Wound Healing Society 2015 update on guidelines for pressure ulcers.

Quality Indicators for Assessing Care of Vulnerable Elders16 October 2001Quality Indicators for Prevention and Management of Pressure Ulcers in Vulnerable EldersFREEBarbara M. Bates-Jensen, PhD, RN, CWOCNBarbara M. Bates-Jensen, PhD, RN, CWOCNFrom University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California; and the Borun Center for Gerontological Research, Los Angeles, California.Author, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-135-8_Part_2-200110161-00014 SectionsAboutVisual AbstractPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Pressure ulcers can lead to pain, disfigurement, and slow recovery from comorbid conditions. They interfere with activities of daily living, predispose to osteomyelitis and septicemia (1), and are strongly associated with longer hospital stays and mortality. Frailty and chronic illness, both common among older adults, predispose to pressure ulcers (1–3).The prevalence of pressure ulcers is 10% to 14% among hospitalized patients of all ages (4, 5) and up to 24% among patients in nursing homes (2). One goal of Healthy People 2010 is to reduce the prevalence of pressure ulcers in nursing home patients by 50% (6). Prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers are an important aspect of care for vulnerable elders. This paper presents quality indicators for the prevention and care of pressure ulcers among vulnerable elders and the evidence supporting these indicators.MethodsThe methods for developing these quality indicators, including literature review and expert panel consideration, are described in detail in another paper in this issue (7). For pressure ulcers, the structured literature review identified 177 titles, from which abstracts and articles that were relevant to this report were identified. Fifteen potential quality indicators were proposed on the basis of the literature and the author's expertise and files from previous reviews of the subject (8, 9).ResultsOf the 15 potential quality indicators, 10 were judged to be valid by the expert panel and 1 additional indicator was created by the panel (see the quality indicators). One indicator was merged with an accepted indicator, and 4 were not accepted. The literature supporting each of the indicators judged to be valid by the expert panel process is reviewed below.Quality Indicators 1 and 2: Pressure Ulcer PreventionRisk AssessmentIF a vulnerable elder is admitted to an intensive care unit or a medical or surgical unit of a hospital and cannot reposition himself or herself or has limited ability to do so, THEN risk assessment for pressure ulcers should be done on admission BECAUSE risk assessment can predict pressure ulcer formation in such high-risk groups and forms the basis for intervention.Positioning Needs and Pressure ReductionIF a vulnerable elder is identified as at risk for pressure ulcer development or a pressure ulcer risk assessment score indicates that the person is at risk, THEN a preventive intervention addressing repositioning needs and pressure reduction (or management of tissue loads) must be instituted within 12 hours BECAUSE reduction or elimination of risk factors can prevent pressure ulcer formation.Supporting Evidence. Several cohort and prospective studies and various expert groups provide evidence supporting timely risk assessment. Braden and Bergstrom (10) studied the predictive validity of risk assessment for pressure ulcers in 102 newly admitted nursing home residents. Using the Braden Scale (Figure) with a cutoff score of 18, they demonstrated that the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the admission assessment for subsequent development of pressure ulcers were 75%, 59%, 41%, and 86%, respectively. Of the 28 residents who developed pressure ulcers, the ulcer developed within about 2 weeks after admission in 71%, and all ulcers developed less than 4 weeks after admission (10).Figure. The Braden Scale for predicting risk for pressure ulcers. Download figure Download PowerPoint A multisite cohort study of 843 patients who were followed for 4 weeks found that the Braden Scale was predictive of pressure ulcer development in tertiary care centers, Veterans Affairs medical centers, and skilled nursing facilities (11). As part of the study, prescription of preventive interventions for turning and pressure reduction were evaluated in all three health care settings. Regardless of setting, turning schedules and pressure reduction were prescribed less frequently (7.7% and 34%) for patients at no risk or low risk (Braden Scale scores ≥ 16) than for patients at moderate or high risk (Braden Scale scores ≤ 15; 51% and 69%) (12). In another prospective cohort study of 200 newly admitted nursing home residents, the best predictor of all stages of pressure ulcer formation was Braden Scale score (13). Other investigators also found an association between preventive interventions and Braden Scale scores, in particular the subscale scores for mobility, friction, and shear (14). Prevention interventions are ordered and seem to be used more frequently for people with high-risk Braden Scale scores. However, data showing the effectiveness of the interventions themselves are lacking. Various expert groups, including the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (NPUAP) (15), the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR) Panel for Prevention and Prediction of Pressure Ulcers (2), and the American Medical Directors Association (AMDA) (3) recommend performing risk assessment in persons who cannot reposition themselves or have limited ability to do so.Quality Indicator 3: Pressure Ulcer PreventionNutritionIF a vulnerable elder is identified as at risk for pressure ulcer development and has malnutrition (involuntary weight loss of ≥ 10% over 1 year or low albumin or prealbumin levels), THEN nutritional intervention or dietary consultation should be instituted BECAUSE poor diet, particularly low dietary protein intake, is an independent predictor of pressure ulcer development.Supporting Evidence. Studies have shown a relationship between risk factors for malnutrition, such as involuntary weight loss, anorexia, gastrointestinal illnesses, cancer, low caloric intake, and low albumin level and pressure ulcer formation; some studies have found a relationship between ulcer severity and severity of malnutrition (16–18). Furthermore, several studies have shown associations between low serum albumin level and the presence (19, 20), severity (17, 18), and healing (21, 22) of pressure ulcers. Other measures of nutritional status, such as body weight, have been shown to correlate with presence (19, 20) and severity (17) of pressure ulcers. Although no direct evidence shows that adequate nutrition will prevent ulcers, these studies provide indirect evidence that prevention of malnutrition will reduce risk for pressure ulcer formation.Quality Indicator 4Pressure Ulcer EvaluationIF a vulnerable elder presents with a pressure ulcer, THEN the pressure ulcer should be assessed for location, depth and stage, size, and presence of necrotic tissue BECAUSE baseline assessment guides interventions, provides data for later comparison to evaluate healing, and can help predict time to healing.Supporting Evidence. No controlled trials of assessment of pressure ulcers have been done, and some experts believe that such studies may be impractical or irrelevant [23]. Several sets of guidelines support formal assessment of pressure ulcers, with documentation of findings, and focus on wound characteristics as a useful method for evaluating and documenting healing. The NPUAP suggested that 1) assessment should include multiple characteristics; 2) pressure ulcer staging is useful for diagnostic purposes only; and 3) size and stage are insufficient measures of healing and, although important, should be used in conjunction with assessment of other wound characteristics (24). Others have also acknowledged the role of assessment in planning and evaluating therapy (3, 25, 26).Observational data support these consensus statements and suggest that many wound characteristics are important predictors of healing or determinants of interventions.Wound Depth and StagePressure ulcers are commonly classified according to staging systems based on the depth of tissue destruction. Stage 1 lesions are least severe, and stage 4 are most severe. Staging systems are best used to diagnose wound severity and show a relationship to healing outcomes, but they do not facilitate monitoring of healing over time (2, 24, 26, 27). Full-thickness wounds (stage 3 and stage 4) generally take longer to heal than partial-thickness wounds (stage 2) (28). A prospective study showed that stage 2 pressure ulcers were 5.2 times more likely to heal than stage 4 pressure ulcers (29). Several other prospective studies also found that wound depth was a predictor of healing and time to healing (21, 30). Two retrospective studies demonstrated that wound depth was related to healing characteristics (31) and that change in depth was related to healing time (8), yet both studies found that initial wound depth did not correlate with healing.SizeSeveral studies have demonstrated a relationship between wound surface area and time to complete healing. In a prospective study to determine progress of healing within specific time frames, van Rijswijk (32) examined the characteristics of full-thickness pressure ulcers in 119 patients (48 of whom had full-thickness ulcers) who were seen in diverse settings. Healing was measured by using surface area tracings, with follow-up of 15 months. Mean reduction in wound surface area for ulcers that healed versus those that did not was significant at 2 weeks (45% vs. −3%) and at 4 weeks (77% vs. 18%). In a secondary analysis of full-thickness pressure ulcers, only 25% healed completely within 50 days, but three quarters had 50% reduction in surface area within 39 days (33). Ulcers with a surface area decrease of at least 39% after 2 weeks healed more quickly than those with a lesser decrease in surface area (median time to healing, 53 vs. 70 days). Retrospective studies also support the relationship between early reduction in surface area and shorter time to healing (8, 31).Presence of Necrotic TissueWound bed characteristics determine treatment options (8, 34). Several studies have shown that replacement of necrotic tissue with granulation and epithelial tissue is indicative of healing (32), and the presence of necrotic tissue at baseline is associated with slower healing (35).Other Characteristics and Assessment ToolsResults of studies of other wound characteristics, such as exudate and undermining, in relation to healing time have been inconclusive (8, 21, 33–36). Nonetheless, assessment is recommended because it can guide treatment (8).Use of a standardized instrument or tool for assessment and documentation of pressure ulcers, such as the Pressure Sore Status Tool (37) or the Pressure Ulcer Scale for Healing (36), is suggested, but no study has examined the effect of standardized evaluation and documentation on pressure ulcer outcomes.Quality Indicators 5 and 6Management of Full-Thickness Pressure UlcersIF a vulnerable elder presents with a clean full-thickness pressure ulcer and has no improvement after 4 weeks of treatment, THEN the appropriateness of the treatment plan and the presence of cellulitis or osteomyelitis should be assessed BECAUSE clean full-thickness pressure ulcers should show evidence of healing or improvement within 4 weeks and lack of improvement should stimulate a change in approach.Management of Partial-Thickness Pressure UlcersIF a vulnerable elder presents with a partial-thickness pressure ulcer and has no improvement after 2 weeks of treatment, THEN the appropriateness of the treatment plan should be assessed BECAUSE partial-thickness pressure ulcers should show evidence of healing or improvement within 2 weeks and lack of improvement should stimulate a change in approach.Supporting Evidence. No direct evidence indicates that reassessment of nonhealing ulcers will improve outcomes. However, it is logical that reassessment is a necessary first step to identify causes of and, hence, treat nonhealing ulcers.These two quality indicators are supported by evidence on rate of healing and healing outcomes from several studies. A randomized, controlled trial involving 85 patients found that up to 42% of stage 2 ulcers healed within 30 days and 75% healed within 60 days, whereas only 17% of stage 3 and 4 ulcers healed within 60 days (30). Similar outcomes were noted in a prospective cohort study of 89 nursing home residents with stage 2 or greater pressure ulcers. After 6 weeks of follow-up, 65% of stage 2 ulcers, 14% of stage 3 ulcers, and no stage 4 ulcers healed (29). In Brandeis and colleagues' (28) cohort study of 1626 patients with a stage 2 or greater pressure ulcer who were admitted to 1 of 51 nursing, up to 54% of stage 2 ulcers healed in 3 months and 74% healed in 6 months (28). Healing rates for stage 3 and 4 ulcers were slower; 31% and 23% healed in 3 months and 59% and 33% healed in 6 months, respectively. Data from a randomized, controlled trial (35) indicated much faster healing times for stage 2 ulcers and provide primary support for the 2-week time frame for the partial-thickness quality indicator: The median healing time was 9 to 11 days, and three quarters of the ulcers healed within 14 to 26 days, depending on topical treatment.In a retrospective study of 143 pressure ulcers, change in surface area at 1 week was a strong predictor of time to 50% healing. The median time to 50% healing among ulcers at all stages that had decreased surface area within 1 week was 21 to 26 days; in contrast, wounds with no change in surface area reached 50% healing in a median of 34 days (8), and an increase in surface area at 1 week was predictive of nonhealing.Reported mean or median times to healing are 8.7 to 38 days (22, 30, 35) for partial-thickness stage 2 ulcers; full-thickness stage 3 or 4 ulcers will heal after 8 to 10 weeks of therapy in 10% to 40% of patients (28, 32). Some investigators have shown that the percentage reduction in surface area after 1, 2, or 4 weeks of treatment is predictive of time to healing (8, 33). The basis for the 4-week timeframe in the full-thickness quality indicator is primarily supported by van Rijswijk and Polansky's study of full-thickness pressure ulcers and percentage reduction in surface area as predictors of time to healing (33).Quality Indicator 7Pressure Ulcer DebridementIF a vulnerable elder presents with a full-thickness sacral or trochanteric pressure ulcer covered with necrotic debris or eschar, THEN debridement by using sharp, mechanical, enzymatic, or autolytic procedures should be done within 3 days of diagnosis BECAUSE dead tissue is a physical obstacle to healing tissue and provides a medium for bacterial invasion and proliferation, which places the patient at high risk for wound infection.Supporting Evidence. Wound debridement can be performed by using sharp, mechanical, enzymatic, or autolytic methods. Sharp debridement involves use of a scalpel, scissors, or other sharp instrument to remove nonviable tissue. One multicenter trial of the effects of a topical growth factor versus placebo on wound healing in 118 patients noted incidentally that sharp debridement was positively associated with healing of diabetic ulcers (38). In this study, all patients received sharp debridement initially and then as needed throughout 20 weeks of follow up. In post hoc analysis, centers that used sharp debridement more frequently (debridement at up to 87% of visits) produced better healing rates (up to 83%) than did centers that used sharp debridement less often (debridement at 15% to 43% of visits; up to 64% healed). Sharp debridement can be safely performed in a fairly aggressive manner at the bedside in a sequential fashion (daily or every other day) by various health care providers. Attention to patient comfort is recommended (systemic or topical analgesia), and some have suggested benefits to combining bedside sequential sharp debridement with other forms of debridement to maximize response (39).Mechanical debridement involves the use of wet-to-dry dressings, whirlpool, or lavage or wound irrigation. The AHCPR panel recommended cautious use of mechanical wet-to-dry dressings for debridement because removal of dressing may cause trauma to new granulation and epithelial tissue. Because debridement with wet-to-dry dressings is painful, the AHCPR panel recommends pain management, such as administration of a systemic analgesic before dressing removal (25). Coarsely woven gauze or cotton sponges appear to be more effective than finer materials in mechanical debridement (40).Enzymatic debridement involves applying a concentrated, commercially prepared enzyme to the surface of the necrotic tissue, with the expectation that it will aggressively degrade necrosis by digesting devitalized tissue. A randomized, controlled trial of enzymatic debridement for necrotic wounds reported a mean time of 8 days to debride stage 4 pressure ulcers with an amorphous hydrogel dressing and a mean time of 12 days for debridement with an enzymatic preparation containing streptokinase and streptodornase (41). These times did not differ significantly, suggesting that an agent with enzyme activity was unnecessary.Autolytic debridement is use of the body's own mechanisms to remove nonviable tissue. Maintaining a moist wound environment allows collection of fluid at the wound site, which allows enzymes within the wound to digest necrotic tissue. Autolytic debridement, which typically involves adequate wound cleansing to wash out partially degraded nonviable tissue, is more effective than wet-to-dry gauze dressings because it removes only necrotic tissue and therefore protects healthy tissues (42–44). Mulder and colleagues (42) evaluated 16 patients in a randomized, controlled trial of a hypertonic hydrogel versus wet-to-dry gauze for wound debridement (the hypertonicity of the gel assists with autolytic debridement by pulling fluid into the area through osmotic forces) (42). The results suggested that the hydrogel could safely facilitate removal of dry adherent eschar from wounds. Other investigators also have found amorphous hydrogels to be effective in removing necrotic debris from wounds (43–45).Quality Indicator 8Pressure Ulcer Management: CleansingIF a vulnerable elder has a stage 2 or greater pressure ulcer, THEN a topical antiseptic should not be used on the wound BECAUSE topical antiseptics may harm the healthy wound bed.Supporting Evidence. No controlled trials have examined the effectiveness or safety of wound cleansing. Contraindications to the use of antiseptic and antimicrobial solutions for cleansing clean pressure ulcers are based on several laboratory studies (46–49). Two studies tested antimicrobial wound cleansers and solutions for toxicity to polymorphonuclear leukocytes. Results showed that even serial dilutions of the products diminished the viability and function of polymorphonuclear leukocytes; in contrast, nonantimicrobial solutions did not cause substantial toxicity to polymorphonuclear leukocytes (46, 47). On the basis of early animal model studies (48, 49), the AHCPR guidelines recommend normal saline as the preferred cleanser because it is noncytotoxic (25).Quality Indicators 9 and 10Pressure Ulcer Debridement for Systemic InfectionIF a vulnerable elder with a full-thickness pressure ulcer presents with systemic signs and symptoms of infection, such as elevated temperature, leukocytosis, confusion, and agitation, and these signs and symptoms do not have another identified cause, THEN the ulcer should be debrided of necrotic tissue within 12 hours BECAUSE debridement will reduce dead tissue that provides a medium for bacterial invasion and may lead to systemic infection.Pressure Ulcer Culture for Systemic InfectionIF a vulnerable elder with a full-thickness pressure ulcer presents with systemic signs and symptoms of infection, such as elevated temperature, leukocytosis, confusion, and agitation, and these signs and symptoms do not have another identified cause, THEN a tissue biopsy or needle aspiration sample should be obtained and sent for culture and sensitivity testing within 12 hours BECAUSE high bacterial burdens inhibit wound healing and may lead to systemic infection, and needle aspiration or tissue biopsy is the best indicator of bacterial invasion into tissue.Supporting Evidence. Wound infection extends the inflammatory phase of healing, delays collagen synthesis, retards epithelialization, and causes more injury to the tissues because the bacteria produce toxic by-products and compete with fibroblasts and other cells for limited amounts of oxygen and nutrients (50, 51).Signs and symptoms of systemic infection may be due to spread from a full-thickness pressure ulcer. To treat the infection, the source of the infection must be identified; impediments to healing must be removed; and, if possible, the organism causing the infection must be identified. Standard swab cultures do not aid in diagnosis of infection in pressure ulcers because they detect only surface contaminants and not the organism that caused the tissue infection (52). The AHCPR pressure ulcer treatment guidelines recommend wound culture of a tissue biopsy or needle aspiration sample when infection is suspected (25). This procedure may be impractical at some centers, and the NPUAP supports use of a specialized swab technique to culture pressure ulcer wound beds (24, 53). The recommended method of quantitative swab culture involves cleansing the wound with solution that contains no antiseptic. The end of a sterile cotton-tipped applicator is rotated in a 1-cm2 area of the wound for 5 seconds (53, 54) with enough pressure to cause tissue fluid to be absorbed in the cotton tip of the swab. The swab tip is inserted in the tube containing transport media and is sent to the laboratory. Swab culture was not included in the indicator because of the difficulty in distinguishing technique from the medical record.Tissue biopsy is removal of a piece of tissue by using a scalpel or a punch biopsy instrument. The area may be treated with topical anesthetic or injected with local anesthetic. The biopsy is pressure is to the area to and the tissue is sent to the laboratory. aspiration involves of a needle to a with of in the through to the is by the to the The needle is and at for two to The is to the the needle is and and the is sent to the the of systemic infection, the full-thickness ulcer should be treated to decrease the that it is a source of bacterial This is particularly for wounds with that are generally or with necrotic For such ulcers, healing time is because tissue may be Debridement of the with to of or removes dead tissue that provides a medium for bacterial growth and Because systemic infection is debridement of the wound bed should be done within 12 Indicator a vulnerable elder presents with a clean full-thickness or a partial-thickness pressure ulcer, THEN a moist environment should be with topical dressings BECAUSE wounds heal better in a moist Evidence. Several investigators have a moist environment with dry dressings for wound healing. have noted faster healing with moist wound dressings than with wet-to-dry saline gauze dressings (22, The AHCPR guidelines on pressure ulcer treatment which are supported by the American Medical Directors Association (3) and NPUAP also the use of moist dressings over dry an increase in pressure ulcer the of the AHCPR guidelines on pressure ulcers, quality indicators are supported by substantial a literature and with a expert panel 11 valid quality indicators for pressure ulcers were identified. These indicators pressure ulcer care from prevention and assessment to topical Although they are not they provide a baseline for measures that may between quality and Pressure Pressure Ulcers in Prediction and of Health and Health Agency for Health Care Policy and AHCPR Pressure American Medical Directors A study of pressure ulcer prevalence and in care Wound National prevalence pressure ulcer a on Wound The for Quality Wound for 30 October Healthy People of Health and Assessing care of vulnerable methods for developing quality A quantitative analysis of wound characteristics as early predictors of healing in Los University of California, Los Pressure and Wound A for and Braden Bergstrom validity of the Braden Scale for pressure risk in a nursing home Bergstrom Braden pressure ulcer a multisite study of the predictive validity of the Braden Bergstrom Braden study of of pressure ulcers and the relationship between risk characteristics, and prescription of preventive Bergstrom Braden A prospective study of pressure risk among A comparison of patient risk for pressure ulcer development with nursing use of preventive on Pressure Ulcer National Pressure Ulcer Advisory at The role of nutrition in prevention and healing of pressure ulcers. in the of pressure and nutritional Pressure among hospitalized factors for pressure A comparison of and beds or therapy for pressure A pressure healing with van Rijswijk Braden Pressure ulcer patient and wound an AHCPR Wound of National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Wound

Prolonged mechanical loading of tissue in between a bony prominence and a support surface can lead to pressure ulcers. Despite recent initiatives to curb down incidence rates, the health care burden of pressure ulcer prevention remains significant [1]. Etiology of pressure ulcers are commonly attributed to interface pressures. As a result, interventions, e.g., support surfaces, routinely aim to reduce contact pressures. However, the clinical effectiveness of such an objective can be questionable [2]. Recent studies have shown that internal mechanics of the tissue can be associated with pressure ulcer development [3], potentially indicating the inefficacy of interventions targeted solely at contact pressure relief. Tissue characteristics at a bony prominence, e.g., tissue thickness and material properties, also influence load distribution within and on the surface of the tissue. Given the variability in patient populations and for a bony region of interest [4], it is possible that patient specific risk and load relief (with the use of support surface) may differ widely.

Healing of severe pressure injuries (PIs) in patients with multiple comorbidities requires a multifaceted and interdisciplinary approach and includes the use of support surfaces. Published clinical data guiding support surface selection are very limited. Long-term acute care hospitals frequently treat medically complex patients, many with severe PIs. To compare healing rates in patients with severe PIs on air-fluidized therapy (AFT) or fluid immersion system (FIS) support surfaces. After obtaining informed consent, patients with a stage 3 or 4 PI were randomized to receive either AFT or FIS in addition to the standard protocol of care. Baseline and weekly wound measurements were obatined using a 3-dimensional camera measurement tool. The required sample size was calculated to be 60. After the study had started, the long-term acute care hospital admission criteria changed, severely limiting the number of patients who met the study inclusion criteria. Only 4 patients with a stage 4 PI completed the study. Of those, 2 were on an AFT and 2 were on an FIS surface. All wounds reduced in size; 0.12 and 0.57 cm²/day for patients on AFT and 0.68 and 1.34 cm²/day for patients on FIS. All but 1 wound had a reduction in wound volume ranging from -0.2 and 0.97 cm³ to 1.78 and 4.18 cm³/day for patients on AFT and FIS, respectively. Obtaining much-needed evidence to guide support surface selections for patients with severe PIs is challenging and requires multicenter studies.

Clinical experience and existing research strongly support debridement as a necessary component of wound bed preparation when slough or eschar is present. Multiple techniques are available, but the indications for each technique and their efficacy are not clearly established. There is little evidence to guide the clinician in the selection of a safe, effective debridement method for the patient with a chronic wound. We sought to identify evidence related to the efficacy of enzymatic debriding agents collagenase and papain-urea in the removal of necrotic tissue from the wound bed and its impact on wound healing. A systematic review of electronic databases was undertaken using key words: (1) debridement, (2) enzymatic debridement, (3) collagenases, (4) papain, (5) urea, and (6) papain-urea. All prospective and retrospective studies that compared enzymatic debridement using collagenase or papain-urea (with and without chlorophyllin) on pressure ulcers, leg ulcers, or burn wounds were included in the review. All studies that met inclusion criteria and were published between January 1960 and February 2008 were included. Collagenase ointment is more effective than placebo (inactivated ointment or petrolatum ointment) for debridement of necrotic tissue from pressure ulcers, leg ulcers, and partial-thickness burn wounds. Limited evidence suggests that a papain-urea-based ointment removes necrotic material from pressure ulcers more rapidly than collagenase ointment, but progress toward wound healing appears to be equivocal. Limited evidence suggests that treatment of partial-thickness burn wounds in children with collagenase ointment may require an equivocal time to treatment with surgical excision and that combination treatment may reduce the need for surgical excision. Insufficient evidence was found to determine whether collagenase ointment removes necrotic tissue from leg ulcers more or less rapidly than autolytic debridement enhanced by a polyacrylate dressing. Enzymatic debriding agents are an effective alternative for removing necrotic material from pressure ulcers, leg ulcers, and partial-thickness wounds. They may be used to debride both adherent slough and eschar. Enzymatic agents may be used as the primary technique for debridement in certain cases, especially when alternative methods such as surgical or conservative sharp wound debridement (CSWD) are not feasible owing to bleeding disorders or other considerations. Many clinicians will select enzymes when CSWD is not an option. Clinical experience strongly suggests that combined therapy, such as initial surgical debridement followed by serial debridement using an enzymatic agent or enzymatic debridement along with serial CSWD, is effective for many patients with chronic, indolent, or nonhealing wounds.

1. Co-chaired this panel2. University of South Florida, Tampa, FL3. Healthpoint Ltd., Fort Worth, TX4. University of California, San Francisco, CA5. University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX6. University of Cardiff, Cardiff, Wales, UK7. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA8. Private practice, Warren, PA9. Private practice, Tamarac, FL10. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA11. St. Louis University, St. Louis, MO, and12. Washington University, St. Louis, MO

Wound Literature Review 2010

What is the best support surface in prevention and treatment, as of 2012, for a patient at risk and/or suffering from pressure ulcer sore? Developing French guidelines for clinical practice.

Wound Care: What the Medical Director Needs to Know

British Journal of Healthcare AssistantsVol. 14, No. 10 ClinicalSeries 5, chronic wounds; part 4g. Pressure ulcers: support surfaces (mattresses)Menna Lloyd JonesMenna Lloyd JonesConsultant Editor, BJHCASearch for more papers by this authorMenna Lloyd JonesPublished Online:16 Nov 2020https://doi.org/10.12968/bjha.2020.14.10.482AboutSectionsView articleView Full TextPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail View article References Clark M, Black J. Skin IQTM microclimate made easy. 2011. https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/6059745/clinical-evaluation-of-the-skin-iqtm-microclimate-manager-and-case- (accessed 4 November 2020) Google ScholarEllis M. Understanding the latest guidance on pressure ulcer prevention. Br J Community Nurs. 2016;30(4):29–36 Google ScholarGwynedd Archives, Meirionnydd Record Office, Dolgellau, Wales LL40 2YF. Oakeley Hospital, folders ZM719–3 Google ScholarKottner J, Black J, Call E, Gefen A, Santamaria N.(2018) Microclimate: a critical review in the context of pressure ulcer prevention. Clin Biomech. 2018 Nov;59:62–70. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2018.09.010. Epub 2018 Sep 5 Crossref, Google ScholarLloyd Jones M. Series 5, Part 4c. Pressure ulcers—prevention and SSKIN. British Journal of Healthcare Assistants. 2020;14(6):289–291 Link, Google ScholarNational Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Managing pressure ulcers in adults. 2020. https://pathways.nice.org.uk/pathways/pressure-ulcers (accessed 23 October 2020). Google ScholarNational Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel. National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel support surface standards initiative. Terms and definitions related to support surfaces, 2007, updated 2018. 2018. https://cdn.ymaws.com/npiap.com/resource/resmgr/s3i_terms-and-defs-feb-5-201.pdf (accessed 23 October 2020) Google ScholarNational Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel and Pan Pacific Pressure Injury Alliance. Prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers/injuries: quick reference guide. 2019. https://www.epuap.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/quick-reference-guide-digital-npuap-epuap-pppia-jan2016.pdf (accessed 23 October 2020) Google ScholarWestcott S, Welding L. Support surface selection for long-term patients in the community. J Comm Nurs. 2017;31(4):36–39 Google Scholar FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails 2 November 2020Volume 14Issue 10ISSN (print): 1753-1586ISSN (online): 2052-4420 Metrics History Published online 16 November 2020 Published in print 2 November 2020 Information© MA Healthcare LimitedPDF download

Beds, mattresses and cushions for pressure sore prevention and treatment

Why is the use of support surfaces not more evidence based? - Draft paper or article for publication

To provide information on the effectiveness of active and reactive support surfaces in reducing the incidence and prevalence of pressure injuries (PIs) in adult ICU patients. This continuing education activity is intended for physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and nurses with an interest in skin and wound care. After participating in this educational activity, the participant will: 1. Distinguish features of active and reactive support surfaces used in the ICU.2. Compare the PI incidence in patients using a variety of support surfaces.3. Synthesize recommendations for the use of support surfaces to reduce the risk of PI in adult ICU patients.

Pressure ulcers (also known as bedsores, pressure sores, decubitus ulcers) are areas of localised damage to the skin and underlying tissue due to pressure, shear or friction. They are common in the elderly and immobile and costly in financial and human terms. Pressure-relieving beds, mattresses and seat cushions are widely used as aids to prevention in both institutional and non-institutional settings. This systematic review seeks to answer the following questions:(1) to what extent do pressure-relieving cushions, beds, mattress overlays and mattress replacements reduce the incidence of pressure ulcers compared with standard support surfaces?(2) how effective are different pressure-relieving surfaces in preventing pressure ulcers, compared to one another? For this second update the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register was searched (28/2/08), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL)(2008 Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to February Week 3 2008), Ovid EMBASE (1980 to 2008 Week 08) and Ovid CINAHL (1982 to February Week 3 2008). The reference sections of included studies were searched for further trials. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), published or unpublished, which assessed the effectiveness of beds, mattresses, mattress overlays, and seating cushions for the prevention of pressure ulcers, in any patient group, in any setting. Study selection was undertaken by at least two authors independently with a third author resolving uncertainty. RCTs were eligible for inclusion if they reported an objective, clinical outcome measure such as incidence and severity of new of pressure ulcers developed. Studies which only reported proxy outcome measures such as interface pressure were excluded. Trial data were extracted by one researcher and checked by a second. The results from each study are presented as relative risk for dichotomous variables. Where deemed appropriate, similar studies were pooled in a meta analysis. For this second update 11 trials met the inclusion criteria bringing the total number of RCTs included in the review to 52.Foam alternatives to the standard hospital foam mattress can reduce the incidence of pressure ulcers in people at risk. The relative merits of alternating and constant low pressure devices are unclear. There is one high quality trial comparing the different alternating pressure devices for pressure ulcer prevention which suggests that alternating pressure mattresses may be more cost effective than alternating pressure overlays.Pressure-relieving overlays on the operating table have been shown to reduce postoperative pressure ulcer incidence, although two studies indicated that foam overlays resulted in adverse skin changes. Two trials indicated that Australian standard medical sheepskins prevented pressure ulcers. There is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions on the value of seat cushions, limb protectors and various constant low pressure devices as pressure ulcer prevention strategies.A study of Accident & Emergency trolley overlays did not identify a reduction in pressure ulcer incidence. There are tentative indications that foot waffle heel elevators, a particular low air loss hydrotherapy mattress and two types of operating theatre overlays are harmful. In people at high risk of pressure ulcer development higher specification foam mattresses rather than standard hospital foam mattresses should be used. The relative merits of higher-tech constant low pressure and alternating pressure for prevention are unclear but alternating pressure mattresses may be more cost effective than alternating pressure overlays. Medical grade sheepskins are associated with a decrease in pressure ulcer development. Organisations might consider the use of some forms of pressure relief for high risk patients in the operating theatre. Seat cushions and overlays designed for use in Accident & Emergency settings have not been adequately evaluated.

Pressure ulcers (i.e. bedsores, pressure sores, pressure injuries, decubitus ulcers) are areas of localised damage to the skin and underlying tissue.They are common in the elderly and immobile, and costly in financial and human terms. Pressure-relieving support surfaces (i.e. beds, mattresses, seat cushions etc) are used to help prevent ulcer development. This systematic review seeks to establish:(1) the extent to which pressure-relieving support surfaces reduce the incidence of pressure ulcers compared with standard support surfaces, and,(2) their comparative effectiveness in ulcer prevention. In April 2015, for this fourth update we searched The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 15 April 2015) which includes the results of regular searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 3). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials, published or unpublished, that assessed the effects of any support surface for prevention of pressure ulcers, in any patient group or setting which measured pressure ulcer incidence. Trials reporting only proxy outcomes (e.g. interface pressure) were excluded. Two review authors independently selected trials. Data were extracted by one review author and checked by another.Where appropriate, estimates from similar trials were pooled for meta-analysis. For this fourth update six new trials were included, bringing the total of included trials to 59.Foam alternatives to standard hospital foam mattresses reduce the incidence of pressure ulcers in people at risk (RR 0.40 95% CI 0.21 to 0.74).The relative merits of alternating- and constant low-pressure devices are unclear. One high-quality trial suggested that alternating-pressure mattresses may be more cost effective than alternating-pressure overlays in a UK context.Pressure-relieving overlays on the operating table reduce postoperative pressure ulcer incidence, although two trials indicated that foam overlays caused adverse skin changes. Meta-analysis of three trials suggest that Australian standard medical sheepskins prevent pressure ulcers (RR 0.56 95% CI 0.32 to 0.97). People at high risk of developing pressure ulcers should use higher-specification foam mattresses rather than standard hospital foam mattresses. The relative merits of higher-specification constant low-pressure and alternating-pressure support surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers are unclear, but alternating-pressure mattresses may be more cost effective than alternating-pressure overlays in a UK context. Medical grade sheepskins are associated with a decrease in pressure ulcer development. Organisations might consider the use of some forms of pressure relief for high risk patients in the operating theatre.

Pressure ulcers (also known as bedsores, pressure sores, decubitus ulcers) are areas of localised damage to the skin and underlying tissue due to pressure, shear or friction. They are common in the elderly and immobile and costly in financial and human terms. Pressure-relieving beds, mattresses and seat cushions are widely used as aids to prevention in both institutional and non-institutional settings. This systematic review seeks to answer the following questions: to what extent do pressure-relieving cushions, beds, mattress overlays and mattress replacements reduce the incidence of pressure ulcers compared with standard support surfaces? how effective are different pressure-relieving surfaces in preventing pressure ulcers, compared to one another? The Specialised Trials Register of the Cochrane Wounds Group (compiled from regular searches of many electronic databases including MEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE plus handsearching of specialist journals and conference proceedings) was searched up to January 2004, Issue 3, 2004 of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was also searched. The reference sections of included studies were searched for further trials. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), published or unpublished, which assessed the effectiveness of beds, mattresses, mattress overlays, and seating cushions for the prevention of pressure ulcers, in any patient group, in any setting. RCTs were eligible for inclusion if they reported an objective, clinical outcome measure such as incidence and severity of new of pressure ulcers developed. Studies which only reported proxy outcome measures such as interface pressure were excluded. Trial data were extracted by one researcher and checked by a second. The results from each study are presented as relative risk for dichotomous variables. Where deemed appropriate, similar studies were pooled in a meta analysis. 41 RCTs were included in the review. Foam alternatives to the standard hospital foam mattress can reduce the incidence of pressure ulcers in people at risk. The relative merits of alternating and constant low pressure devices, and of the different alternating pressure devices for pressure ulcer prevention are unclear.Pressure-relieving overlays on the operating table have been shown to reduce postoperative pressure ulcer incidence, although one study indicated that an overlay resulted in adverse skin changes. One trial indicated that Australian standard medical sheepskins prevented pressure ulcers. There is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions on the value of seat cushions, limb protectors and various constant low pressure devices as pressure ulcer prevention strategies.A study of Accident & Emergency trolley overlays did not identify a reduction in pressure ulcer incidence. There are tentative indications that foot waffle heel elevators, a particular low air loss hydrotherapy mattress and an operating theatre overlay are harmful. In people at high risk of pressure ulcer development, consideration should be given to the use of higher specification foam mattresses rather than standard hospital foam mattresses. The relative merits of higher-tech constant low pressure and alternating pressure for prevention are unclear. Organisations might consider the use of pressure relief for high risk patients in the operating theatre, as this is associated with a reduction in post-operative incidence of pressure ulcers. Seat cushions and overlays designed for use in Accident & Emergency settings have not been adequately evaluated.