Pressure injury prevention practice in Australian intensive care units: A national cross-sectional survey

Author(s):  
Annabel Levido ◽  
Paul Fulbrook ◽  
Michelle Barakat-Johnson ◽  
Jill Campbell ◽  
Lori Delaney ◽  
...  
2017 ◽  
Vol 37 (5) ◽  
pp. 46-55 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jill Cox ◽  
Marilyn Schallom

BACKGROUND Critical care nurses must be able to skillfully balance the prevention of adverse events such as pressure injuries in an environment with multiple competing and lifesaving technologies that often take precedent. Despite strategies to prevent them, pressure injuries do occur in intensive care unit patients, and consensus is building that some pressure injuries are unavoidable. OBJECTIVES To determine critical care nurses’ attitudes toward prevention of pressure injury and the perceptions of frontline critical care nurses of specific risk factors associated with unavoidable pressure injuries. METHODS A descriptive cross-sectional survey design was used. An online survey was posted on the newsletter website of the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses in January 2016. RESULTS An invitation to participate in the study was emailed to more than 3000 members of the association; 333 nurses responded, for a response rate of approximately 11%. Among the responders, 73% were employed as bedside critical care nurses. More than half (67%) thought that pressure injuries are avoidable, and 66% disagreed that pressure injury prevention was of less interest than other aspects of critical care. The top 2 risk factors for unavoidable pressure injuries were impaired tissue perfusion and impaired tissue oxygenation. CONCLUSION Critical care nurses are steadfast stewards of safe patient care and think that pressure injury prevention is a crucial aspect of the care they deliver every day. The findings on risk factors for unavoidable pressure injuries mirrored those of experts and provide a layer of support for these factors.


2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 249-255
Author(s):  
Gülzade Uysal ◽  
Duygu Sönmez Düzkaya ◽  
Tülay Yakut ◽  
Gülçin Bozkurt

The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of a pressure injury prevention guide used in a pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) on the occurrence of pressure injuries. The design is a pre-post intervention with a control group and a prospective intervention group. Pressure injuries occurred on 9.4% of children in the nontreatment group, and in 3.6% of children in the treatment group. There was a statistically significant difference in the occurrence of pressure injuries between the nontreatment group and the treatment group ( p = .033). The average Braden Q pressure injury score was 12.20 ± 2.280 at the beginning of the intensive care hospitalization, and 13.73 ± 3.312 at discharge in the treatment group ( p < .001). The results show that the risk of pressure injuries was reduced and pressure injuries occurred later when an evidence-based pressure injury prevention guide was used.


BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. e024159 ◽  
Author(s):  
Khara Sauro ◽  
Sean M Bagshaw ◽  
Daniel Niven ◽  
Andrea Soo ◽  
Rebecca Brundin-Mather ◽  
...  

ObjectiveTo compare and contrast illustrative examples of the adoption of high value practices and the de-adoption of low value practices.Design(1) Retrospective, population-based audit of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis (high value practice) and albumin for fluid resuscitation (low value practice) and (2) cross-sectional survey of healthcare providers.SettingData were collected from nine adult medical-surgical intensive care units (ICUs) in two large Canadian cities. Patients are managed in these ICUs by a group of multiprofessional and multidisciplinary healthcare providers.ParticipantsParticipants included 6946 ICU admissions and 309 healthcare providers from the same ICUs.Main outcome measures(1) The use of LMWH for VTE prophylaxis (per cent ICU days) and albumin for fluid resuscitation (per cent of patients); and (2) provider knowledge of evidence underpinning these practices, and barriers and facilitators to adopt and de-adopt these practices.ResultsLMWH was administered on 38.7% of ICU days, and 20.0% of patients received albumin.Most participants had knowledge of evidence underpinning VTE prophylaxis and fluid resuscitation (59.1% and 84.2%, respectively). Providers perceived these practices to be followed. The most commonly reported barrier to adoption was insufficient knowledge/understanding (32.8%), and to de-adoption was clinical leader preferences (33.2%). On-site education was the most commonly identified facilitator for adoption and de-adoption (67.8% and 68.6%, respectively).ConclusionsDespite knowledge of and self-reported adherence to best practices, the audit demonstrated opportunity to improve. Provider-reported barriers and facilitators to adoption and de-adoption are broadly similar.


Medwave ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (01) ◽  
pp. e7576-e7576
Author(s):  
Nadine Aranis ◽  
Jorge Molina ◽  
Jaime Leppe ◽  
Ana Cristina Castro-Ávila ◽  
Carolina Fu ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document