McLaren-Kennedy A, Chaboyer W, Carlini J, Latimer S, et al.
Journal of clinical nursing. Date of publication 2023 Sep 1;volume 32(17-18):5478-5492.
1. J Clin Nurs. 2023 Sep;32(17-18):5478-5492. doi: 10.1111/jocn.16630. Epub 2023
Jan 30.
Use of point-of-care subepidermal moisture devices to detect localised oedema
and evaluate pressure injury risk: A scoping review.
McLaren-Kennedy A(1), Chaboyer W(1)(2), Carlini J(2)(3)(4), Latimer S(1)(2).
Author information:
(1)School of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Southport,
Queensland, Australia.
(2)NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence Wiser Wounds, Menzies Health Institute
Queensland, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Southport, Queensland, Australia.
(3)Department of Marketing, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Southport,
Queensland, Australia.
(4)Health Consumer, Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service, Gold Coast,
Queensland, Australia.
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To map current literature on bedside clinicians' use of
point-of-care subepidermal moisture devices to identify increased pressure
injury risk.
BACKGROUND: Pressure injuries are a substantial healthcare burden. Localised
oedema occurs before visible or palpable changes, and therefore is a biomarker
of increased pressure injury risk. Novel bedside technologies that detect
localised oedema may aid early pressure injury preventative practices.
DESIGN: A scoping review.
METHODS: Arksey and O'Malley's six-step framework and the PRISMA-ScR guidelines
guided this scoping review. CINAHL Complete, Embase, SCOPUS, Cochrane (wounds)
and PubMed databases were searched for primary research and quality improvement
projects published in English between 2008-2022. Included studies focused on
clinicians' bedside use of subepidermal moisture devices to quantify localised
oedema and pressure injury risk. The PAGER framework supported narrative
synthesis of the extracted data.
RESULTS: Nine studies were selected from 1676 sources. Two point-of-care
subepidermal moisture devices were identified in clinical use, largely by
nurses. Inconsistent use and interpretations revealed significant knowledge gaps
in clinical practice. Additionally, no included studies engaged patients or the
public in their design.
CONCLUSIONS: Nurses recognise the value of objective measures in determining the
risk of pressure injury and are the primary end-users of point-of-care
subepidermal moisture devices. However, standardising procedural instructions
and interpretive criteria to guide preventative measures requires further
research.
RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: International pressure injury clinical practice
guidelines advocate for subepidermal moisture devices as an adjunct to routine
clinical skin assessment, although little is known about bedside use. This
scoping review reveals low adoption of such devices and the need to develop
standardised procedures in their use and interpretation.
REGISTRATION: Open Science DOI https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/AB6Y5-7th of
March 2022.
© 2023 The Authors. Journal of Clinical Nursing published by John Wiley & Sons
Ltd.
DOI: 10.1111/jocn.16630
PMID: 36717978 [Indexed for MEDLINE]
