Best Practice in Pressure Injury Prevention Among Critical Care Patients

2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 489-500
Author(s):  
Jenny G. Alderden ◽  
Faygah Shibily ◽  
Linda Cowan
2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S241-S241
Author(s):  
Alicia Grubbs ◽  
Jocelyn J Mueller ◽  
Jenna C Kelly

Abstract Introduction Patients with dermal burns are at a greater risk of developing pressure injury secondary to critical illness and increased length of stay. Our burn center had four hospital-acquired pressure injuries, grade two or greater, in two months within our patient population. This incidence placed the burn unit in the top five units at our institution with the highest prevalence of hospital-acquired pressure injury. After discussion with nursing staff, we discovered a large variance in pressure injury prevention strategies, many of which were not focused on heel protection. Methods With rising prevalence, the burn team assembled a multidisciplinary team to combat the issue. The team consisted of day and night shift staff nurses, quality improvement nurse, physical therapist, and nursing management. We examined heel injury prevention evidence-based practice and then modified it for our unique patient population to develop a recommendation for best practice on our unit. The recommendations, affectionately known as the Hip Hip Heels Raised Campaign, include: Results To assess compliance to the new unit recommendations, patient positioning audits were completed before and after staff education. Prior to instruction and implementation of the campaign, compliance with heel elevation varied from 75–83%. With this information in mind, our goal was to achieve greater than 90% compliance during audits by January, with education beginning in mid- November. Our goal was met the week of December 27, 2018 and compliance has remained strong, averaging 92% implementation of heel elevation since campaign implementation. Conclusions Per the AHRQ, the average cost of a hospital acquired pressure injury averages $43,180. Our retrospective analysis for patients in our burn center discovered four pressure injuries, grade two or greater, in a two-month period prior to the campaign implementation. Over the five-month span since campaign application, only three pressure injuries have occurred in our patient population, a reduction of approximately seven pressure injuries. This reduction is the equivalence of $300,000 in patient care costs saved. Applicability of Research to Practice This model worked well for our unit and it is applicable to practice in the burn population because it is simple to implement and good for patient care outcomes.


2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 117 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abdul-Monim Batiha

Background: Pressure injuries are a considerable problem for hospitalized critically ill and elderly patients, as such injuries produce pain, and reduce total wellbeing, resulting in increased morbidity and mortality, as well as often extending those patients’ hospital staysPurpose: The purpose of this study was to determine critical care nurses knowledge, attitudes, and perceived barriers toward pressure injuries prevention.Design: A descriptive cross-sectional survey was performed, using a questionnaire method to critical care nurses’. The study took place between August and October 2017 and involved ten hospitals: two university hospital, six public hospitals, and two private hospitals.  Methods: Data were collected by means of a questionnaire using two valid and reliable instruments: i) the Pressure Ulcer Knowledge Assessment Tool 2⋅0, and ii) Attitude Toward Pressure Ulcer Prevention and two newly developed instruments sociodemographic and perceived barriers toward pressure injury prevention.Results: The entire mean knowledge score for the participants was 54.9%, and overall high attitude scores were 76.7%. Level of education, years employed in a critical care unit, training received on pressure injury prevention, and the number of papers read on pressure injury prevention was all identified as having a significant and independent effect on participants’ knowledge concerning prevention of pressure injuries. To evaluate the effect of demographic characteristics on nurses’ attitudes, the only significant variable was "years of employment in critical care units". Shortage of staff was the most commonly cited barrier faced by critical care nurses’ during practice.


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.


2017 ◽  
Vol 14 (6) ◽  
pp. 1290-1298 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wendy Chaboyer ◽  
Tracey Bucknall ◽  
Brigid Gillespie ◽  
Lukman Thalib ◽  
Elizabeth McInnes ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document