Search

Although great strides have been made to tackle hospital-acquired pressure ulcers (HAPUs), there is a need for greater recognition of device-related pressure ulcers (DRPUs), including their causes, management and prevention. This consensus statement, an updated second edition, aims to continue raising awareness of these largely preventable injuries and, crucially, to stimulate action. DRPUs are relatively common and account for a growing proportion of HAPUs. Updated information on the incidence of DRPUs is described in chapter 1. Although it is recognised that DRPUs increase the financial burden of healthcare, there is little formal analysis of their economic impact. This needs to be addressed; robust evidence on the burden of DRPUs and the value that can be released by adopting prevention strategies is needed to help drive action. Our understanding of the pathophysiology of DRPUs has improved significantly over the past few years; this is described in chapter 2. One crucial difference between PUs and DRPUs is that body-weight forces are less significant in DRPUs, with the force being exerted from a device that is typically strapped or taped onto the body. Devices and their securement may generate high stress concentrations in tissues, leading to cell and tissue-damage pathways associated with sustained deformation. As more evidence is published on DRPUs, recurring themes are emerging, as outlined in chapter 3: The most vulnerable patients are bearing the brunt of DRPUs; paediatric and neonatal patients, and all those needing critical care are particularly susceptible. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a new high-risk population (people with severe COVID-19 infection) emerged. They are at increased risk of DRPUs because of their need for prolonged ventilatory support, especially when 'proning' Devices associated with DRPUs are often used to perform essential, life-saving functions. They include continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) masks or endotracheal tubes. Minimising their use is clearly not an option, so practice innovation is needed Although the most common locations for DRPUs are the face, ears, lower legs and heels, any location where a device comes into close contact with the skin can be at risk. In the same vein, any device, whether needed for a medical purpose or not, has the capacity to cause injury if its use is not properly managed. Vigilance is needed for all patients. What can be done? The importance of routine risk assessment is covered in chapter 4. Although use of a validated risk assessment tool is the vital first step, this will not be enough on its own. Several steps can be taken to ensure the safe use of devices. These are described in chapter 5 and include device repositioning, cushioning with prophylactic dressings and moisture control (only where possible and clinically appropriate). Of key importance is the development of an institutional protocol and champions to ensure all necessary steps are adopted. For any of these changes to be put into practice, awareness of DRPUs needs to increase. A number of proposals are outlined in chapter 6. A change of focus among health professionals and policy makers, along with more investment in education and training, are needed. All patients being managed with a medical device must be considered as at high risk. The pandemic introduced the world to the problem of DRPUs in health professionals caused by the extended wear of personal protective equipment. Health professionals also have a right to expect institutional protocols and provision of devices that protect them from DRPUs. Cutting-edge ideas and technologies that may be available in the future are described in chapter 7. When designing new products, manufacturers of medical devices have a duty of care to investigate the risks of DRPUs associated with their products and mitigate them, wherever possible. Our developing understanding of how the design, structure and materials used in medical devices contribute to DRPUs will help us develop new solutions for tomorrow. The first step is for everyone involved to ask themselves, 'what can I do to help?' There is work to be done-your journey to reduce DRPUs starts here!.

Catherine Milne and colleagues present the findings of their review, ccna2@juno.com.

Background: Pressure injury prevention is complex, and rates continue to rise. Checklists reduce human error, improve adherence and standardization with complex processes, focus attention on evidence‐based practices derived from clinical practice guidelines and are arranged in a systematic manner to manage the entirety of a patient's risk for preventable outcomes. The original Standardized Pressure Injury Prevention Protocol was created to provide a checklist of pressure injury prevention measures but needed revision and validation. Purpose: This article describes the revision and content validity testing of the Standardized Pressure Injury Prevention Protocol Checklist 2.0 that took place in 2022. Methods: Using the International 2019 Clinical Practice Guideline as a foundation, items were identified/revised, and expert review of the items was obtained. The Standardized Pressure Injury Prevention Protocol 2.0 underwent three rounds of revision by experts from the National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel. A panel of eight national experts completed the content validity survey. Individual item content validity index and total scale content validity index were used to summarize the content validity survey scores. Results: The individual item content validity index scores ranged from 0.5 to 1.0. One item (using a mirror to look at heels) was rated as 0.5, three items were 0.75, 20 items were 0.875 and 23 items were 1.0. The item scoring 0.5 was deleted. Those items scoring 0.75 were revised using the content experts' recommendations. The total scale content validity index was 0.93. Conclusion: The Standardized Pressure Injury Prevention Protocol 2.0 provides a standardized checklist of evidence‐based items that operationalize a rigorous clinical practice guideline for the prevention of pressure injuries. Early intervention using a standardized approach and evidence‐based checklist that can be integrated into the workflow of the direct‐care nurse and provider provides the best opportunity for successful and sustainable pressure injury prevention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The incidence of skin/tissue damage, such as pressure ulcers, remains high in mechanically ventilated patients in the prone position. According to guidelines, critically ill patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) should be prone for at least 12–16 hours to improve oxygenation and decrease mortality. Therefore, educating clinicians on how to reposition and manage the patient safely in a prone position plays a vital role in preventing adverse events. This project aimed to develop accessible online educational content to assist clinicians in safely executing the prone manoeuvre and minimise skin/tissue damage. Method: The development of the educational content was based on: a gap analysis and comprehensive review of available educational resources; evidence-based scientific literature; advice from international experts; and a qualitative study exploring the learning needs of 20 clinicians in Belgium and Sweden between February–August 2022. Results: Volunteer clinicians assisted with the creation of eight simulation videos which were professionally filmed and edited. The interactive videos included the supine-to-prone and prone-to-supine manoeuvres, endotracheal and nasogastric tube securement, eye care, stoma care, protecting high-risk areas from pressure damage, and incontinence-associated dermatitis prevention. A prone positioning protocol, a checklist summarising the key aspects of the protocol, and teaching aids (slide deck for didactic lecturing) were developed and validated by a review of the relevant evidence-based literature and the international expert panel. A website was designed to host the content, with free user access, at www.pronetection.com. Conclusion: Education is one strategy towards prevention of complications of prone positioning. Accessible education could assist clinicians unfamiliar with prone positioning or current clinicians requiring refresher training to safely manage patients in this position. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

COVID‐19 has infected millions of patients and impacted healthcare workers worldwide. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) is a key component of protecting frontline clinicians against infection. The benefits of PPE far outweigh the risks, nonetheless, many clinicians are exhibiting skin injury caused by PPE worn incorrectly. These skin injuries, ranging from lesions to open wounds are concerning because they increase the susceptibility of viral infection and transmission to other individuals. Early into the COVID‐19 pandemic (April 2020), the U. S. National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel (NPIAP) developed a series of position statements to improve wear‐ability of PPE and protect healthcare professionals and their patients as safe from harm as possible under the circumstances. The NPIAP positions, which were formed by conducting a systematic review of what was known at the time, include: (a) Prepare skin before and after wearing PPE with skin sealants, barrier creams and moisturisers; (b) Frequent PPE offloading to relieve pressure and shear applied to skin; (c) treat visible skin injuries immediately caused by PPE to minimise future infection; (d) non‐porous dressings may provide additional skin protection, but lack evidence; (e) health systems should take care to educate clinicians about placement and personal hygiene related to handling PPE. Throughout all of these practices, handwashing remains a top priority to handle PPE. These NPIAP positions provided early guidance to reduce the risk of skin injury caused by PPE based on available research regarding PPE injuries, a cautious application of evidence‐based recommendations on prevention of device‐related pressure injuries in patients and the expert opinion of the NPIAP Board of Directors. Clinicians who adhere to these recommendations reduce the prospects of skin damage and long‐term effects (e.g. scarring). These simple steps to minimise the risk of skin injury and reduce the risk of coronavirus infection from PPE can help. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]