Search

Background: The first step in preventing pressure injuries (PIs), which represent a significant burden on intensive care unit (ICU) patients and the health care system, is to assess the risk for developing PIs. A valid risk assessment scale is essential to evaluate the risk and avoid PIs. Objectives: To compare the predictive validity of the Braden scale and Waterlow scale in ICUs. Design: A multicentre, prospective and cross‐sectional study. Methods: We conducted this study among 6416 patients admitted to ICUs in Gansu province of China from April 2021 to October 2022. The incidence and characteristics of PIs were collected. The risk assessment of PIs was determined using the Braden and Waterlow scale. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the two scales were compared. Results: Out of 5903 patients, 72 (1.2%) developed PIs. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive, and the area under the curve of the Braden scale were 77.8%, 50.9%, 0.014 and 0.996, and 0.689, respectively. These values for the Waterlow scale were 54.2%, 71.1%, 0.017, 0.994 and 0.651. Conclusions: Both scales could be used for risk assessment of PIs in ICU patients. However, the accuracy of visual inspection for assessment of skin colour, nursing preventive measures for patients and scales inter‐rater inconsistency may limited the predictive validity statistics. Relevance to Clinical Practice: Both scales could be used for PIs risk assessment. The low specificity of the Braden scale and low sensitivity of the Waterlow scale remind medical staff to use them in combination with clinical judgement and other objective indicators. Patient or Public Contribution: This study was designed to enhance the management of PIs. Patients and the general public were not involved in the study design, analysis, and interpretation of the data or manuscript preparation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To compare the predictive properties of the Jackson/Cubbin scale and Waterlow scales in intensive care unit patients. A multi‐centre study. This study was conducted between April 2021 and February 2023 in 72 intensive care units of 38 tertiary hospitals in Gansu Province, China. All adults admitted to the intensive care unit for 24 hours or more without pressure injury on admission were screened using the Waterlow scale and Jackson/Cubbin scales in intensive care. Additionally, the negative predictive value, positive predictive value, sensitivity, specificity and receiver operating characteristic curve with area under the curve of the Waterlow scale and Cubbin/Jackson scales were determined. The participant population for this study included 6203 patients. Predictive properties for the Jackson/Cubbin scales and Waterlow scales, respectively, were as follows: Cut‐off scores, 28 versus 22; AUC, 0.859 versus 0.64; sensitivity, 92.4% versus 51.9%; specificity, 67.26% versus 71.46%; positive predictive value, 35% versus 23%; negative predictive value, 99.9% versus 99.1%. Both Waterlow scales and Jackson/Cubbin scales could predict pressure injury risk for patients in the intensive care unit. However, the Jackson/Cubbin scale demonstrated superior predictive properties than the Waterlow scale. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims and Objectives: This study aimed to understand the risk factors that contribute to medical device‐related (MDR) nasal mucosal membrane pressure injuries (MM PI) in ICU patients. Background: ICU patients require substantial tube‐based life support such as oxygen tubes, tracheal intubation and indwelling gastric tubes. As a result, there is an increased risk of PI occurrence; however, few studies have assessed the risk factors associated with nasal mucosal MDR‐MMPI in ICU patients. Design: A cross‐sectional study design was performed. Methods: From January 2019 to June 2020, data from 912 patients treated in the ICU of a tertiary first‐class a hospital in China were collected. The occurrence of PI of the nasal mucosa was obtained by nasopharyngoscope when replacing the nasal catheter fixation patch every day. The study methods were followed by the STROBE guidelines. Results: The incidence of nasal mucosal MDR‐MM PI was 10.9%. The degree of nasal mucosal MM PI was mainly grade 1 (62cases, 62.6%), and no grade 4 were observed. The columella (58 cases, 58.6%) was the most common site of nasal mucosal MM PI followed by the anterior septum (18 cases, 18.2%). A high patient APACHE‐Ⅱ score, the disturbance of consciousness, a history of diabetes, days of gastric tube indwelling, hypoproteinemia, fever (T > 37.5℃) and the use of vasoconstrictors were identified as significant influencing factors of nasal MM PI in ICU patients (p <.05). Conclusions: A high APACHE‐Ⅱ score, disturbance of consciousness, history of diabetes, days of gastric tube indwelling, hypoproteinemia, fever (T > 37.5℃) and use of vasoconstrictive drugs were risk factors for nasal mucosal MDR‐MM PI in ICU patients. This study informs on the risk factors of nasal mucosal MM PI that will allow medical support staff to carry out key interventional measures to prevent nasal mucosal MM PI. Relevance to clinical practice: This study illustrates the characteristics and risk factors of nasal mucosal pressure injury in intensive care units, potentially contributing to the prevention of the incidence of nasal mucosal MDR‐PI in ICU patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]