Faculty Bibliography

GENERAL PURPOSE/UNASSIGNED:To review what is known about pediatric pressure injuries (PIs) and the specific factors that make neonates and children vulnerable. TARGET AUDIENCE/BACKGROUND:This continuing education activity is intended for physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and nurses with an interest in skin and wound care. LEARNING OBJECTIVES/OUTCOMES/UNASSIGNED:After participating in this educational activity, the participant should be better able to:1. Identify the scope of the problem and recall pediatric anatomy and physiology as it relates to PI formation.2. Differentiate currently available PI risk assessment instruments.3. Outline current recommendations for pediatric PI prevention and treatment. ABSTRACT/UNASSIGNED:Pediatric patients, especially neonates and infants, are vulnerable to pressure injury formation. Clinicians are steadily realizing that, compared with adults and other specific populations, pediatric patients require special consideration, protocols, guidelines, and standardized approaches to pressure injury prevention. This National Pressure Advisory Panel white paper reviews this history and the science of why pediatric patients are vulnerable to pressure injury formation. Successful pediatric pressure injury prevention and treatment can be achieved through the standardized and concentrated efforts of interprofessional teams.

Pressure injuries/ulcers are a global health issue, and there is a need for clinicians from many countries and continents to express their opinions on the terminology change (pressure ulcer to injury) and revised staging definitions. A convenience, opinion survey sample of clinicians from the Western Asia Gulf Region enrolled in a yearlong wound care course participated by expressing their opinion about these changes. Results reveal support for the pressure injury terminology and the revised staging definitions.

OBJECTIVE:To determine the pressure injury knowledge of health professionals before and after providing an interactive, educational intervention. DESIGN AND SETTING/METHODS:The research design was a quasi-experimental study using a nonrandomized pretest/posttest methodology in Manila, Philippines. PATIENTS AND INTERVENTION/METHODS:The population for this study was healthcare professionals who participated in a 2-day Basic WoundPedia course. There were 57 participants on day 1 and 55 participants on day 2. The Pieper-Zulkowski Pressure Ulcer Knowledge Test (PZ-PUKT, version 2), a standardized, validated instrument with 72 items, was used to measure 3 domains: prevention (28 items), staging (20 items), and wounds (24 items). The test was used to determine the baseline pressure injury knowledge of the students on day 1 before the course began and on day 2 after related content was completed. The intent of this approach was to document that knowledge deficits were met, especially for future courses. MAIN RESULTS/RESULTS:There was a statistically significant increase in pressure injury knowledge scores after healthcare professionals received an interactive, educational intervention. CONCLUSIONS:Measuring knowledge before and after educational intervention should be considered to determine whether knowledge deficits are corrected. This methodology reinforced the adult learning theory and to help participants realize their own knowledge deficits. The PZ-PUKT may prove a valuable nonthreatening instrument for adult learners to self-identify, self-learn, and self-correct knowledge according to the best new evidence as it becomes available. These findings documented that this interactive, educational intervention did improve the percentage of correct pressure injury knowledge concepts for this group in all 3 subscales. This study also added support for the newly revised PZ-PUKT.

OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the education process for the effective use of the Munro Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Scale by practicing perioperative staff at an urban tertiary medical center. Given that pressure injury formation is tied to the surgical process, there is a need for a pressure injury risk assessment scale that addresses the uniqueness of the perioperative process. METHODS:Participants were staff who worked in the surgical admissions area, the main operating room, and the main postanesthesia care unit. The authors' facility was 1 of 8 participants in a multisite study. Each site was required to educate staff using standard written instructions and an instructional webinar. However, sites were also encouraged to consider any other methods that would successfully engage the staff in the learning process. After the education process, staff were surveyed and asked to evaluate the educational interventions. MAIN RESULTS/RESULTS:Findings indicated that the staff did not prefer written instructions alone but rather preferred a combination of different learning modalities and media to assist them in using the Munro Scale effectively. CONCLUSIONS:This article discusses the strategies required to engage staff in the implementation process of this scale, the barriers encountered during this implementation, and the implications for perioperative nursing using this scale. The lessons learned from conducting this research provided insight into engaging and educating the adult learner in a new process.

OBJECTIVE/OBJECTIVE:To determine the opinions of healthcare clinicians in the Philippines regarding the 2016 National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (NPUAP) terminology changes and revised staging definitions. DESIGN AND SETTING/METHODS:A survey methodology was used in Manila, Philippines. Convenience samples of healthcare clinicians of varying disciplines and employment settings were invited to participate in this research. INTERVENTIONS/METHODS:A survey was administered at key intervals regarding the revised NPUAP terminology changes and revised staging definitions. The survey was administered before and after an interactive, basic 2-day wound course was conducted. MAIN RESULTS/RESULTS:Results revealed strong support for the 2016 NPUAP terminology change from pressure ulcer to pressure injury and the revised staging definitions. CONCLUSIONS/CONCLUSIONS:Since the NPUAP changed its terminology and revised the staging definitions, the wound care community has been responding to those changes. Because pressure injuries are a global health concern, the opinions of clinicians outside the United States are equally valuable. The healthcare clinicians in the Philippines surveyed appear to embrace the new terminology changes and revised staging definitions put forth by the NPUAP.

: At the April 2016 National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (NPUAP) consensus conference, terminology and staging definitions were updated and two definitions were revised to describe pressure injuries (PIs) caused by medical devices or other items on the skin or mucosa. Here, the authors discuss the etiology and prevention of PIs resulting from medical and other devices, the frequency of such injuries, and the bodily sites at which they most often occur. They provide an overview of the current NPUAP guideline, highlight important risk factors, and explain why mucosal PIs cannot be staged.

GENERAL PURPOSE: To provide information on risk factors for surgical site infections (SSIs) and actions to mitigate that risk. TARGET AUDIENCE: This continuing education activity is intended for surgeons, surgical teams, physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and nurses with an interest in skin and wound care. LEARNING OBJECTIVES/OUTCOMES: After participating in this educational activity, the participant should be better able to:1. Identify modifiable risk factors associated with the development of SSIs.2. Select steps to mitigate the risks for and morbidity from SSIs. ABSTRACT: Given the current reimbursement structure, the avoidance of a surgical site infection (SSI) is crucial. Although many risk factors are associated with the formation of an SSI, a proactive and interprofessional approach can help modify some factors. Postoperative strategies also can be applied to help prevent an SSI. If an SSI becomes a chronic wound, there are recommended guidelines and strategies that can foster healing.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this learning activity is to provide information regarding the differentiation between pressure ulcers and acute skin failure (ASF) in critically ill patients. TARGET AUDIENCE: This continuing education activity is intended for physicians and nurses with an interest in skin and wound care. OBJECTIVES: After participating in this educational activity, the participant should be better able to:1. Describe the purpose, methodology and impact of this research.2. Differentiate the pathophysiology of pressure ulcers and ASF.3. Identify risk factors and diagnostic criteria for ASF. ABSTRACT: To develop a statistical model to predict the development of acute skin failure in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) and to validate this model.Retrospective case-control, logistic regression modeling552 ICU patientsIntensive care unit patients with and without pressure ulcers (PrUs) were studied and compared on key variables sorted into the following categories: (1) disease status, (2) physical conditions, and (3) conditions of hospitalization.The variables, peripheral arterial disease (odds ratio [OR], 3.8; P = .002), mechanical ventilation greater than 72 hours (OR, 3.0; P < .001), respiratory failure (OR, 3.2; P < .001), liver failure (OR, 2.9; P = .04), and severe sepsis/septic shock (OR, 1.9; P = .02), were found to be statistically significant and independent predictors of acute skin failure in ICU patients. These variables created a predictor model for acute skin failure in the ICU.Lack of objective criteria to define acute skin failure presents a clinical conundrum for practitioners-the acknowledgment that skin failure exists, but no clear-cut diagnostic criteria in which to support its existence as a result of a paucity of empirical evidence. In certain populations, such as the critically ill patient, the phenomenon of acute skin failure may be occurring, and with the current level of evidence, these ulcers may be incorrectly identified as PrUs. Accurately distinguishing risk factors that lead to a PrU from factors that result in a lesion due to acute skin failure is crucial in the quest to provide evidence-based practice to patients.