Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) to Predict Pressure Ulcer Risk in Intensive Care Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Q2 Nursing
Ostomy Wound Management Pub Date : 2018-10-01
Maarit Ahtiala, Esa Soppi, Teijo Saari
{"title":"Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) to Predict Pressure Ulcer Risk in Intensive Care Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study.","authors":"Maarit Ahtiala,&nbsp;Esa Soppi,&nbsp;Teijo Saari","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Pressure ulcer (PU) risk assessment practices in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients remain varied.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The authors assessed the performance of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scale and its subcategories in predicting the development of PUs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective cohort study was conducted of all adult patients admitted to the mixed medical-surgical ICU of a Finnish tertiary referral hospital between January 2010 and December 2012. Data (diagnoses, demographics, clinical information, treatments, and instrument scores) were retrieved from the ICU database. Wilcoxon and chi-squared tests were used to examine patient subgroup (medical or surgical ICU and intensive care or high-dependency care patients), length of ICU stay (LOS), modified Jackson/Cubbin (mJ/C) scores and SOFA subcategory variables, and first-day SOFA scores. PU association was determined by logistical regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the 4899 patients in the study population, the overall PU incidence of acquired PUs was 8.1%. Medical patients had significantly more PUs (145/1281; 11.3%) than surgical patients (212/3468; 6.1%) (P <.0001). In all subgroups, significantly more patients with PUs had higher SOFA scores (mean 8.24) than patients without PUs (mean 6.74) (P =.001). The difference persisted when patients with LOS ≥3 days in the ICU were considered. Among the SOFA subcategories, the Glasgow Coma score, renal and respiratory disorders, and hypotension were significantly (P <.0001) linked to PU development. First-day total SOFA score and its cardiovascular and respiratory subcategory scores were the most important predictors of PUs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The total SOFA score provides an additional tool to assess PU risk in ICUs and should be used together with the Braden or the mJ/C Scale.</p>","PeriodicalId":54656,"journal":{"name":"Ostomy Wound Management","volume":"64 10","pages":"32-38"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ostomy Wound Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Pressure ulcer (PU) risk assessment practices in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients remain varied.

Purpose: The authors assessed the performance of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scale and its subcategories in predicting the development of PUs.

Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted of all adult patients admitted to the mixed medical-surgical ICU of a Finnish tertiary referral hospital between January 2010 and December 2012. Data (diagnoses, demographics, clinical information, treatments, and instrument scores) were retrieved from the ICU database. Wilcoxon and chi-squared tests were used to examine patient subgroup (medical or surgical ICU and intensive care or high-dependency care patients), length of ICU stay (LOS), modified Jackson/Cubbin (mJ/C) scores and SOFA subcategory variables, and first-day SOFA scores. PU association was determined by logistical regression.

Results: Among the 4899 patients in the study population, the overall PU incidence of acquired PUs was 8.1%. Medical patients had significantly more PUs (145/1281; 11.3%) than surgical patients (212/3468; 6.1%) (P <.0001). In all subgroups, significantly more patients with PUs had higher SOFA scores (mean 8.24) than patients without PUs (mean 6.74) (P =.001). The difference persisted when patients with LOS ≥3 days in the ICU were considered. Among the SOFA subcategories, the Glasgow Coma score, renal and respiratory disorders, and hypotension were significantly (P <.0001) linked to PU development. First-day total SOFA score and its cardiovascular and respiratory subcategory scores were the most important predictors of PUs.

Conclusion: The total SOFA score provides an additional tool to assess PU risk in ICUs and should be used together with the Braden or the mJ/C Scale.

序贯器官衰竭评估(SOFA)预测重症患者压疮风险:一项回顾性队列研究。
成人重症监护病房(ICU)患者压疮(PU)风险评估实践仍然各不相同。目的:评价序贯器官衰竭评估量表(SOFA)及其亚分类在预测脓毒瘤发展中的作用。方法:对2010年1月至2012年12月在芬兰一家三级转诊医院内科-外科混合ICU就诊的所有成年患者进行回顾性队列研究。数据(诊断、人口统计、临床信息、治疗和仪器评分)从ICU数据库中检索。采用Wilcoxon和卡方检验检查患者亚组(内科或外科ICU和重症监护或高依赖性护理患者)、ICU住院时间(LOS)、改良Jackson/Cubbin (mJ/C)评分和SOFA亚类变量以及第一天SOFA评分。通过逻辑回归确定PU相关性。结果:在4899例研究人群中,获得性脓肿的总发生率为8.1%。内科患者脓毒杆菌明显多于内科患者(145/1281;11.3%)高于手术患者(212/3468;结论:SOFA总评分为评估icu患者PU风险提供了一个额外的工具,应与Braden或mJ/C量表一起使用。
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
Ostomy Wound Management
Ostomy Wound Management 医学-外科
CiteScore
0.99
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Ostomy/Wound Management was founded in March of 1980 as "Ostomy Management." In 1985, this small journal dramatically expanded its content and readership by embracing the overlapping disciplines of ostomy care, wound care, incontinence care, and related skin and nutritional issues and became the premier journal of its kind. Ostomy/Wound Managements" readers include healthcare professionals from multiple disciplines. Today, our readers benefit from contemporary and comprehensive review and research papers that are practical, clinically oriented, and cutting edge. Each published article undergoes a rigorous double-blind peer review by members of both the Editorial Advisory Board and the Ad-Hoc Peer Review Panel.
×
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