Implementation of a risk-stratified intervention bundle to prevent pressure injury in intensive care: A before-after study.

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Angel Cobos-Vargas, Paul Fulbrook, Josephine Lovegrove, María Acosta-Romero, Luís Camado-Sojo, Manuel Colmenero
{"title":"Implementation of a risk-stratified intervention bundle to prevent pressure injury in intensive care: A before-after study.","authors":"Angel Cobos-Vargas, Paul Fulbrook, Josephine Lovegrove, María Acosta-Romero, Luís Camado-Sojo, Manuel Colmenero","doi":"10.1016/j.aucc.2024.09.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Hospital-acquired pressure injury is an enduring problem in intensive care. Several intensive care-specific pressure injury risk assessment tools have been developed, but to date, only the COMHON Index has been aligned with risk-stratified preventative interventions.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a risk-stratified intervention bundle to reduce pressure injury in intensive care and to assess compliance with bundled interventions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A controlled before-after study was undertaken. All patients admitted to a single intensive care unit were included. Standard care was provided in the before phase, and the risk-stratified intervention bundle was implemented in the after phase. The primary outcome measure was pressure injury incidence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The sample comprised 761 intensive care admissions. In the after phase, pressure injury incidence was reduced (2.1% vs 3.9%; 46% relative risk reduction), injury severity was lower, and there were fewer pressure injuries on the sacrum, buttocks, and heels. Logistic regression modelling identified three significant factors associated with pressure injury development: intensive care length of stay (odds ratio: 1.2); COMHON Index admission score (odds ratio: 1.2), and the before phase (odds ratio: 4.2). In the after phase, individual intervention compliance was variable (range: 40%-100%), but the all-or-nothing compliance was poor (33%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Implementation of bundled preventive measures associated with COMHON Index risk level reduced pressure injury incidence. Likewise, injury severity decreased, and the location of pressure injuries changed following the intervention. The results from this study support the use of risk-stratified interventions to prevent pressure injury in intensive care. However, further research is needed to examine the effectiveness of the COMHON Index bundle before it can be recommended for widespread clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":51239,"journal":{"name":"Australian Critical Care","volume":" ","pages":"101123"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Critical Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aucc.2024.09.008","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Hospital-acquired pressure injury is an enduring problem in intensive care. Several intensive care-specific pressure injury risk assessment tools have been developed, but to date, only the COMHON Index has been aligned with risk-stratified preventative interventions.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a risk-stratified intervention bundle to reduce pressure injury in intensive care and to assess compliance with bundled interventions.

Methods: A controlled before-after study was undertaken. All patients admitted to a single intensive care unit were included. Standard care was provided in the before phase, and the risk-stratified intervention bundle was implemented in the after phase. The primary outcome measure was pressure injury incidence.

Results: The sample comprised 761 intensive care admissions. In the after phase, pressure injury incidence was reduced (2.1% vs 3.9%; 46% relative risk reduction), injury severity was lower, and there were fewer pressure injuries on the sacrum, buttocks, and heels. Logistic regression modelling identified three significant factors associated with pressure injury development: intensive care length of stay (odds ratio: 1.2); COMHON Index admission score (odds ratio: 1.2), and the before phase (odds ratio: 4.2). In the after phase, individual intervention compliance was variable (range: 40%-100%), but the all-or-nothing compliance was poor (33%).

Conclusions: Implementation of bundled preventive measures associated with COMHON Index risk level reduced pressure injury incidence. Likewise, injury severity decreased, and the location of pressure injuries changed following the intervention. The results from this study support the use of risk-stratified interventions to prevent pressure injury in intensive care. However, further research is needed to examine the effectiveness of the COMHON Index bundle before it can be recommended for widespread clinical practice.

在重症监护中实施风险分级干预捆绑包以预防压伤:前后对比研究。
背景:医院获得性压伤是重症监护中一个长期存在的问题。目前已开发出几种重症监护专用压伤风险评估工具,但迄今为止,只有 COMHON 指数与风险分级预防干预措施相一致:本研究旨在评估风险分级干预捆绑措施对减少重症监护中压伤的有效性,并评估捆绑干预措施的依从性:方法:进行一项前后对照研究。方法:该研究是一项前后对照研究,纳入了在一家重症监护室住院的所有患者。研究前阶段提供标准护理,研究后阶段实施风险分级捆绑干预。主要结果是压伤发生率:结果:样本包括 761 例重症监护入院患者。在后阶段,压伤发生率降低(2.1% 对 3.9%;相对风险降低 46%),损伤严重程度降低,骶骨、臀部和脚跟的压伤减少。逻辑回归模型确定了与压伤发生相关的三个重要因素:重症监护住院时间(几率比:1.2);COMHON 指数入院评分(几率比:1.2);以及前阶段(几率比:4.2)。在后阶段,个体干预措施的依从性不一(范围:40%-100%),但全有或全无的依从性较差(33%):结论:实施与 COMHON 指数风险等级相关的捆绑式预防措施降低了压伤发生率。结论:实施与 COMHON 指数风险等级相关的捆绑式预防措施降低了压伤的发生率,同样,压伤的严重程度也有所降低,压伤的位置在干预后也发生了变化。这项研究的结果支持在重症监护中使用风险分级干预措施来预防压伤。不过,在建议将 COMHON 指数捆绑包广泛应用于临床实践之前,还需要进一步的研究来检验其有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Australian Critical Care
Australian Critical Care NURSING-NURSING
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
9.10%
发文量
148
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Australian Critical Care is the official journal of the Australian College of Critical Care Nurses (ACCCN). It is a bi-monthly peer-reviewed journal, providing clinically relevant research, reviews and articles of interest to the critical care community. Australian Critical Care publishes peer-reviewed scholarly papers that report research findings, research-based reviews, discussion papers and commentaries which are of interest to an international readership of critical care practitioners, educators, administrators and researchers. Interprofessional articles are welcomed.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信