Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this research was to build on previous work regarding predictive factors of acute skin failure (ASF) in the critically ill population. METHODS:Researchers conducted a retrospective case-control study with a main and validation analysis. Data were extracted from the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System. For the main analysis, there were 415 cases with a hospital-acquired pressure injury (HAPI) and 194,872 controls without. Researchers then randomly selected 100 cases with a HAPIs and 300 controls without for the validation analysis. A step-up logistic regression model was used. Researchers generated receiver operating characteristic curves for both the main and validation analyses, assessing the overall utility of the regression model. RESULTS:Eleven variables were significantly and independently related to ASF: renal failure (odds ratio [OR], 1.4, P = .003), respiratory failure (OR, 2.2; P = < .001), arterial disease (OR, 2.4; P = .001), impaired nutrition (OR, 2.3; P = < .001), sepsis (OR, 2.2; P = < .001), septic shock (OR, 2.3; P = < .001), mechanical ventilation (OR, 2.5; P = < .001), vascular surgery (OR, 2.2; P = .02), orthopedic surgery (OR, 3.4; P = < .001), peripheral necrosis (OR, 2.5; P = .003), and general surgery (OR, 3.8; P = < .001). The areas under the curve for the main and validation analyses were 0.864 and 0.861, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:The final model supports previous work and is consistent with the current definition of ASF in the setting of critical illness.

Objective Hospital-acquired pressure injuries harm over 2.5 million patients at a U.S. cost of $26.8 billion. Sub-epidermal moisture scanning technology supports clinicians to anatomically identify locations at-risk of developing hospital-acquired pressure injuries. Our objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adopting sub-epidermal moisture scanners in comparison to existing hospital-acquired pressure injury prevention guidelines structured around subjective risk assessments. Methods A Markov cohort model was developed to analyze the cost-effectiveness of sub-epidermal moisture scanners in comparison to existing prevention guidelines, based on current clinical trial data from the U.S. health care sector perspective in the acute, acute rehabilitation and skilled nursing facility settings. A hypothetical cohort was simulated over a time horizon of one year. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was measured using U.S. dollars per quality-adjusted life year at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/quality-adjusted life year, and uncertainty was tested using probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Results Integration of sub-epidermal moisture scanners yielded cost-savings of $4054 and 0.35 quality-adjusted life years gained per acute care admission, suggesting that sub-epidermal moisture scanners are a dominant strategy compared to standard care and producing a net monetary benefit of $39,335. For every 1000 admissions in high-risk acute care, sub-epidermal moisture scanners could avert around seven hospital-acquired pressure injury-related deaths and decrease hospital-acquired pressure injury-related re-hospitalization by approximately 206 bed-days. Conclusions Acute care, acute rehabilitation and skilled nursing settings that adopt sub-epidermal moisture technology could achieve a return on investment in less than one year. Providers may want to consider these types of technology that aid clinical judgment with objective measures of risk in quality improvement bundles

OBJECTIVE:To replicate previous research that found four independent and significant predictors of heel pressure injuries (HPIs) in hospitalized patients using a larger and more diverse patient population. METHODS:Researchers conducted a retrospective, case-control study with a main and a validation analysis (N = 1,937). The main analysis had 1,697 patients: 323 patients who had HPIs and 1,374 who did not. The validation analysis had 240 patients: 80 patients who developed HPIs and 160 who did not. Researchers used a series of diagnosis codes to define variables associated with an HPI. Data were extracted from the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System for January 2014 to June 2015. Study authors conducted a series of forward stepwise logistic regression analyses for both samples to select the variables that were significantly and independently associated with the development of an HPI in a multivariable setting. Researchers generated a receiver operating characteristic curve using the final model to assess the regression model's ability to predict HPI development. RESULTS:Seven variables were significant and independent predictors associated with HPIs: diabetes mellitus, vascular disease, perfusion issues, impaired nutrition, age, mechanical ventilation, and surgery. The receiver operating characteristic curve demonstrated predictive accuracy of the model. CONCLUSIONS:Beyond a risk assessment scale, providers should consider other factors, such as comorbidities, which can predispose patients to HPI development.

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.