To provide the most recent evidence based information on risk factors, diagnosis, staging and management of pressure ulcers.
The National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (NPUAP) defines a pressure ulcer as, "localized injury to the skin and/or underlying tissue usually over a bony prominence, as a result of pressure, or pressure in combination with shear and/or friction (NPUAP, 2009)." Pressure ulcers (PUs) have been known as "bedsores" for hundreds of years. Historically, the term decubitus ulcer or decubiti has also been used to describe these wounds related to pressure and/or immobility.
PUs are chronic wounds occurring in approximately 3 to 23% of patients in long term care and rehabilitation facilities and approximately 30 to 60% of all persons with spinal cord injuries in their lifetime (Russo et al., 2006). About 60,000 persons in the US die each year as a direct result of pressure ulcers (AHRQ, 2011). PUs are painful, prone to infection, reduce quality of life, and create a world-wide economic dilemma (Maklebust, 2005; Fogerty et al., 2008). In addition, health care costs related to the management and treatment of chronic wounds in the U.S. exceeds $20 billion annually (AHRQ, 2011). While the quality of health care and medical technology has improved in the United States during the past 20 years, it seems this has not significantly affected overall national pressure ulcer prevalence or incidence (Thomas, 2001; VanGilder, MacFarlane & Meyer, 2008). Concurrent with this advancing technology, modern day patients live longer and are typically hospitalized with higher acuity levels than patients hospitalized years ago.
Historically, pressure ulcers have been described in medical literature since at least the 1500s when Fabricius Hildanus first documented his hypotheses of the causes and characteristics of bedsores. He highlighted the role of "internal supernatural" and "external natural" factors that interrupt the supply of blood and nutrients to tissue as causes of bedsores. Mechanical pressure and incontinence were first identified and key factors in the development of pressure ulcers by French surgeon de la Motte in 1722 (Defloor, 1999). Major risk factors identified for pressure ulcer development in the scientific literature since 1987 include increased age, impaired mobility, decreased physical activity, poor nutrition, urinary and/or fecal incontinence, and sensory impairment (Allman, 1997; Ayello & Lyder, 2001; Reddy, Gill, & Rochon, 2006). Other studies have identified additional risk factors including smoking status, diabetes mellitus (DM), coronary artery disease (CAD), intensive care unit (ICU) stay greater than 3 days, ventilator dependency, pneumonia, sepsis, obesity, surgery, female gender, and peripheral vascular disease (PVD) (Berlowitz et al., 2001; de Souza, & Santos, 2007; Cowan et al., 2012). Most pressure ulcers are considered to be avoidable, therefore, preventable (Jalali & Rezaie, 2005; Bryant & Nix, 2007; NPUAP, 2009). An "avoidable" pressure ulcer means that the patient developed a pressure ulcer and the facility or health care givers did not perform (or document) one or more of the following: evaluate the patient's / resident's clinical condition and pressure ulcer risk factors; define and implement interventions that are consistent with resident needs, resident goals, and recognized standards of practice; monitor and evaluate the impact of the interventions; or revise the interventions as appropriate. Thomas (2001) suggests there may be a few instances where pressure ulcers are unavoidable. "Unavoidable" means the patient / resident developed a pressure ulcer despite the fact that the facility and health care providers had evaluated (and documented) the resident's clinical condition and pressure ulcer risk factors; defined and implemented interventions that are consistent with resident needs, goals, and recognized standards of practice; monitored and evaluated the impact of the interventions; and revised the approaches as appropriate all within a timely manner. Kennedy ulcers (a specific type of pressure ulcer often seen at the end of life due to organ/system failure) are one example of "unavoidable" pressure ulcers.
Fogerty et al. (2008) conducted a very large retrospective case-control study reviewing admission and discharge data from over six million subjects in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) to identify risk factors and demographic differences between those who developed pressure ulcers and those that did not. Some may describe their study as a nested case-control (Gordis, 2004) because they identified a cohort (inpatients in the NIS dataset), followed their records retrospectively from their hospital admission until hospital discharge (during 2003), and separated them into 2 groups: those who developed pressure ulcers (cases) and those that did not (controls). There were 94,758 incident pressure ulcers documented among a final discharge sample of 6,610,787 persons. Utilizing multivariate logistic regression analysis on 45 common diagnoses identified in persons with pressure ulcers, they reported odds ratios (estimate of relative risk) for the most significant risk factors associated with developing pressure ulcers. Analysis was also conducted stratifying the sample by age, race and gender. Age over 75 years was the strongest pressure ulcer risk factor identified with an Odds Ratio (OR) of 12.63 (meaning people over 75 years are almost 13 times more likely to develop pressure ulcers than younger age groups). Other strong risk factors identified (listed in descending order) include: diagnosis of gangrene (OR 10.94, 95% CI 10.43-11.48), septicemia (OR 9.78, 95% CI 9.33- 10.26), osteomyelitis (OR 9.38, 95% CI 8.81-9.99), nutritional deficiencies (OR9.18, 95% CI 8.81-9.99), pneumonitis (OR 8.70, 95% CI 8.33-9.09), urinary tract infection (OR 7.17, 95% CI 6.96-7.38), paralysis (OR 10.30, 95% CI 9.69-10.96), age 59 to 75 years (OR 5.99, no CI reported), and African American race (OR 5.71, 95% CI 5.35-6.10). Fogerty et al. also reported a statistically significant interaction between race and age, such that as African Americans age, their risk of developing pressure ulcers increases faster than the risk Caucasians experience as they age, indicating noteworthy racial disparities. Other significant findings identified in their study highlight some of the strongest risk factors are non-modifiable (age, paralysis, race) while others are potentially modifiable (infection, nutritional deficiencies). Therefore, exploration is needed to determine when interventions are most effective in those persons with non-modifiable risk factors (such as age > 75) or if interventions should be initiated in all persons over 75 years old. Investigations should also examine the most effective interventions to reduce or eliminate the identified modifiable risk factors (infection and nutritional deficiencies) and ways to accurately identify them in patients.
|Interpreting Research Pearl: When reading results of research studies reporting Odds Ratios (OR), here are some tips to interpreting the data: |
The purpose of identifying a risk factor is to intervene and lower the associated risk. Identifying the strongest pressure ulcer risk factors is important to be able to provide evidence-based interventions and thereby lower the likelihood of someone developing a pressure ulcer or halting the progression of the pressure ulcer. Pressure ulcer risk assessment tools provide a tangible way to quantify potential risk so that interventions may be reserved for those at highest risk and avoid unnecessary interventions and higher financial expenditures on those who may not need them (Defloor & Grypdonck, 2005).
Cowan et al. (2012) conducted a retrospective analysis in a Veteran population to identify the strongest pressure ulcer predictive model which demonstrated four medical factors (malnutrition, surgery, pneumonia, candidiasis) were more predictive of pressure ulcers than total Braden Scale for Predicting Pressure Ulcer scores. The finding of a diagnosis of candidiasis as a risk factor for pressure ulcers may be related to medical conditions where candidiasis is most common (could it be a proxy variable for impaired immune function?). More research is needed to explore these relationships. Nevertheless, this research provides valuable information that may enhance current risk factor assessments. Identification of factors affecting the development of pressure ulcers is imperative in the present day population in order to select patients for effective prevention interventions. Furthermore, evaluation of the efficacy of existing preventive interventions must be ongoing and new innovative interventions must be explored in order to significantly impact pressure ulcer incidence and prevalence (Fogerty et al, 2008; Armstrong et al., 2008).
One criticism of existing risk assessment tools is that "neither risk factors nor the weights attributed to them have been identified using adequate statistical techniques" (Schoonhoven et al., 2002). Risk factors are those factors or conditions that are noted to be most strongly associated with the outcome of interest. In order to provide evidence-based measures in the prevention of pressure ulcers, an effective means of identifying those at highest risk is imperative. Current risk assessment tools may require further development, improved statistical evaluation, and possibly modification in order to remain applicable to present day populations.
Thomas (2001) posits an explanation for an unchanging incidence of pressure ulcers as "a failure of known effective prevention treatment to be applied, or the failure of prevention strategies to be effective despite being applied" (p.298). Effective preventive measures may not be applied if individuals are not appropriately identified as being at risk. Risk-screening tools are useless if they are not applicable to the population being screened, if they are used inconsistently, or scored incorrectly (Thomas, 2001; Papanikolaou, Lyne, & Anthony, 2007).
| When reading results of research studies reporting Odds Ratios (OR), here are some tips to interpreting the data: |
|Nurses who are being tasked with conducting daily pressure ulcer risk assessments should take them very seriously and make sure to score them accurately, taking into account any change in the patient's condition and risk not assessed by the specific tool being used. It is always better to overestimate risk than to underestimate risk!|
The pressure ulcer risk assessment tools most frequently utilized around the world are the Norton Scale (published in 1962) and the Braden Scale (published in 1987) or modified versions of these. Doreen Norton (along with Rhoda McLaren and Dr. Norman Exton-Smith) developed the Norton Scale in Great Britain during the 1950s (Norton, 1996). It is the first of all of the pressure ulcer risk assessment scales; indeed it is one of the earliest risk assessment scales of any kind. At first, Norton et al. devised a data collection tool with columns to describe all factors noted in every patient that "might be relevant to pressure ulcer development" (p.39) such as patient's weight, build, appetite, medications, preventive measures (14 different skin care products), treatment measures, site and condition of skin, and skin changes. They developed a rating 'scale' (at a time when rating scales were uncommon) with 5 elements that had weighted descending values for each element from 4 to 1. The "elements" or factors in their tool were listed as column headings for general physical condition (including overall nutritional state), mental condition, mobility, activity, and incontinence. Norton reports the tool was scored '4' for a normal or good function in each factor and '1' for very poor or bad function, with a total possible high score of 20 (patient in good overall condition) and low score of 5 (patient in poor overall condition). Norton explains, "A descending scale was selected because it correlated with a decline in the patient's condition" (p.39). The Norton conceptual model is a simple model based on their observed factors of general physical condition, mental condition, mobility, activity, and incontinence with a Likert-type scale for each of these factors totaled as one independent variable and "pressure ulcer RISK" as the dependent or outcome variable. This model posits that higher total scores have a strong positive association with higher pressure ulcer risk (Norton, 1996). Norton (1996) states her scale was frequently misinterpreted as "over-predicting pressure ulcer lesions" (p.41) when used incorrectly as a predictive tool. In addition it was criticized for leaving out nutritional assessment. However, according to Norton, nutritional assessment was included in their data collecting form and was intended as an integral part of overall "general condition" assessment. In retrospect, Norton (p.42) regretted not having an explicit user's guide to go along with her original tool and suggests that all future risk assessment tools remain simple and easy to use and have a Rater's Guide explaining specifically how to utilize the tool.
The Braden Scale was first published in 1987 (Bergstrom, Braden, Laguzza, & Holman, 1987), and is probably the most widely used pressure ulcer risk assessment tool available today. The theoretical framework is based on a physiological model depicting factors that contribute to the development of pressure ulcers. It includes factors affecting intensity and duration of pressure (decreased mobility, decreased activity, and decreased sensory perception), which combine with intrinsic factors (age, nutrition, vascular perfusion) and extrinsic factors (increased moisture, increased friction, and increased sheer forces) that affect tissue tolerance (Pieper, 2007). The Braden Scale is publicized as the most extensively tested and studied of the assessment tools. The Braden Scale has a potential score ranging from 6 to 23 derived from the total scores of its six subscales (sensory/perception, mobility, activity level, moisture/incontinence, nutrition, and friction/shear). Lower scores on the Braden Scale indicate greater risk for pressure ulcer development. Very high risk = 9 or below; High risk = 10-12; Moderate risk= 13-14; and Mild risk = 15-18. There is literature by Braden to suggest that if a person has other major risk factors present (age, fever, poor nutrition, hemodynamic instability), their score should be advanced to the next highest level of risk, yet observational studies suggest this is not routinely done by nurses (Bergstrom et al., 1987; Braden & Bergstrom, 1994; Ayello & Braden, 2002; Stotts & Gunningberg, 2007).
Reports of sensitivity and specificity of the Braden and Norton Scales may be misleading. Jalali and Rezaie (2005) report sensitivity to be "the percent of individuals who developed a pressure ulcer who were assessed at being at risk" for a pressure ulcer by the tool (Norton, Braden, Waterlow, or Gosnell scales), and specificity to be "the percent of individuals who do not develop a pressure ulcer who were assessed to not be at risk" (p.94). They report sensitivity and specificity (respectively) for the Norton scale to be 49% and 100%, the Braden scale was 53% and 100%, the Gosnell scale was 85% and 83%, and Waterlow was 63% and 82.5%. As Norton posits, in using the tool at all, you may be providing an intervention, therefore the "predictive validity" scores may accurately depict a lower percent sensitivity for the more effective tools because they are effectively lowering the incident number of pressure ulcers in those identified as higher risk. The specificity of 100% (Braden and Norton scales) depicts the tool's ability to correctly identify those not at risk for developing a pressure ulcer and suggests the Gosnell and Waterlow scales were not as successful in this regard (Jalali & Rezaie, 2005). Therefore, a word of caution should accompany research studies seeking to 'validate' risk assessment scales in this manner rather than investigating the impact of their use on the incidence of pressure ulcers.
Defloor (1999) criticized Braden & Bergstrom's inclusion of "tissue tolerance" in a causal pathway toward pressure ulcer development in their conceptual model stating, "Tissue tolerance cannot cause pressure sores. The existence of pressure and/or shearing force is needed. Tissue tolerance is looked upon as an intermediate variable and not a causal factor." (p.207). Defloor went on to say that the Braden & Bergstrom conceptual model did not include factors identified in other studies as strongly associated with pressure ulcer development such as "specific diseases, dehydration, protein deficiency, body build, position, etc." He described his own conceptual scheme of pressure sore formation, utilizing known risk factors and pathophysiology and expanding on the factors listed in the Braden & Bergstrom model. Defloor's (1999) model depicts Compressive Force and Shearing Force as independent variables that interact and Tissue Tolerance for Pressure as well as Tissue Tolerance for Oxygen as intermediate (moderating) variables toward the dependant variable of Pressure Sores. Defloor also noted that more research is needed especially in regards to factors such as smoking and low protein, as well as the influence of preventive measures. Defloor concluded (p.214) that many authors on the subject of pressure ulcer development limit themselves to identifying risk factors, stating, "it is important to gain insight into how these risk factors interact, not only for a better understanding of the pathophysiology of pressure sores and of preventive measures, but also for the development of valid risk scales."
Jalali & Rezaie (2005) tested the "predictive power" of the 4 most common pressure ulcers risk assessment scales (RAS) side by side in a prospective study evaluating incident pressure ulcers in 3 educational hospitals in Iran between 2000 and 2002. They examined a total of 230 patients (100 men + 130 women) over 21 years old who were admitted to the hospital without a pressure ulcer. They used 4 common pressure ulcer risk scales (Norton, Braden, Waterlow, and Gosnell) and a uniform skin assessment tool requiring the researcher to document the skin condition of all bony prominences for every patient within 48 hours of admission and every 24 hours afterwards for 14 days. All incident pressure ulcers were staged and recorded according to the AHCPR pressure ulcer treatment guidelines staging that contained Stage I Stage IV (no unstagable or deep tissue injury stages). Four separate researchers each evaluated the patient using one of the 4 RAS, but there were some limitations associated with the study. Deep tissue injury discoloration could be misclassified as Stage I. Researchers report the patients were assessed for a minimum of 14 days under their methods section and a maximum of 14 days under the procedure section. The average number of days the sample was followed was not clear; however, it seems apparent that patients were followed only 2 weeks. This is a limitation to the study especially as far as negative predictive value (NPV) and positive predictive value (PPV) they report regarding the scales. Norton and Braden demonstrated 100% PPV in this study but Gosnell and Waterlow demonstrated only 59 and 61% PPV, while Gosnell and Waterlow demonstrated 95% and 84% NPV and Norton and Braden only had 52% and 58% NPV. Assuming these values to be true for the sake of argument, perhaps patients developed pressure ulcers at day 15 or 20. If more patients developed ulcers later, it would alter some of these results. If the study followed the patients longer it would be more supportive of the author's premise regarding the scales. Furthermore, the Youden's Index (developed in 1950 to evaluate accuracy of diagnostic tools/tests) was used to report predictive validity or "predictive power" for the four scales, but the index data was not reported uniformly. Jalali & Rezaie reported that Youden's Index "assumes that sensitivity and specificity have equal importance" (p.94), however it is unclear if sensitivity and specificity of pressure ulcer risk scales do or should have equal importance. Is it more important that pressure ulcer risk assessment scales predict who will get a pressure ulcer or who will not?
In the Jalali & Rezaie (2005) study, the Iran subjects ranged from 21 to 89 years with a mean age of 60 years. Jalali and Rezaie designed their study observation period based on findings from Pang & Wong (1998), who reported most pressure ulcers developed in the first 2 weeks (in a Hong Kong rehabilitation hospital with an older sample of mostly Chinese individuals). The average life expectancy in Iran is lower than both Asian and Western developed countries. The authors did not mention the cultural, economic or social differences between these study populations, yet they mention they do not use pressure-reducing equipment and their study demonstrated a 32.2% higher acute care pressure ulcer prevalence rate than other acute care studies. In addition, Jalali and Rezaie collected their data in acute care settings (intensive care, neurology, orthopedic, and medical units). They also report that nursing care for the Iran sample was "similar in all patients," but go on to describe subjects in their study as having "neurological problems such as cerebrovascular accident and intracranial hemorrhage, decreased mobility, and decreased level of consciousness, inadequate nutrition, and incontinence" (p.96). How can nursing care be similar across 3 different educational hospitals and in different acuity levels? It is also unclear why limb massage was reported by the authors as an intervention that could help prevent pressure ulcers, when studies from the 1980s demonstrated that limb massage is not evidence-based or recommended (AHCPR, 1992). Are there any cultural or social reasons barriers to utilizing effective evidence-based interventions? Health care providers in American and the western world may not be able to fathom the difficulties in providing even basic nursing care that face our colleagues in other countries.
Multiple studies demonstrate the elderly are particularly vulnerable to pressure ulcers (Fisher, Wells, & Harrison, 2004; Whittington, K., & Briones, R., 2004; Schoonhoven et al., 2006; Scott et al., 2006; Fogerty et al., 2008). The US aging population is growing. The US Census Bureau (2000) reports 35 million people (12.4% of population) in the US were over 65 years old in the year 2000. That number is projected to rise to 54 million (16.3% of population) by the year 2020, and 86.7 million (20.7% of population) by the year 2050. Pressure ulcers are a critical problem that is growing in the United States. Many changes in aging skin as well as progressive immobility may contribute to higher risks of PU in aging populations (thinning of epidermal and dermal layers and loss of rete ridges), sensory changes, changes in composition of body fat and muscle mass, etc) (Bryant & Nix, 2012).
Doreen Norton (1996) conducted her research involving 600 patients (average age 79) in the geriatric firm of a London hospital (over a 2-year period of time) in the 1950s. Her scale is based on observed factors in that population. Braden built on what Norton had done and modified her scale to fit observed factors of the 1980s. In addition, a recent study suggests that even after specific in-depth training on how to use the Braden Scale, nurses produced reliable Braden Scores only 65% of the time after training (Magnan & Maklebust, 2008). Indeed, there have been documented problems with nurse's knowledge and inconsistent use of pressure ulcer risk assessment tools. Not to mention the lack of adequate implementation of effective pressure ulcer prevention protocols and interventions once risk has been identified (Ayello, Baranoski, & Salati, 2005; Stotts, 2007; Magnan & Maklebust, 2008).
The research done Fogerty et al. (2008), Cowan et al. (2012) and many others have demonstrated just how important adequate nutrition and hydration are to maintaining intact skin, as well as facilitate wound healing. Individuals who are nutritionally compromised are at greater risk of pressure ulcers. Unfortunately, the Braden Scale may not do a great job of adequately capturing nutritional risk. Further analysis of the Cowan et al. retrospective pressure ulcer risk study (unpublished as of yet) explored the relationship between the Braden subscore of Nutrition (documented by nurses) and the nutritional assessment conducted and documented by licensed/registered dieticians. The results of this analysis will be published soon and suggests there is poor agreement between these two assessments on the same patients. There also appears to be poor agreement with the Braden subscore and nutritional lab indices (better agreement between LD/RD nutritional assessments and lab indices). This may indicate the Braden Scale itself is too vague in the subscore of Nutrition, or nurses may need more specific education on how to assess nutritional risk and capture that risk with the Braden instrument. Regardless, assessing every patient for nutritional risk and then acting quickly (perhaps with a LD/RD nutrition consult?) to address nutritional deficits is paramount in preventing and managing pressure ulcers.
Pressure ulcers or "bed sores" have been documented for thousands of years. Diagnosing pressure ulcers largely depends on assessing possible pressure, shear and moisture- related etiological factors as well as location of the tissue damage. The first question in your mental wound assessment "checklist" should be: "Is it over a boney prominence?" While pressure ulcers may develop over any boney prominence on the body, the sacrum, coccyx, buttocks, and heels of the feet are the most prevalent sites for pressure ulcers (Perneger, Heliot, Rae, Borst, & Gaspoz, 1998; Lyder, 2003; Vangilder, MacFarlane, & Meyer, 2008). Other common locations may include greater trochanters, ischial tuberosities, ankles, knees, elbows, scapulas, shoulders, and occiput. In addition, pressure related injury may also be related to devices such as oxygen tubing, drain tubes and foley catheters. Device related pressure ulcers may be seen over the ears, around the urethral opening of the genitals or other soft tissue location not associated with a bony prominence. Furthermore, this type of device related injury may cause full thickness tissue damage which is difficult to stage because, as in the case of the ears, there is no subcutaneous tissue evident - a very shallow wound may result in exposure of cartilage (full thickness wound) without the involvement of muscle, tendon or bone. Again, it is important to note that while the onset of pressure ulcers is associated with unrelieved pressure of course, it can also be caused by a combination of pressure, friction and shearing forces. Evaluating these potential forces (head of bed raised for long periods, patient sliding down in the bed, chair transfers, improper overhead sling positioning, etc.) is imperative when assessing your patient's skin integrity risks.
Pressure ulcer staging provides a way to communicate the degree of tissue damage in pressure ulcers. The staging system was defined by Shea in 1975 and provides a name to the amount of anatomical tissue loss. The original definitions were confusing to many clinicians and lead to inaccurate staging of ulcers associated or due to perineal dermatitis and those due to deep tissue injury (NPUAP 2007). The stages range from Stage I (less obvious and potentially reversible damage) to Stage IV (damage extending to muscle, tendon and/or bone) with 'Unstagable' and 'suspected Deep Tissue Injury' (sDTI) discoloration added as additional 'stages' or descriptors (Black, Baharestani, Cuddigan, Dorner, Edsberg, & Langema, et al., 2007). Pressure ulcers should never be "back-staged," meaning once a wound is identified as a Stage III pressure ulcer, it is never referred to as a Stage I or II. Rather, the stage III pressure ulcer which is healing would be referred to as a "healing Stage III pressure ulcer." In addition, only pressure ulcers are "staged." Diabetic foot ulcers may be "graded" (such as Wagner Grades) but no other wounds are "staged." 2009, the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (NPUAP) updated their Categories or Stages of Pressure Ulcers and published a National Guidelines document. These can be found on the NPUAP website and are listed below.
Whittington & Briones (2004) estimate annual medical costs in the United States (US) associated with treating pressure ulcers exceed $5 billion dollars annually. Fogerty et al. (2008) estimates this cost to be higher at $10,845 per patient, exceeding a total $18.5 billion dollars annually. Furthermore, Jalali & Rezaie (2005) suggest it may cost as little as $500 to prevent a pressure ulcer, indicating prevention "is more cost-effective than treatment" (p.92). Individuals with pressure ulcers have higher mortality rates (Redelings et al., 2005) and up to five fold increased hospital length of stay (Graves, Birrell & Whitby, 2005). Interestingly, Barbara Braden gave a NPUAP lecture "Costs of Pressure Ulcer Prevention: Is it really cheaper than treatment? Given May 9, 2013, she discussed the fact that when pressure ulcer prevention interventions are put in place, patient falls are also noted to decrease.
Political issues affecting pressure ulcer prevention and treatment may include scenarios like the one in Iran, where pressure reducing equipment is scarce or other situations where lack of healthcare resources prevent global implementation of even basic preventative measures. Government sponsored or subsidized medical care, private insurance, homelessness, war, economic crisis, limited transportation and/or food sources are but a few huge issues affecting healthcare today. In America, Medicare and Medicaid services come to mind when considering economic, social, and political implications on research findings regarding pressure ulcer risk. To highlight this point, a recent roundtable discussion of the International Expert Wound Care Advisory Panel entitled, "Opportunities to Improve Pressure Ulcer Prevention and Treatment: Implications of the CMS Acute Care Present on Admission (POA) Indicators/Hospital-Acquired Conditions (HAC) Ruling" (February 2008) highlights one pressure ulcer specific ramification of Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. The expert panel detailed subsequent changes in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) financial reimbursement amounts for long-term and acute care settings such as nursing homes and hospitals. Beginning in October 2008, CMS will no longer reimburse higher rates for patients that develop stage III or IV pressure ulcers (full-thickness tissue loss) after admission (Armstrong et al., 2008). This represents a potentially very large economic loss to health care facilities. This is thought to provide additional motivation to acute and long-term care facilities to evaluate and improve their documentation and pressure ulcer prevention programs. This discussion is significant, as it stresses the urgency of a consensus among health care providers and particularly the wound care community in providing quality research and evidence-based (and innovative) interventions that are effective.
There are few (if any) current randomized controlled trials (RCTs) where random vulnerable patients are assigned to receive an intervention suspected of "causing" full thickness pressure ulcers. Three important documents impact biomedical research around the world by helping to determine what is ethically right or wrong. These documents are: The Nuremberg Code (1947), the World Medical Association's Declaration of Helsinke (originally adopted in 1964), and the Belmont Report of the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects in the United States (Beauchamp & Childress, 2001). In a nutshell, these documents came about after tragic medical research practices were disclosed to the world. The Nuremberg Code was written in 1946-1947 after the horrific, criminal medical research on Jews and other prisoners in Nazi concentration camps came to light. The Code's purpose is described as providing ten directives for human experimentation, including informed consent and assurance within research protocols that "all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury" as a result of the experimentation process is avoided. The Declaration of Helsinki built on these directives in a document that has been revised by the World Medical Association at least six times (Portney & Watkins, 2000; Murphy, 2004). These documents and a report describing other unethical medical research practices discovered in the United States (The Belmont Report) led to the development of the US National Research Act in 1974 to ensure the protection of all human research subjects is a standard practice (Portney & Watkins, 2000). The ethical dilemma for pressure ulcer research arises when you want to do a RCT where the dependent variable of interest is a poor medical outcome like a stage III pressure ulcer. It would not be ethical to divide two elderly groups of people into experimental and control groups and apply some type of intervention to one group and not to others while you observed both groups to see who developed a stage III pressure ulcer. Ethically, researchers should desire to prevent harm (pressure ulcers) in all of the subjects and if something were to cause skin or tissue injury, you would want to intervene immediately. To merely record how bad things got in one group or the other would go against biomedical ethical principles of "not causing harm." However, RCTs can be conducted that investigate potentially positive outcomes. Several RCTs have been reported involving patients deemed at risk for pressure ulcers that introduce a theoretically preventative intervention (such as a new support surface) versus standard care (existing mattress) to see which is more effective at preventing pressure ulcer development.
In particular, with regard to pressure ulcer risk prediction, using data collected from research studies on populations twenty years ago poses a problem for application to the current population. Most of the updated pressure ulcer prevention guidelines available on the National Guideline website are still based on those risk factors identified over twenty years ago and these may not carry the same relevance today (RNAO, 2005; AMDA, 2008). Vincent et al. (2006) describes medical technology and clinical procedure advances as well as process of care (organizational/policy) changes within the emergency medicine and intensive care unit (ICU) arenas over the past 25 years. In addition, more patients are having procedures done on an outpatient basis so fewer patients with "minor" conditions are being admitted to the hospital (Edelman, Weiss, Ashton, & Wray, 1995; CDC, Ambulatory Surgery in the US: 1995). These changes are likely to alter acuity levels, numbers of patient transfers within facilities, and length of stays for patients being admitted to hospitals. Essentially, these factors are apt to change the "face" of the inpatient population and impact characteristics of those at risk of a pressure ulcer.
Please see the AHRQ 2011 toolkit for preventing PU in hospitals online . The approach to managing pressure ulcers should always focus on PREVENTION. Prevent the ulcer in the first place! If the patient develops pressure related injury (despite preventive measures), then evidence-based practice related to wound healing should be administered but always with PREVENTION in the treatment plan. Prevent further breakdown. Prevent the pressure ulcer from deteriorating or worsening to a deeper stage. Evidence suggests that offloading and pressure reduction/redistribution should be a primary goal of treatment of pressure ulcers, along with eliminating shearing and friction forces. Addressing other key contributing or risk factors is also critical. Knowing what intrinsic and extrinsic factors contribute to skin breakdown is important. Intrinsic factors such as age, immune function, nutrition and disease states (co-morbid conditions) should be considered. Extrinsic factors such as dry skin, friction, transfer equipment, medications, and moisture should also be addressed.
Maintaining adequate nutrition and hydration should be an essential component of PU management plans. Nutritional assessments should include: current and usual weight, history of involuntary weight loss, nutrition intake (protein, calories, fluid), appetite, dental health, chewing, swallowing or feeding problems, medical or surgical history affecting intake or absorption, drug / nutrient interactions, psychosocial factors (mood, finances, cooking ability, culture, preferences) and appropriate laboratory values. Common laboratory analysis includes serum albumin (20 day half life indicates chronic disease state, values below 3.5g/dl indicates increased risk); serum pre-albumin has a 2 to 3 day half life, providing a more current reflection of protein stores (values below 15 mg/dl indicates increased risk); a total lymphocyte count is an indicator of protein-calorie malnutrition (values below 1,800 mm3 indicates risk); serum transferring is also a malnutrition indicator (values below 200 mg/dl indicates risk).
Managing excessive moisture (incontinence, sweat, spilled liquids) on the skin surface of patients at risk for PU is another critical preventive and management goal. Managing incontinence includes establishing a bowel and bladder program, cleansing the skin after soiling with pH balanced cleansers, and using incontinence skin barriers (creams, ointments, etc) to protect and maintain intact skin. Consider a pouching system or collection device to protect from effluence if fecal incontinence is an issue. Indwelling catheters may be indicated for short term use with severe incontinence related dermatitis and difficult to manage urinary incontinence. In addition, limit the use of diapers, but if briefs, diapers or underpads are used, make sure they are the type that wick moisture from skin.
Addressing impaired mobility includes patient and caregiver education and establishing a turning/repositioning schedule for patients confined to the bed or a chair. This should include repositioning the patient every 2-4 hours with the support of bony prominences. Keep the head of the bed at 30 degrees or less except for tube fed patients (but allow elevation for 1 hour after meals). Avoid "donuts" (rings meant for under coccyx areas), and pulling of the patient across the bed or a chair surface. Place pressure-redistribution surfaces on bed and chair surfaces.
There are many ways to help reduce or redistribute pressure under bony prominences. The most common are repositioning and the use of support surfaces. Addressing impaired mobility includes patient and caregiver education and establishing a turning/repositioning schedule for patients confined to the bed or a chair. This should include repositioning the patient every 2-4 hours with the support of bony prominences. Keep the head of the bed at 30 degrees or less except for tube fed patients (but allow elevation for 1 hour after meals). Avoid "donuts" (rings meant for under coccyx areas), and pulling of the patient across the bed or a chair surface. Place pressure-redistribution support surfaces on bed and chair surfaces. Examples of support surfaces include mattresses and mattress overlays, integrated bed systems, seat cushions, seat overlays, and heel floatation devices. Mattresses and mattress overlays include 3 groups. Group 1 support surfaces do not require electricity, are relatively inexpensive and are for patients at low or moderate risk of pressure ulcers; Group 2 support surfaces may or may not be dynamic-powered devices and are appropriate for patients at moderate or high risk; Group 3 support surfaces include air fluidized beds and are for patients at very high risk. The goal of these surfaces is to assist in creating an environment that enhances tissue viability and will assist in promoting healing. The surface should prevent "bottoming out" when the patient is positioned on it. The surface should also assist in the prevention of shearing of tissue.
Open pressure ulcers are wounds. Many become chronic wounds and stage III/IV pressure ulcers have been associated with a higher complication rate (especially infection and sepsis) and higher mortality rate that some other chronic wounds. Wound healing principles have been discussed in previous educational papers, but as a brief summary, we will review some helpful mnemonics to guide wound bed preparation and wound management of full thickness open wounds. The first mnemonic is T-I-M-E. Schultz et al. (2003), and Leaper et al. (2013) have written pivotal articles describing T-I-M-E as a way to guide clinicians in the management of full thickness wounds.
|Undermining (a underground cave, "lip" or shelf under the edge of a wound is often caused by shearing forces (such as when a person slides down in bed or someone slides harshly on a transfer board). Eliminating these forces is the only way to prevent/reduce this undermining in pressure ulcers, particularly sacral, coccyx and ischial PU.|
Dorothy Doughty, MSN, RN, CWOCN, FAAN (2012) gave the following mnemonic to illustrate similar principles for topical wound therapy:
Stillman (2009) suggested this DIDN'T HEAL mnemonic device to help remember factors that adversely affect wound healing:
Prevention is paramount! Off load!
Address healing impediments, especially nutrition, moisture, friction and shear.
Use appropriate mnemonics to help guide wound bed preparation and wound healing approaches.
Any topical wound therapy that you select should show expected improvement in 2 to 4 weeks. If not, then re-evaluate the wound and evaluate for possible infection (quantitative tissue analysis). Consider measures to address etiologic and systemic factors (nutrition, shear, diabetes or comorbid disease control). Change to another product. If the wound continues to worsen or does not improve after doing these things, consider malignancy (biopsy for histopathology) or autoimmune disease(s) as potential contributing factors such as Pyoderma Gangrenosum.
As stated before, many changes have occurred in health care over the past 20 years. Nursing care delivery, hospital organizational frameworks, quality improvement, financial coverage, not to mention technology (including electronic records), and perhaps the overall face of our present day patient population (Edelman, 1995; CDC, 1997; Vincent et al., 2006). Yet, even with multiple pressure ulcer prevention programs implemented nationwide, pressure ulcer incidence and prevalence has not changed significantly in many facilities. Researchers need to determine why and develop innovative approaches to solve this dilemma. The effectiveness of pressure ulcer prevention and treatment interventions must be determined. Guidelines must be based on current, high-quality scientific evidence, and impediments to guideline implementation must be addressed. There are significant gaps in the scientific literature regarding pressure ulcer risk assessment, particularly in regard to present day populations. New conceptual models of pressure ulcer development, risk assessment, and new interventions may need to be developed (Armstrong et al., 2008).
Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, US Department of Health and Human Services. (1992). Pressure ulcers in adults: prediction and prevention. (AHCPR publication no. 92-0047). Rockville, MD: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research.
Allman R. (1997). Pressure ulcer prevalence, incidence, risk factors, and impact. Clinical Geriatric Medicine, 13, 421-436.
Allman, R., Goode, P., Burst, N., Bartolucci, A., Thomas, D. (1999). Pressure ulcers, hospital complications, and disease severity: Impact on hospital costs and length of stay. Advances in Skin and Wound Care. 12(1), 22-30.
Anthony, D. Reynolds, T. & Russell, L. (2000) An investigation into the use of serum albumin in pressure sore prediction. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32 (2), 359365.
Are We Ready for This Change? Preventing Pressure Ulcers in Hospitals: A Toolkit for Improving Quality of Care. April 2011. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD (Visit Source).
Armstrong, D., Ayello, E., Capitulo, K., Fowler, E., Krasner, D., Levine, J., Sibbald, R.G., & Smith, A. (2008). Opportunities to Improve Pressure Ulcer Prevention and Treatment: Implications of the CMS Acute Care Present on Admission (POA) Indicators/Hospital-Acquired Conditions (HAC) Ruling. A consensus paper from the International Expert Wound Care Advisory Panel: Roundtable discussion held February 2, 2008 in Chicago, IL.
Aronovitch, S., Wilber, M., Slezak, S., Martin, T., & Utter, D. (1999). A comparative study of an alternating air mattress for the prevention of pressure ulcers in surgical patients. Ostomy Wound Management, 45, 34-40, 42-44.
Ayello, E., & Braden, B. (2002). How and why to do pressure ulcer risk assessment. Advanced Wound Care, 15(3), 125-31.
Ayello, E. & Lyder, C. (2001). Pressure ulcers in persons of color, race, and ethnicity. In: Cuddinton J., editor. Pressure Ulcers in America: prevalence, incidence, and implications for the future. Washington, DC: National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, 153-162.
Ayello, E., & Lyder, C. (2008). A new era of pressure ulcer accountability in acute care. Advances in Skin & Wound Care, 21(3), 134-139.
Bates-Jensen, B.M., MacLean, C.H. (2007). Quality indicators for the care of pressure ulcers in vulnerable elders. Journal of the American Geriatric Society, 55(S2) S409-S416.
Beauchamp, T., & Childress, J. (2001). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (5th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Beeckman, D., Schoonhoven, L., Fletcher, J., Furtado, K., Gunningberg, L., Heyman, H., Lindholm, C., Paquay, L., Verd, J., & Defloor, T. (2007) EPUAP classification system for pressure ulcers: European reliability study. Journal of Advanced Nursing 60 (6), 682691.
Bergstrom, N., Braden, B., Laguzza, A., & Holman, V. (1987). The Braden scale for predicting pressure sore risk.
Nursing Research, 36, 205-10.
Bergstrom, N., & Braden, B. (1992). A prospective study of pressure sore risk among institutionalized elderly. Journal of American Geriatric Society, 40, 747-58.
Bergstrom, N., Braden, B., Kemp, M., Champagne, M., Ruby, E. (1996). Multi-site study of incidence of pressure ulcers and the relationship between risk level, demographic characteristics, diagnosis, and prescription of preventive intervention. Journal of American Geriatric Society, 44(1), 22-30.
Berlowitz, D., Brandeis, G., Morris, J., Ash, A., Anderson, J., Kader, B., & Moskowitz, M. (2001). Deriving a risk-adjustment model for pressure ulcer development using the Minimum Data Set. Journal of American Geriatrics Society, 49. 866-871.
Bolton, L. (2007). Which pressure ulcer risk assessment scales are valid for use in the clinical setting? Journal of WOCN. 34(4), 368-381.
Brandeis G., Morris J., & Nash D. (1990). The epidemiology and natural history of pressure ulcers in elderly nursing home residents. JAMA, (22), 2905-2909.
Brandeis, G., Ooi, W., & Hossain, M. et al. (1994). A longitudinal study of risk factors associated with the formation of pressure ulcers in nursing homes. Journal of American Geriatric Society, 42, 388-393.
Braden, B., Bergstrom, N. (1989). Clinical utility of the Braden scale for predicting pressure sore risk. Decubitus, 2(3), 44-51.
Braden, B., Bergstrom, N. (1994). Predictive validity of the Braden Scale for pressure sore risk in a nursing home population. Res Nurs Health, 17, 459-70.
Catania, K., Huang, C., James, P., Madison, M., Moran, M., Ohr, M. (2007). PUPPI: The pressure ulcer prevention protocol interventions. American Journal of Nursing. 107(4), 4452.
Cowan, L., Stechmiller, J., Rowe, M., & Kairalla, J. (2012). Enhancing Braden pressure ulcer risk assessment in acutely ill adult Veterans. Wound Repair and Regeneration, 20, 137-148.
Cullum, N., Deeks, J., Sheldon, T., Song, F., & Fletcher, A. (2000). Beds, mattresses and cushions for pressure sore prevention and treatment. Cochrane Database Systematic Review2000, 2:CD001735. Update in: Cochrane Database Systematic Review 2004: 3: CD001735.
De Souza, D., & Santos, V. (2007). Risk factors for pressure ulcer development in institutionalized elderly. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem, 15(5), 958-964.
Deeks, J. (1996). Pressure sore prevention using and evaluating risk assessment tools. British Journal of Nursing, 5, 313-4, 316-20.
Doughty, D. (2012). Wound Care: Principles of Wound Healing and Product Selection. WOCN Webinar, December 6, 2012 2:00pm 3:00pm. Archived lecture available on (Visit Source).
Edelman, D., Weiss, T., Ashton, C., & Wray, N. (1995). Outpatient Surgery Utilization in Veterans Affairs Hospitals 1981-1989. MEDICAL CARE, 33(3). 246-255.
Edsberg, L., Geyer, M., & Zulkowski, K. (2005). The NPUAP support surface initiative. Advances in Skin & Wound Care, 18(3), 164-166.
Edwards, M. (1996). Pressure sore risk calculators: some methodological issues. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 5, 307-312.
Fisher, A., Wells, G., & Harrison, M. (2004). Factors associated with pressure ulcers in adults in acute care hospitals. Holistic Nursing Practice, 242-253.
Flanagan, M. (1993). Pressure Sore Risk Assessment Scales. Journal of Wound Care, 2, 162-167.
Flanagan, M. (1995). Who is at risk of a pressure sore? A practical review of risk assessment systems. Professional Nurse, 10(5), 305-308.
Fogerty, M., Abumrad, N., Nanney, L., Arbogast, P., Poulose, B., & Barbul, A. (2008). Risk factors for pressure ulcers in acute care hospitals. Wound Repair and Regeneration, 16, 11-18.
Graves, N., Birrell, F., & Whitby, M. (2005). Effect of pressure ulcers on length of hospital stay. Infection Control Hospital Epidemiology, 26, 293-297
Jalali, R. & Rezaie, M. (2005). Predicting pressure ulcer risk: Comparing the predictive validity of 4 scales. Advances in Skin & Wound Care, 18(2), 92-97.
Keast, D., Parslow, N., Houghton, P., Norton, L. & Fraser, C. (2007). Best practice recommendations for the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers: Update 2006. Advances in Skin & Wound Care, 20(8), 447-459.
Kim, T., & Lang, N. (2006). Predictive Modeling for the prevention of hospital-acquired pressure ulcers. AMIA Symposium Proceedings, 434-438.
Leonard, M., Graham, S., & Bonacum, D. (2004). The human factor: the critical importance of effective teamwork and communication in providing safe care. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 13 (Suppl 1), i85-i90.
Lyder, C. (2003). Pressure ulcer prevention and management. JAMA, 289(2), 223-226.
Lyder, C. Lecture at North Florida/South Georgia Veteran's Administration: Pressure Ulcers & Tag F314 given March 6th, 2008.
Magnan, M., & Maklebust, J. (2008). The effect of web-based Braden Scale training on the reliability and precision of Braden Scale pressure ulcer risk assessments. Journal of Wound Ostomy and Continence Nursing, 35(2), 199-208.
Maklebust, J. (2005). Pressure ulcers: The great insult. Nursing Clinics of North America, 40, 365-389.
Maklebust, J., & Sieggreen, M. (2001). Pressure Ulcers: Guidelines for Prevention and Management, (3rd ed). Springhouse PA: Springhouse Corp.
Margolis, D., Bilker, W., Knauss, J., Baumgarten, M., & Strom, B. (2002). The incidence and prevalence of pressure ulcers among elderly patients in general medical practice. Annals of Epidemiology, 12(5), 321-325.
McElhinny, M. & Hooper, C. (2008). Reducing hospital-acquired heel ulcer rates in an acute care facility. Journal of WOCN, 35(1), 79-83.
Nightingale, F. (1860). Notes on Nursing: What it is, and What it is Not (1st American edition reprinted 1976), Chapter XIII: Observation of the Sick, p125. New York: Buccaneer Books, Inc.
Padula, C., Osborne, E. & Williams, J. (2008). Prevention and early detection of pressure ulcers in hospitalized patients. Journal of WOCN, 35(1), 65-75.
Pancorbo-Hidalgo P.L., Garcia-Fernandez F.P., Lopez-Medina I.M. & Alvarez-Nieto C. (2006). Risk assessment scales for pressure ulcer prevention: a systematic review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 54(1), 94110
Pang, S., & Wong, T. (1998). Predicting pressure sore risk with the Norton, Braden, and Waterlow scales in a Hong Kong rehabilitation hospital. Nursing Research, 47, 147-153.
Papanikolaou, P., Lyne, P., & Anthony, D. (2007). Risk assessment scales for pressure ulcers: A methodological review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 44 (2), 285-296.
Perneger, T., Heliot, C., Rae, A., Borst, F., & Gaspoz, J. (1998). Hospital-acquired pressure ulcers. Archives of Internal Medicine, 158, 1940-1945.
Price, M., Whitney, J. & King, C. (2005). Development of a risk assessment tool for intraoperative pressure ulcers. Journal of Wound Ostomy Continence Nurses Society, 32(1), 19-30.
Reddy, M., Gill, S., & Rochon, P. (2006). Preventing Pressure Ulcers: A Systematic Review. JAMA, 296(8), 974-84.
Redelings et al (2005). Pressure ulcers: More lethal than we thought? Advances in Skin and Wound Care, 18(7). 367-372.
Russo, C.A., Steiner, C. & Spector, W. (2006) Hospitalizations related to pressure ulcers among adults 18 years and older, 2006. AHRQ H-CUP Statistical Brief #64 (Visit Source).
Schoonhoven, L., Grobbee, D., & Donders, A., et al. (2006). Prediction of pressure ulcer development in hospitalized patients: a tool for risk assessment. Qual Saf Health Care, 15(1). 65-70.
Schoonhoven, L., Haalboom, J. R., Bousema, M. T., Algra, A., Grobbee, D. E., Grypdonck, M. H., & Buskens, E. (2002). Prospective cohort study of routine use of risk assessment scales for prediction of pressure ulcers. British Medical Journal. 325, 797-802.
Scott, R.S., Gibran, N.S., Engrav, L.H., Mack, C.D., Rivera, F.P. (2006). Incidence and characteristics of hospitalized patients with pressure ulcers: Sate of Washington, 1987 to 2000. Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 630-634.
Seongsook, J., Ihnsook, J., Younghee, L. (2004). Validity of pressure ulcer risk assessment scales: Cubbin and Jackson, Braden, and Douglas scale. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 41, 199-204.
Stechmiller, J., Cowan, L, Whitney, J., Phillips, L., Aslam, R., Barbul, A., Gottrup, F., Gould, L., Robson, M., Rodeheaver, G., Thomas, D., & Stotts, N. (2008). Guidelines for the prevention of pressure ulcers. Wound Repair and Regeneration, 16, 151-168.
Stillman, R. Wound Care: eMedicine General Surgery (19 July 2009). Retrieved from (Visit Source).
Stotts, N. & Gunningberg, L. (2007). Where's the Evidence? American Journal of Nursing, 107(11).
VanGilder, C., MacFarlane, G., & Meyer, S. (2008). Results of nine international pressure ulcer prevalence surveys: 1989 to 2005. Ostomy Wound Management, 54(2), 40-54.
Whittington, K., & Briones, R. (2004). National prevalence and incidence study: 6-year sequential acute care data. Advances in Skin and Wound Care, 17, 490-494.
Wound Ostomy Continence Nurses society. (2003). Guideline for Prevention and Management of Pressure Ulcers. WOCN Clinical Practice Guidelines series. Glenview, IL.
This course is applicable for the following professions:
Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner (ARNP), Clinical Nurse Specialist (CNS), Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), Licensed Vocational Nurses (LVN), Registered Nurse (RN)
CPD: Practice Effectively, Geriatrics, Medical Surgical, Texas Requirements/Recommendations, Wound care