Search

COVID‐19 has infected millions of patients and impacted healthcare workers worldwide. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) is a key component of protecting frontline clinicians against infection. The benefits of PPE far outweigh the risks, nonetheless, many clinicians are exhibiting skin injury caused by PPE worn incorrectly. These skin injuries, ranging from lesions to open wounds are concerning because they increase the susceptibility of viral infection and transmission to other individuals. Early into the COVID‐19 pandemic (April 2020), the U. S. National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel (NPIAP) developed a series of position statements to improve wear‐ability of PPE and protect healthcare professionals and their patients as safe from harm as possible under the circumstances. The NPIAP positions, which were formed by conducting a systematic review of what was known at the time, include: (a) Prepare skin before and after wearing PPE with skin sealants, barrier creams and moisturisers; (b) Frequent PPE offloading to relieve pressure and shear applied to skin; (c) treat visible skin injuries immediately caused by PPE to minimise future infection; (d) non‐porous dressings may provide additional skin protection, but lack evidence; (e) health systems should take care to educate clinicians about placement and personal hygiene related to handling PPE. Throughout all of these practices, handwashing remains a top priority to handle PPE. These NPIAP positions provided early guidance to reduce the risk of skin injury caused by PPE based on available research regarding PPE injuries, a cautious application of evidence‐based recommendations on prevention of device‐related pressure injuries in patients and the expert opinion of the NPIAP Board of Directors. Clinicians who adhere to these recommendations reduce the prospects of skin damage and long‐term effects (e.g. scarring). These simple steps to minimise the risk of skin injury and reduce the risk of coronavirus infection from PPE can help. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2019, the third and updated edition of the Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) on Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers/Injuries has been published. In addition to this most up‐to‐date evidence‐based guidance for clinicians, related topics such as pressure ulcers (PUs)/pressure injuries (PIs) aetiology, classification, and future research needs were considered by the teams of experts. To elaborate on these topics, this is the third paper of a series of the CPG articles, which summarises the latest understanding of the aetiology of PUs/PIs with a special focus on the effects of soft tissue deformation. Sustained deformations of soft tissues cause initial cell death and tissue damage that ultimately may result in the formation of PUs/PIs. High tissue deformations result in cell damage on a microscopic level within just a few minutes, although it may take hours of sustained loading for the damage to become clinically visible. Superficial skin damage seems to be primarily caused by excessive shear strain/stress exposures, deeper PUs/PIs predominantly result from high pressures in combination with shear at the surface over bony prominences, or under stiff medical devices. Therefore, primary PU/PI prevention should aim for minimising deformations by either reducing the peak strain/stress values in tissues or decreasing the exposure time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. Currently, there is no instrument that provides an accurate and simple method of monitoring pressure ulcer healing in clinical practice. This article reports the two studies that were conducted to assess the validity of the Pressure Ulcer Scale for Healing (PUSH) as a tool to monitor healing of stage II-IV pressure ulcers. Methods. Subjects in both studies (N = 103 and N = 269) were elderly (mean Study 1, 75 years, mean Study 2, 80 years), and the majority were women (Study 1, 51%, Study 2, 70%). Study data were extracted from patients' permanent records. Results. Principal components analysis confirmed that the PUSH tool accounted for 58% to 74% of the wound healing variance over a 10-week period in Study 1 and 40% to 57% of the wound healing variance over a 12-week period in Study 2. In addition, multiple regression analysis, used to measure the sensitivity of the model to total healing, showed PUSH accounted for 39% of the variance in 6 weeks and 31% of the variance over 12 weeks (p < .001; Studies 1 and 2, respectively). Conclusions. Data from these two studies confirmed that the PUSH tool, with the components of length times width, exudate amount, and tissue type, is a valid and sensitive measure of pressure ulcer healing. It is a practical approach that provides clinically valid data regarding pressure ulcer healing. Further testing is needed to confirm these findings.

Aim A discussion of the methodology used to develop the Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers: Clinical Practice Guideline. (2014). Background International experts representing National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel and Pan Pacific Pressure Injury Alliance developed the second edition of this clinical guideline. Design Discussion paper - methodology. Data sources A comprehensive search for papers published up to July 2013 was conducted in 11 databases and identified 4286 studies. After critical appraisal, 356 studies were included and assigned a level of evidence. Implications for Nursing Guideline recommendations provide guidance on best practice in pressure ulcer prevention and treatment. Understanding the development process of a guideline increases the meaningfulness of recommendations to clinicians. Findings Five hundred and seventy five recommendations arose from the research and its interpretation. The body of evidence supporting each recommendation was assigned a strength of evidence. A strength of recommendation was assigned to recommendation statements using the GRADE system. Recommendations are primarily supported by a body of evidence rated as C (87% of recommendations), representing low quality and/or indirect evidence (30%) and expert opinion (57%). Two hundred and forty seven recommendations (43%) received a strong recommendation ('Do it'). Conclusion Recommendations were developed with consideration to research of the highest methodological quality evidence and studies that add to clinical insight and provide guidance for areas of care where minimal research has been conducted. Recommendations in the guideline reflect best practice and should be implemented with consideration to local context and resources and the individual's preferences and needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]