Kayser SA, VanGilder CA, Ayello EA, Lachenbruch C, et al.
Advances in skin & wound care. Date of publication 2018 Jun 1;volume 31(6):276-285.
1. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2018 Jun;31(6):276-285. doi:
10.1097/01.ASW.0000532475.11971.aa.
Prevalence and Analysis of Medical Device-Related Pressure Injuries: Results from
the International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence Survey.
Kayser SA(1), VanGilder CA, Ayello EA, Lachenbruch C.
Author information:
(1)Susan A. Kayser, PhD, is a Data Scientist, Hill-Rom, Batesville, Indiana;
Catherine A. VanGilder, MBA, BS, MT, CCRA, is Senior Manager, Global Clinical
Research, Chicago, Illinois; Elizabeth A. Ayello, PhD, RN, CWON, ETN, MAPWCA,
FAAN, is Faculty, Excelsior College School of Nursing, Albany, New York;
President, Ayello Harris & Associates, Inc, Copake, New York; and Clinical
Editor, Advances in Skin & Wound Care, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Charlie
Lachenbruch, PhD, is Chief Scientist, Research and Development, Hill-Rom,
Batesville, Indiana. Acknowledgments: The authors would like to express deep
gratitude to the staff and facilities who participate in the International
Pressure Ulcer Prevalence survey. Your daily focus on pressure injury prevention
efforts has achieved significant improvement in care. This aggregate report of
the data from your efforts is made possible only by your participation. Dr
Kayser, Dr Lachenbruch, and Ms VanGilder disclose that they are employees of
Hill-Rom. The authors have disclosed no other financial relationships related to
this article. Submitted October 17, 2017; accepted in revised form March 6, 2018.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the prevalence and characteristics of medical
device-related pressure injuries (MDR PIs) in a large, generalizable database.
METHODS: This study is a retrospective analysis of the 2016 International
Pressure Ulcer Prevalence data. Data were limited to US and Canadian facilities.
Facilities included acute care, long-term care, rehabilitation, long-term acute
care hospitals, and hospice. Analysis included 102,865 adult patients; 99,876 had
complete data and were the focus of the analysis and are reported in the results
below.
RESULTS: The overall PI prevalence was 7.2% (n = 7189), and the facility-acquired
prevalence was 3.1% (n = 3113). The prevalence of MDR PIs was 0.60% (n = 601),
which included both mucosal and nonmucosal MDR PIs. In this study, 75% of MDR PIs
were facility acquired, whereas non-MDR PIs were most commonly present on
admission. Facility-acquired MDR PIs formed 3 days faster than facility-acquired
non-MDR PIs (12 vs 15 days; P < .05). By stage, most MDR PIs were superficial
(58% were Stage 1 or 2), 15% were deep-tissue PIs, and 22% were full-thickness
PIs (Stage 3 or 4 or unstageable). The most common anatomic locations for MDR PIs
were the ears (29%) and the feet (12%). The most common devices associated with
MDR PIs were nasal oxygen tubes, 26%; other, 19%; cast/splints, 12%; and
continuous positive airway pressure/bilevel positive airway pressure masks, 9%.
CONCLUSIONS: Because MDR PIs form faster than non-MDR PIs, timely proactive
assessment and prevention measures are critical. Most MDR PIs occurred at the
face and head region, and the ears specifically. The most common devices linked
with MDR PIs were oxygen tubing and masks, making assessment and prevention
efforts critical for patients who require those devices.
DOI: 10.1097/01.ASW.0000532475.11971.aa
PMCID: PMC5991189
PMID: 29782417 [Indexed for MEDLINE]
