setting.
Purpose: To find the occipital cushion/pillow with the lowest measured peak pressures and the highest measured surface area using pressure mapping technology.
Materials and methods: A quality improvement project involving 3 operating room staff volunteers was conducted using pressure mapping. Five different pillows were tested based on what the study location commonly used and had available. The pillows included: standard pillow with pillowcase, non-powered fluidized positioner, medium-sized (17 × 17 × 1.5 inches) static seat cushion placed under the shoulders and head, pediatric-sized (13 × 13 × 2 inches) static air cushion placed under the head, and foam donut.
Results: The non-powered fluidized positioner had the highest average pressure and peak pressure for all 3 volunteers. The medium static air seat cushion had the lowest average and peak pressures for 2 out of 3 volunteers. None of the head cushions consistently demonstrated a larger surface area of pressure distribution.
Conclusions: The medium-sized static air seat cushion, placed under the shoulders and head, demonstrated the most favorable pressure redistribution properties. The non-powered fluidized positioner demonstrated the least favorable pressure redistribution properties.