Search

Background: Comparing inpatient fall rates can serve as a benchmark for quality improvement. To improve the comparability of performance between hospitals, adjustments for patient-related fall risk factors that are not modifiable by care are recommended. Thereafter, the remaining variability in risk-adjusted fall rates can be attributed to differences in quality of care provided by a hospital. Research on risk-adjusted fall rates and their impact on hospital comparisons is currently sparse. Therefore, the aims of this study were to develop an inpatient fall risk adjustment model based on patient-related fall risk factors, and to analyse the impact of applying this model on comparisons of inpatient fall rates in acute care hospitals in Switzerland., Methods: Data on inpatient falls in Swiss acute care hospitals were collected on one day in 2017, 2018 and 2019, as part of an annual multicentre cross-sectional survey. After excluding maternity and outpatient wards, all inpatients older than 18 years were included. Two-level logistic regression models were used to construct unadjusted and risk-adjusted caterpillar plots to compare inter-hospital variability in inpatient fall rates., Results: One hundred thirty eight hospitals and 35,998 patients were included in the analysis. Risk adjustment showed that the following factors were associated with a higher risk of falling: increasing care dependency (to a great extent care dependent, odds ratio 3.43, 95% confidence interval 2.78-4.23), a fall in the last 12 months (OR 2.14, CI 1.89-2.42), the intake of sedative and or psychotropic medications (OR 1.74, CI 1.54-1.98), mental and behavioural disorders (OR 1.55, CI 1.36-1.77) and higher age (OR 1.01, CI 1.01-1.02). With odds ratios between 1.26 and 0.67, eight further ICD-10 diagnosis groups were included. Female sex (OR 0.78, CI 0.70-0.88) and postoperative patients (OR 0.83, CI 0.73-0.95) were associated with a lower risk of falling. Unadjusted caterpillar plots identified 20 low- and 3 high-performing hospitals. After risk adjustment, 2 low-performing hospitals remained., Conclusions: Risk adjustment of inpatient fall rates could reduce misclassification of hospital performance and enables a fairer basis for decision-making and quality improvement measures. Patient-related fall risk factors such as care dependency, history of falls and cognitive impairment should be routinely assessed., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

The objective of this article was to study characteristics of pressure ulcer patients and their ulcers, pressure ulcer preventive and treatment measures in four Indonesian general hospitals. A multicentre cross-sectional design was applied to assess pressure ulcers and pressure ulcer care in adult patients in medical, surgical, specialised and intensive care units. Ninety-one of the 1132 patients had a total of 142 ulcers. Half (44·0%) already had pressure ulcers before admission. The overall prevalence of category I-IV pressure ulcers was 8·0% (95% CI 6·4-9·6), and the overall nosocomial pressure ulcer prevalence was 4·5% (95% CI 3·3-5·7). Most pressure ulcer patients had friction and shear problems, were bedfast, had diabetes and had more bedridden days. Most ulcers (42·3%) were category III and IV. One third of the patients had both pressure ulcers and moisture lesions (36·3%) and suffered from pain (45·1%). The most frequently used prevention measures were repositioning (61·5%), skin moisturising (47·3%), patient education (36·3%) and massage (35·2%). Most pressure ulcer dressings involved saline-impregnated or antimicrobial gauzes. This study shows the complexities of pressure ulcers in Indonesian general hospitals and reveals that the quality of pressure ulcer care (prevention and treatment) could be improved by implementing the recent evidence-based international guideline., (© 2016 Medicalhelplines.com Inc and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: The aim of this study was to describe and compare structural and process indicators of nutritional care in Austrian hospitals and nursing homes., Methods: A multicenter, cross-sectional study was performed using a standardized and tested questionnaire. Data were collected on patient and institutional levels of hospitals and nursing homes., Results: Data from 18 Austrian hospitals (n = 2326 patients) and 18 Austrian nursing homes (n = 1487 residents) were collected. The prevalence of malnutrition was 23.2% in hospitals and 26.2% in nursing homes. All hospitals and 83.3% of the nursing homes employed dietitians. Guidelines for the prevention and treatment of malnutrition were used infrequently. Nutritional screening at admission was performed in 62.6% of the hospitalized patients and 93.4% of the nursing home residents. Nutritional screening tools were used in 28.9% of the nursing home residents and 14.5% of the hospitalized patients. Oral nutritional support was preferred to enteral and parenteral nutrition in the two settings. Dietitians were consulted in 27.5% of the malnourished hospitalized patients and 74.7% of the malnourished nursing home residents., Conclusion: The study demonstrated that nursing homes fulfilled more structural indicators and performed nutritional screening at admission more often than hospitals. Nevertheless, the prevalence of malnutrition was high in the two settings and a substantial number of malnourished patients/residents received no nutritional intervention at all. These results show the necessity for improvements in the nutritional care in Austria, for instance, through the routine use of nutritional screening tools followed by tailored nutritional interventions in patients/residents in need., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: In most health care organizations there is still insufficient awareness for recognizing and treating malnourished patients. To gain more insight into nutritional care policies in Dutch health care organizations, this study investigated screening, treatment, and other quality indicators of nutritional care., Methods: In 2007 a cross-sectional multicenter study was performed that included 20 255 patients (hospitals, n = 6021; nursing homes, n = 11 902; home care, n = 2332). A standardized questionnaire was used to study nutritional screening and treatment at the patient level and quality indicators at institutional and ward levels (e.g., malnutrition guidelines/protocols, nutritional education, and weighing policy)., Results: Nutritional screening was performed more often in nursing homes (60.2%) than in hospitals (40.3%) and home care (13.9%, P < 0.001). In general, one in every five patients was malnourished, and nutritional treatment was applied in fewer than 50% of all malnourished patients in nursing homes, hospitals, and home care. At ward level nursing homes focused more on the quality of nutritional care than did hospitals and home care, especially with respect to controlling the use of nutritional guidelines (54.6%, P < 0.03), weighing at admission (82.9%, P < 0.01), and mealtime ambiance (91.8%, P < 0.01)., Conclusion: This large-scale study shows that malnutrition is still a considerable problem in one of every five patients in all participating health care settings. It furthermore demonstrates that recognizing and treating malnutrition continues to be problematic. To target the problem of malnutrition adequately, more awareness is needed of the importance of nutritional screening, appropriate treatment, and other nutritional quality indicators.

Rationale: In view of an increasing necessity for systematic assessments, nursing practice would benefit from a simplification of assessment procedures. These assessments should be scientifically based., Aims: To evaluate the possibility of assessing pressure ulcer risk as well as care dependency simultaneously with a standardized instrument for nursing homes and hospitals., Methods: Care dependency was measured with the Care Dependency Scale (CDS). The quantitative analyses were accomplished with data from a cross-sectional study that was performed in 2005 in 39 German nursing homes and 37 hospitals with a total of more than 10,000 participants. The scale's construct validity was calculated with Pearson's r, and predictive validity was evaluated by computing sensitivity and specificity values and the area under the curve (AUC). Item-level analyses included calculations of odds ratios, relative risks and logistic regression analyses., Results: Construct validity of the CDS was r = 0.79 (P < 0.01) in nursing homes and r = 0.89 (P < 0.01) in hospitals. AUC was 0.80 in hospitals and 0.65 in nursing homes. Analyses on item level identified 'mobility' as a key item in both settings and additional differing key items for nursing homes and hospitals., Conclusions: The CDS is a well-functioning tool for pressure ulcer risk detection in hospitals. For this purpose, the most appropriate cut-off point is 69 while special regard is given to the items 'continence', 'mobility' and 'hygiene'. In nursing homes the usefulness of the CDS for pressure ulcer risk detection is limited. Here, the most appropriate cut-off point is 41 and attention is given to the items 'mobility', 'getting (un)dressed', 'hygiene' and 'avoidance of danger'.

Aims and Objectives: The aim of the present study was to describe the first fall rates in hospitals and nursing homes throughout Germany. Relationships between age, gender, care dependency, medical disciplines, bed confinement and falls were investigated., Background: Little is known about fall rates in German hospitals and nursing homes., Method: Prevalence studies were conducted in the year 2002 and 2004. Forty hospitals and 15 nursing homes took part in 2002 (3923 patients and 1252 residents older than 65 years) and in 2004 there was a total of 39 hospitals and 29 nursing homes (4451 patients and 2374 residents older than 65 years). Staff nurses used a standardized instrument to collect data about falls in the last two weeks in their institutions and also about other patient problems. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used as well as logistic regression., Results: The first fall rate in 2002 (2004) in the hospitals was 4.7 (4.2) and in the nursing homes 4.5 (5.1) per 1000 patient/resident days. Most of the hospital patients fell on geriatric wards. The high care dependent patients fell more often than the low care dependent patients. In 2002, mobile nursing home residents were at a higher risk of falling than residents confined to bed, but those results could not be confirmed in 2004. Conclusions. Falls of patients over 65 years of age are as much of a problem in German hospitals as they are in German nursing homes., Relevance to Clinical Practice: Fall preventive methods should be implemented both in nursing homes and hospitals. Care dependency is a stable risk factor for falls in hospital patients.

In German healthcare facilities, research-based knowledge of pressure ulcers and their relation to patient characteristics is limited. To provide information for national and international comparison on pressure ulcers and related issues, two cross-sectional surveys were conducted among 21,574 German hospital patients and nursing home residents (147 institutions total) in 2002 and 2003. Prevalence and frequency rates of pressure ulcers in people at risk (Braden score of

Aims and Objectives: This article establishes the prevalence of pressure ulcers in hospitals and nursing homes for national and international comparison., Background: Although many European countries evaluate the prevalence of pressure ulcers, it has not recently been examined in German healthcare facilities., Design: Descriptive study design, point prevalence survey in 2001 and 2002. A total of 11 584 patients and residents in 66 institutions throughout Germany took part in the study., Methods: Prevalence rates were calculated for the different types of institutions, different years, different risk groups and different disciplines. All calculations were made by including as well as excluding pressure ulcer grade 1. The Braden scale (cut-off < or =20) was applied to define at risk and not at risk patients/residents., Results: The prevalence including (excluding) grade 1 pressure ulcers was 11.7% (5.2%) for the whole sample, while in the group at risk it was 24.5% (11.5%). The size of the group at risk in the nursing homes was 63.9% and less than 40% in the hospitals. Comparisons between disciplines showed a great range of prevalence rates. The use of special surface devices for persons at risk was more common in nursing homes than in hospitals., Conclusion: The prevalence of pressure ulcers bears resemblance to results produced by other studies, but it is uncertain if these similarities are more than coincidental. Due to the influence of sampling the use of a standardized samples method is essential. For comparisons of groups with differences regarding their risk assessment it would be more appropriate to use the prevalence of patients and residents at risk., Relevance to Clinical Practice: The study provides accurate data about the extent of the problem of pressure ulcers in German healthcare facilities.

Objective: To examine whether participating in a pressure ulcer prevalence survey and receiving feedback results in an improvement in quality of care., Design: Cross-sectional studies from 1998 to 2002 were compared over time., Setting: Sixty-two acute care hospitals in the Netherlands., Study Participants: Patients hospitalized at the moment of the surveys., Interventions: Each hospital was given hospital-specific performance data and national aggregate data, and peer comparisons to improve the quality of care., Main Outcome Measures: The case-mix-adjusted prevalence of pressure ulcers of grade >or=2, the percentage of high-risk patients receiving adequate prevention, and the total number of enabling conditions present were compared between successive surveys using multi-level analysis, in order to estimate a linear trend model and trend differences for each hospital., Results: The case-mix-adjusted prevalence of pressure ulcers decreased over the 5-year period, while the percentage of patients receiving adequate prevention and the total number of enabling conditions present increased. The total number of enabling conditions had a significant effect on the decrease in case-mix-adjusted prevalence: more enabling conditions led to a lower case-mix-adjusted prevalence (chi(2) = 125; degrees of freedom = 1; P < 0.00). The percentage of patients receiving adequate prevention also had an effect on the change in case-mix-adjusted prevalence, with a higher percentage leading to a lower case-mix-adjusted prevalence. This effect, however, was not significant., Conclusions: Monitoring prevalence and giving feedback results in an improvement in quality of care in terms of pressure ulcer prevention. It is very important to continue conducting surveys to avoid attention moving away from this topic, which may in turn lead to a deterioration in the quality of pressure ulcer care. Further research to find the most effective feedback approach is needed.

Stage 1 pressure ulcers are difficult to diagnose. Several prevalence studies have shown that almost half of the pressure ulcers identified are stage 1. The present study investigated the importance of stage 1. The following research questions were formulated: Is there a difference between the prevalence of stage 1 pressure ulcers identified in the institutions participating in the present study and that found in the other institutions participating in the Dutch National Prevalence Survey? What percentage of stage 1 pressure ulcers are reversible within a few hours? What is the clinical course of stage 1 pressure ulcers? Which patient characteristics and preventive interventions are related to the clinical course of stage 1? The study used a prospective, descriptive and comparative design. All patients of six long-term care hospitals and six acute care hospitals in whom stage 1 pressure ulcers were identified during the 1999 National Prevalence Survey in the Netherlands were followed for 1 week (acute care hospitals; n = 68 patients) or 2 weeks (long-term care hospitals; n = 115 patients). The patients were reassessed using the questionnaire developed for the National Prevalence Survey (patient characteristics, assessment of risk of pressure ulcers, characteristics of the pressure ulcers and use of preventive methods) on the same day as the national survey itself, and again after 3 days, after 7 days and after 14 days (only long-term care hospitals). The results showed fewer stage 1 pressure ulcers in the institutions participating in the present study than in the National Prevalence Survey, the difference being almost 50%. The first reassessment found the prevalence of stage 1 to be further reduced by an average of almost 50%, a reduction which was greater for the long-term care hospitals than for the acute care hospitals. However, some of the ulcers that had disappeared reappeared in subsequent reassessments. In the long-term care hospitals, 8.7% of the stage 1 pressure ulcers deteriorated to a higher stage, vs. 22.1% in acute care hospitals. No significant patient characteristics were found to affect the course of stage 1, except that women in acute care hospitals more often had a stage 1 pressure ulcer at the first reassessment than men. In general, patients whose stage 1 ulcer deteriorated were undergoing more preventive interventions; not all differences were significant. We conclude that, although stage 1 is reversible in most cases, it can be interpreted as an important warning sign for nurses and patients to act. If no adequate interventions are applied, the pressure ulcer may deteriorate.