Pressure ulcer prevention—Results of a multicentre cross‐sectional survey on hospital infrastructures and processes in acute hospitals and accident and emergency departments

• Published in: Journal of evaluation in clinical practice Vol. 27; no. 6; pp. 1361 - 1368
• Main Authors: Strube‐Lahmann, Sandra, Lahmann, Nils A.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Chichester, UK John Wiley & Sons, Inc 01-12-2021; Wiley Subscription Services, Inc
• Subjects: Cross-Sectional Studies; Emergency medical care; Emergency Service, Hospital; Health care; hospital; Hospitals; Humans; Incidence; infra‐structures; Injury prevention; Pressure Ulcer - epidemiology; Pressure Ulcer - prevention & control; Pressure ulcers; prevention; processes; processes; infra-structures; hospital; PU; prevention
• ISSN: 1356-1294; 1365-2753
• DOI: 10.1111/jep.13571

Aims and objectives
Pressure ulcers (PUs) are a serious health problem. They can be considered as an indicator of the quality of health care and are associated with considerable cost increases for the health care system. The prevention of PUs is a major concern in hospital care. The aim of the study was to reveal the current PU prevention‐related processes and structures with a specific focus on the Accident and Emergency (A&E) Department.
Method
In late 2018/early 2019, all German hospitals were invited to participate in a nationwide cross‐sectional survey. One standardized questionnaire was assigned to a representative of each hospital. The representative was asked to state what PU‐related structures and processes are implemented in their hospital, in general and specific to the A&E department. Besides mostly descriptive analysis, PU‐related processes were analysed on PU incidence in a multivariate linear regression model.
Results
Two hundred seventy‐six hospitals participated in the survey. 63.4% (n = 175) of the participating hospitals had at least one PU manager. Skin inspection was the most frequently performed procedure. Although not recommended, 1.3% (2.1%) of the facilities still use sheepskins quite often (very often). In the regression model on PU incidence, only the process ‘mobilization in bed’ was statistically significantly associated. Although the risk of developing a PU in the emergency department is high, more than half of the facilities had no PU guidelines.
Conclusion
Even if recommended procedures (skin inspection, 30° positioning) have been used frequently, regular training could help to bring new scientific findings such as the use of local skin protection dressings into clinical practice. Prevention guidelines should be established in all areas of care even for A&E as well as when patients are transferred inside or out of the hospital, where the risk of PU development was considered low.