Search

Aim Design Methods Results Conclusion Implications for Patient Care Impact Reporting Method Patient or Public Contribution To explore the relationship between the prescription and implementation of pressure injury preventative interventions following risk assessment combined with a risk‐stratified intervention bundle.Single‐centre, cross‐sectional, observational, prospective.The charts and bedsides of 341 adult inpatients were examined. Data collection included pressure injury risk level, prescribed preventative interventions and evidence of intervention implementation.Most 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.While 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.Documentation 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.The 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.The study adheres to STROBE guidelines.None. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Characterizing how physical and psychological symptoms interact in heart transplant recipients may lead to advances in therapeutic options. This study examined associations between pain and major depression.MethodA cross-sectional study was conducted with adult heart transplant recipients. Pain was measured with the bodily pain domain of the Short Form-36 Health Survey and psychological distress with the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K-10). The Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview, version 6.0, was used to identify participants meeting the criteria for major depression. Hierarchical linear regression was used to determine if there was an association between pain and major depression, controlling for pharmacological treatment of depression, severity of psychological distress, and clinical characteristics including immunosuppression medication which may induce pain as a side effect.ResultsAverage pain score of the 48 heart transplant recipients was 43 ( SD ± 10, range 0-100, lower scores indicate worse pain), with moderate pain reported by 39% ( n = 19). Major depression was associated with worse pain ( R2 change = 36%, β = -16, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [-30, -4], p = .012). Pharmacological treatment for depression was associated with better pain scores ( R2 change = 1.5%, β = 13, 95% CI [4, 23], p = .006).ConclusionsHeart transplant recipients with major depression had worse pain after controlling for pharmacological treatment of depression, severity of psychological distress, and clinical characteristics. Thus, it is imperative that clinicians devising a treatment regimen for pain in heart transplant recipients take into account co-occurring depression and vice versa.

PurposeThe aim of this study was to assess the validity and reliability of psychological screening tools in outpatient heart transplant recipients.MethodsForty-eight heart transplant recipients completed the Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item scale (PHQ-9), Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item Scale (GAD-7), Kessler Psychological Distress 10-item Scale (K-10) and Medical Outcomes Short Form 36-item Health Survey. A structured psychological interview (Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview Version 6) was conducted after completion of the questionnaires. Internal consistency, criterion validity and construct validity of the PHQ-9, GAD-7 and K-10 were evaluated.ResultsInternal consistency supported the reliability of the screening tools. The optimal cut-off on the PHQ-9 for depression was 10 (sensitivity=0.86; specificity=0.93). A score of 6 on the GAD-7 maximized sensitivity (0.75) and specificity (0.89) for anxiety. A score of 17 on the K-10 was the optimal cut-off for diagnosis of either anxiety or depression (sensitivity=0.83; specificity=0.84). Increasing scores on the screening tools were associated with lower health-related quality of life.ConclusionPsychometric analyses support the reliability and validity of the PHQ-9, GAD-7 and K-10 as screening tools for detection of anxiety and depression in heart transplant recipients.

Background: A skin tear is a traumatic wound that occurs in up to one in five hospitalized patients. Nursing care includes application of a dressing to create a moist wound healing environment. Aim: To compare the effectiveness of two standard dressings (adhesive silicone foam vs. meshed silicone interface) to heal hospital‐acquired skin tear. Methods: An intention‐to‐treat pilot study was designed using a randomized, non‐inferiority trial in an Australian tertiary hospital setting. Consenting participants (n = 52) had acquired a skin tear within the previous 24 h and had agreed to a 3‐week follow‐up. Data were collected between 2014 and 2020. The primary outcome measure was wound healing at 21 days. Results: Baseline characteristics were similar in both arms. Per protocol, 86% of skin tears were fully healed at 3 weeks in the adhesive silicone foam group, compared to 59% in the meshed silicone interface group. Greater healing was observed across all skin tear categories in the adhesive silicone foam dressing group. In the intention‐to‐treat sample, healing was 69% and 42%, respectively. Conclusions: Results suggest the adhesive silicone foam dressing may be superior, as it produced clinically significant healing of skin tears at 3 weeks compared to the meshed silicone interface dressing. Accounting for potential loss to follow‐up, a sample of at least 103 participants per arm would be required to power a definitive study. Summary statement: What is already known about this topic? A skin tear is a traumatic wound that is commonly acquired during hospitalization that affects older adults in particular. In hospital settings, it may occur in up to one in five patients.A variety of skin tear dressings have been used in previous studies, with healing rates ranging from 34% to 97% at 21 days; however, evidence for the most effective dressing type is inconclusive.If treated inappropriately, or left untreated, minor skin tears can become chronic or complicated wounds, yet prevalence and treatment of hospital‐acquired injuries are under‐reported. What this paper adds? Based on our per‐protocol results, an adhesive silicone foam dressing may be superior, as it produced clinically significant healing of 86% of skin tears at 3 weeks compared to 59% with the meshed silicone interface dressing.Based on the methods and results from this pilot study, a future definitive trial would be feasible but would need to account for a relatively large loss to follow‐up rate. The implications of this paper: Using our intention‐to‐treat results, a future study would need a sample size of 103 per arm to be sufficiently powered, which may be impractical to achieve within a single hospital setting; thus, a multi‐site study would be advisable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Author(s): Ruth Kleinpell [sup.1] [sup.2] [sup.3], Stijn Blot [sup.4] [sup.5] [sup.6], Carole Boulanger [sup.4] [sup.7], Paul Fulbrook [sup.8] [sup.9] [sup.10] [sup.11], Bronagh Blackwood [sup.12] [sup.13] Author Affiliations: (1) grid.152326.1, 0000 [...]

Universal screening of very early school-age children (age 4-7 years) is important for early identification of learning problems that may require enhanced learning opportunity. In this context, use of standardized instruments is critical to obtain valid, reliable, and comparable assessment outcomes. A wide variety of standardized instruments is available for screening and assessment purposes, though previous reviews have revealed some technical inadequacies. Suitability and usability of instruments should be considered as well as technical adequacy, making instrument selection a challenge for education professionals. This review used a systematic search to identify 48 instruments that measured development and early academic skills in very early school-age children. Instruments were evaluated and mapped against established psychometric and usability criteria, and rated as good, adequate, or not adequate. The results provide education professionals with a guide to selection of standardized instruments suitable for this age group and assessment purpose.

Aim Design Methods Results Conclusion Impact Reporting Method Patient/Public Contribution Implications for the profession and/or patient care To assess agreement of pressure injury risk level and differences in preventative intervention prescription between nurses using a structured risk assessment tool compared with clinical judgement.Interrater agreement study.Data were collected from November 2019 to December 2022. Paired nurse‐assessors were allocated randomly to independently assess pressure injury risk using a structured tool (incorporating the Waterlow Score), or clinical judgement; then prescribe preventative interventions. Assessments were conducted on 150 acute patient participants in a general tertiary hospital. Agreement of risk level was analysed using absolute agreement proportions, weighted kappa and prevalence‐adjusted and bias‐adjusted kappa.Ninety‐four nurse assessors participated. Absolute agreement of not‐at‐risk versus at‐risk‐any‐level was substantial, but absolute agreement of risk‐level was only fair. Clinical judgement assessors tended to underestimate risk. Where risk level was agreed, prescribed intervention frequencies were similar, although structured tool assessors prescribed more interventions mandated by standard care, while clinical judgement assessors prescribed more additional/optional interventions. Structured tool assessors prescribed more interventions targeted at lower‐risk patients, whereas assessors using clinical judgement prescribed more interventions targeted at higher‐risk patients.There were clear differences in pressure injury risk‐level assessment between nurses using the two methods, with important differences in intervention prescription frequencies found. Further research is required into the use of both structured tools and clinical judgement to assess pressure injury risk, with emphasis on the impact of risk assessments on subsequent preventative intervention implementation.The results of this study are important for clinical practice as they demonstrate the influence of using a structured pressure injury risk assessment tool compared to clinical judgement. Whilst further research is required into the use of both structured tools and clinical judgement to assess pressure injury risk and prescribe interventions, our findings do not support a change in practice that would exclude the use of a structured pressure injury risk assessment tool.This study adhered to the GRRAS reporting guideline.No patient or public involvement in this study.Educators and researchers can use the findings to guide teaching about pressure injury risk assessment and preventative intervention and to direct future studies. For clinical nurses and patients, a change in clinical practice that would exclude the use of a structured risk assessment tool is not recommended and further work is needed to validate the role of clinical judgement to assess risk and its impact on preventative intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pressure injuries on mucous membranes are caused by pressure from medical devices at the site of injury and differ to those on the skin. Intensive care patients, who have multiple devices in situ, are particularly vulnerable. There is a significant knowledge gap regarding mucous membrane pressure injury (MMPI) incidence in acute hospital settings. Aim: To analyse MMPI incidence and characteristics in a tertiary acute general hospital. Methods: A secondary data analysis of hospital clinical incident reports was conducted. The sample included all adults with MMPIs between 2015 and 2019. The STROBE reporting guideline was followed. Results: There were 414 reports of MMPI. Most (91.5%, n = 379) were hospital‐acquired with the majority found in intensive care patients (74.4%, n = 282). Hospital‐acquired MMPI incidence was 0.1% (11 MMPI per 10,000 hospital episodes). In intensive care, the incidence was 2.4% (235 MMPI per 10,000 intensive care episodes). The median time from device insertion until reporting of an MMPI was 3 days. The most common sites of mucosal injury were the lips (35.6%) and mouth (28.8%). In all cases except one, MMPI was associated with medical device use at the site of injury. Five device types were identified (oral endotracheal tube‐related 70.3%; urinary catheter 15.5%; gastric tube 8.3%; nasal prongs 3.5%; tracheostomy tube 2.4%). In intensive care, oral endotracheal tube‐related devices were most often associated with MMPI (84.8%), whereas in non‐intensive care MMPI it was the urinary catheter (51.4%). Conclusions: While hospital‐acquired MMPI incidence is relatively low, it is considerably higher in intensive care patients compared to those in non‐intensive care settings. The most common sites are the lips and mouth. Relevance to clinical practice: Mucous membrane pressure injuries represent a significant proportion of all hospital‐acquired pressure injuries. Patient or public contribution: Neither patients nor the public were directly involved in this project. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Pressure injuries are a significant cause of harm, contributing to increased mortality and financial burden on the healthcare system. Significant research on pressure injury risk assessment, prevention and treatment exists, but limited research exploring the patient and carer experience of living with pressure injury. Aims: The aim of this meta‐synthesis was to describe the patient and carer experience of living with a pressure injury. Design: Meta‐synthesis. Methods: A prospective review protocol was registered, and systematic search conducted across five electronic databases. The PRISMA 2020 checklist for reporting systematic reviews was used. Two reviewers independently undertook screening and review of articles, using the CASP checklist for evaluating qualitative research. A meta‐synthesis using thematic content analysis was undertaken. Results: Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria. Meta‐synthesis led to the construction of three primary themes: loss of autonomy and independence, psychological effects, and adjustment. Within these primary themes, sub‐themes of dependence, social isolation and social avoidance behaviours, feelings and emotions, loss, managing, physical consequences, service provision, and functional challenges, were identified. Conclusion: The psychology and mindset of those involved, and support to navigate the challenges that arise are two unique and clinically relevant categorisations to guide provision of pressure injury care. Adaptation to a pressure injury is multi‐faceted and contextual, challenges to adaptation create additional psychological burden. Interventions encompassing all facets of the experience are necessary. Current research into experiences is limited, and further research to support interventions is necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Whilst performing a pressure injury risk assessment is not in itself preventive, risk status identification is critical to inform the judicious implementation of prevention strategies. Risk assessment is mostly undertaken using a structured tool informed by clinical judgement, though there is a perception that use of clinical judgement alone may be sufficient. Objectives: Within acute hospital settings, to identify differences in outcomes (risk status, preventive interventions) following nursing assessment of pressure injury risk when using a structured assessment tool compared to clinical judgement. Design: Systematic review. Data sources: EBSCO CINAHL Complete, EBSCO MEDLINE Complete, Scopus, Web of Science, Ovid EMBASE. Methods: Primary research relevant to the objectives was eligible for inclusion. Databases were searched in February 2021 (limits: date 2010–2020, English language, adults). Two reviewers undertook the review process, with a third as arbitrator. Appraisal was undertaken using Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools. Included studies are synthesised narratively. Reporting is in accordance with the PRISMA Statement. Results: Five moderate to high‐quality studies were included. Synthesis was limited by heterogeneity. Several risk assessment tools and methods of clinical judgement were used. Three studies reported pressure injury risk status using both assessment approaches, but in only one did nurses undertake both. Risk status, as identified by each method, varied and was sometimes contradictory. Three studies reported some elements of preventive intervention prescription and/or implementation following risk assessment, but comparison between approaches was limited. Conclusions: Some research suggests that risk status varies across different methods of pressure injury risk assessment, but it is unclear what impact this has on preventive intervention use. Risk status was not well linked to preventive interventions. Research is warranted to examine the influence that each approach to risk assessment alone and combined has on identified risk and preventive intervention prescription and implementation. Registration: A protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021224747). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]