ICU患者压疮和护理引导下的活动方案:一项回顾性观察队列研究。

IF 2.7 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Anna Korompeli, Eleni Karakike, Petros Galanis, Pavlos Myrianthefs
{"title":"ICU患者压疮和护理引导下的活动方案:一项回顾性观察队列研究。","authors":"Anna Korompeli, Eleni Karakike, Petros Galanis, Pavlos Myrianthefs","doi":"10.3390/healthcare13141675","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Pressure ulcers (PUs) remain a prevalent complication in intensive care unit (ICU) settings, especially among immobilized patients. The impact of structured, nursing-led mobilization protocols on PU prevention and recovery remains underexplored. <b>Objective:</b> To evaluate the impact of nursing-led mobilization protocols on the incidence and progression of PUs in critically ill patients. <b>Methods:</b> In this retrospective observational cohort study, 188 ICU patients were admitted during one of two consecutive periods of care: conventional care (6-hourly repositioning) and an advanced nursing-led protocol (3-hourly repositioning with support surfaces and specialized nurse training), which replaced conventional care as standard in our institution. The primary outcome included new PU development for patients with no pre-existing ulcers or worsening/non-progression of pre-existing ulcers at discharge; ICU mortality was evaluated as a secondary outcome. <b>Results:</b> Among patients without pre-existing ulcers (n = 155), new PU incidence did not significantly differ between groups, even after adjusting for SOFA score (OR 0.40, 95% CI: 0.05 TO 3.17; <i>p</i> = 0.374). However, in patients with pre-existing ulcers (n = 33), the advanced care group showed improvement (53.3% versus 0% in the conventional group, OR 0.07, 95% CI: 0.01-0.64; <i>p</i> = 0.012); this effect was independent of initial SOFA score. Mortality was associated with the SOFA score, but not with the type of care. <b>Conclusions:</b> While advanced nursing-led mobilization did not reduce PU incidence, it significantly improved existing ulcer outcomes. Findings support the integration of structured protocols for high-risk ICU patients, especially those with existing ulcers.</p>","PeriodicalId":12977,"journal":{"name":"Healthcare","volume":"13 14","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pressure Ulcers and Nursing-Led Mobilization Protocols in ICU Patients: A Retrospective Observational Cohort Study.\",\"authors\":\"Anna Korompeli, Eleni Karakike, Petros Galanis, Pavlos Myrianthefs\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/healthcare13141675\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Pressure ulcers (PUs) remain a prevalent complication in intensive care unit (ICU) settings, especially among immobilized patients. The impact of structured, nursing-led mobilization protocols on PU prevention and recovery remains underexplored. <b>Objective:</b> To evaluate the impact of nursing-led mobilization protocols on the incidence and progression of PUs in critically ill patients. <b>Methods:</b> In this retrospective observational cohort study, 188 ICU patients were admitted during one of two consecutive periods of care: conventional care (6-hourly repositioning) and an advanced nursing-led protocol (3-hourly repositioning with support surfaces and specialized nurse training), which replaced conventional care as standard in our institution. The primary outcome included new PU development for patients with no pre-existing ulcers or worsening/non-progression of pre-existing ulcers at discharge; ICU mortality was evaluated as a secondary outcome. <b>Results:</b> Among patients without pre-existing ulcers (n = 155), new PU incidence did not significantly differ between groups, even after adjusting for SOFA score (OR 0.40, 95% CI: 0.05 TO 3.17; <i>p</i> = 0.374). However, in patients with pre-existing ulcers (n = 33), the advanced care group showed improvement (53.3% versus 0% in the conventional group, OR 0.07, 95% CI: 0.01-0.64; <i>p</i> = 0.012); this effect was independent of initial SOFA score. Mortality was associated with the SOFA score, but not with the type of care. <b>Conclusions:</b> While advanced nursing-led mobilization did not reduce PU incidence, it significantly improved existing ulcer outcomes. Findings support the integration of structured protocols for high-risk ICU patients, especially those with existing ulcers.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12977,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Healthcare\",\"volume\":\"13 14\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Healthcare\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare13141675\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare13141675","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:压疮(PUs)仍然是重症监护病房(ICU)环境中常见的并发症,特别是在固定患者中。结构化的、以护理为主导的动员方案对脓包预防和康复的影响仍未得到充分探讨。目的:探讨护理引导下的动员方案对危重患者脓毒症发生及进展的影响。方法:在回顾性观察队列研究中,188例ICU患者在两个连续的护理期间入院:常规护理(6小时重新定位)和高级护理主导方案(3小时重新定位,支持表面和专业护士培训),这取代了常规护理作为我院的标准。主要结局包括无既往溃疡或出院时既往溃疡恶化/无进展的患者出现新的PU;ICU死亡率作为次要结果进行评估。结果:在没有先前存在溃疡的患者中(n = 155),即使在调整SOFA评分后,组间新发PU发生率也没有显著差异(OR 0.40, 95% CI: 0.05 TO 3.17;P = 0.374)。然而,在先前存在溃疡的患者中(n = 33),高级护理组表现出改善(53.3%,而传统组为0%,OR 0.07, 95% CI: 0.01-0.64;P = 0.012);这种影响与初始SOFA评分无关。死亡率与SOFA评分相关,但与护理类型无关。结论:虽然高级护理引导的活动并没有降低PU的发生率,但它显著改善了现有溃疡的预后。研究结果支持将结构化方案整合到高危ICU患者中,特别是那些已有溃疡的患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Pressure Ulcers and Nursing-Led Mobilization Protocols in ICU Patients: A Retrospective Observational Cohort Study.

Background: Pressure ulcers (PUs) remain a prevalent complication in intensive care unit (ICU) settings, especially among immobilized patients. The impact of structured, nursing-led mobilization protocols on PU prevention and recovery remains underexplored. Objective: To evaluate the impact of nursing-led mobilization protocols on the incidence and progression of PUs in critically ill patients. Methods: In this retrospective observational cohort study, 188 ICU patients were admitted during one of two consecutive periods of care: conventional care (6-hourly repositioning) and an advanced nursing-led protocol (3-hourly repositioning with support surfaces and specialized nurse training), which replaced conventional care as standard in our institution. The primary outcome included new PU development for patients with no pre-existing ulcers or worsening/non-progression of pre-existing ulcers at discharge; ICU mortality was evaluated as a secondary outcome. Results: Among patients without pre-existing ulcers (n = 155), new PU incidence did not significantly differ between groups, even after adjusting for SOFA score (OR 0.40, 95% CI: 0.05 TO 3.17; p = 0.374). However, in patients with pre-existing ulcers (n = 33), the advanced care group showed improvement (53.3% versus 0% in the conventional group, OR 0.07, 95% CI: 0.01-0.64; p = 0.012); this effect was independent of initial SOFA score. Mortality was associated with the SOFA score, but not with the type of care. Conclusions: While advanced nursing-led mobilization did not reduce PU incidence, it significantly improved existing ulcer outcomes. Findings support the integration of structured protocols for high-risk ICU patients, especially those with existing ulcers.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Healthcare
Healthcare Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
7.10%
发文量
0
审稿时长
47 days
期刊介绍: Healthcare (ISSN 2227-9032) is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal (free for readers), which publishes original theoretical and empirical work in the interdisciplinary area of all aspects of medicine and health care research. Healthcare publishes Original Research Articles, Reviews, Case Reports, Research Notes and Short Communications. We encourage researchers to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible. For theoretical papers, full details of proofs must be provided so that the results can be checked; for experimental papers, full experimental details must be provided so that the results can be reproduced. Additionally, electronic files or software regarding the full details of the calculations, experimental procedure, etc., can be deposited along with the publication as “Supplementary Material”.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信