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.

We applied a market‐leading, single‐use negative pressure wound therapy device to a robotic venous leg ulcer system and compared its fluid handling performance with that of standard of care, superabsorbent and foam dressings and compression therapy. For each tested product, we determined a metrics of retained, residual, evaporated and (potential) leaked fluid shares, for three exudate flow regimes representing different possible clinically relevant scenarios. The single‐use negative pressure wound therapy system under investigation emerged as the leading treatment option in the aspects of adequate fluid handling and consistent delivery of therapeutic‐level wound‐bed pressures. The superabsorbent dressing performed reasonably in fluid handling (resulting in some pooling but no leakage), however, it quickly caused excessive wound‐bed pressures due to swelling, after less than a day of simulated use. The foam dressing exhibited the poorest fluid handling performance, that is, pooling in the wound‐bed as well as occasional leakage, indicating potential inflammation and peri‐wound skin maceration risks under real‐world clinical use conditions. These laboratory findings highlight the importance of advanced robotic technology as contemporary means to simulate patient and wound behaviours and inform selection of wound care technologies and products, in ways that are impossible to achieve if relying solely on clinical trials and experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We investigated the inflammatory (IL‐1 alpha) and thermal (infrared thermography) reactions of healthy sacral skin to sustained, irritating mechanical loading. We further acquired digital photographs of the irritated skin (at the visible light domain) to assess whether infrared imaging is advantageous. For clinical context, the skin status was monitored under a polymeric membrane dressing known to modulate the inflammatory skin response. The IL‐1 alpha and infrared thermography measurements were consistent in representing the skin status after 40 min of continuous irritation. Infrared thermography overpowered conventional digital photography as a contactless optical method for image processing inputs, by revealing skin irritation trends that were undetectable through digital photography in the visual light, not even with the aid of advanced image processing. The polymeric membrane dressings were shown to offer prophylactic benefits over simple polyurethane foam in the aspects of inflammation reduction and microclimate management. We also concluded that infrared thermography is a feasible method for monitoring the skin health status and the risk for pressure ulcers, as it avoids the complexity of biological marker studies and empowers visual skin assessments or digital photography of skin, both of which were shown to be insufficient for detecting the inflammatory skin status. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]