Use of a risk‐based intervention bundle to prescribe and implement interventions to prevent pressure injury: An observational study

Author:

Fulbrook Paul123ORCID,Lovegrove Josephine245ORCID,Ven Saroeun12ORCID,Schnaak Sarah6,Nowicki Tracy6

Affiliation:

1. School of Nursing, Midwifery and Paramedicine, Faculty of Health Sciences Australian Catholic University Brisbane Queensland Australia

2. Nursing Research and Practice Development Centre The Prince Charles Hospital Brisbane Queensland Australia

3. School of Therapeutic Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences University of the Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa

4. National Health and Medical Research Council Centre of Research Excellence in Wiser Wound Care, Menzies Health Institute Queensland Griffith University Gold Coast Queensland Australia

5. School of Nursing, Midwifery & Social Work, Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences The University of Queensland Herston Queensland Australia

6. Quality and Effectiveness Support Team The Prince Charles Hospital Brisbane Queensland Australia

Abstract

AbstractAimTo explore the relationship between the prescription and implementation of pressure injury preventative interventions following risk assessment combined with a risk‐stratified intervention bundle.DesignSingle‐centre, cross‐sectional, observational, prospective.MethodsThe charts and bedsides of 341 adult inpatients were examined. Data collection included pressure injury risk level, prescribed preventative interventions and evidence of intervention implementation.ResultsMost patients (68.6%) were at risk of pressure injury, and most interventions were prescribed according to their risk level. However, evidence from direct observation and/or documentation indicated intervention implementation rates were relatively poor. Of nine interventions mandated for all patients, compliance with three patient‐/carer‐focused interventions was particularly poor, with evidence indicating they had been implemented for 3%–10% of patients. Also, nutritional screening‐related interventions were implemented poorly. Clinically indicated implementation of heel‐elevation devices and bariatric equipment was low for at‐risk patients, and the implementation of interventions for patients with existing pressure injuries was suboptimal. Significant proportions of several interventions that were observed as having been implemented were not documented as such.ConclusionWhile most interventions were prescribed according to patient risk level, the overall implementation of interventions was poor. However, the results may in part be due to failure to document interventions as opposed to omitting them.Implications for Patient CareDocumentation of interventions is crucial as it provides evidence of the care provided. An increased focus on documentation of pressure injury preventative interventions is required, with a clear distinction between prescription and implementation.ImpactThe results highlighted several deficiencies in care, particularly relating to evidence of implementation, patient involvement and nutritional screening. The results from this study will be used to inform and improve future pressure injury prevention practice within the study hospital and should be used to inform and benchmark pressure injury preventative practices in other hospitals.Reporting MethodThe study adheres to STROBE guidelines.Patient or Public ContributionNone.

Publisher

Wiley

Reference59 articles.

1. Pressure ulcer prevalence and care in Indonesian hospitals: A multicentre, cross‐sectional evaluation using an extended donabedian model;Amir Y.;Ostomy/Wound Management,2017

2. Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care [ACSQHC]. (2023).Partnering with patients in their own care.https://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/standards/nsqhs‐standards/partnering‐consumers‐standard/partnering‐patients‐their‐own‐care

3. Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care [ACSQHC]. (2024).Hospital‐acquired complications (HACs).https://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/our‐work/indicators/hospital‐acquired‐complications

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3