Pressure Injury Risk Assessment Research Articles

Exploring the relationship between AM-PAC scores and mobility components in falls and pressure injury risk assessment tools: A pathway to improve nursing clinical efficiency.

Nurses routinely perform multiple risk assessments related to patient mobility in the hospital. Use of a single mobility assessment for multiple risk assessment tools could improve clinical documentation efficiency, accuracy and lay the groundwork for automated risk evaluation tools. We tested how accurately Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care (AM-PAC) mobility scores predicted the mobility components of various fall and pressure injury risk assessment tools. AM-PAC scores along with mobility and physical activity components on risk assessments (Braden Scale, Get Up and Go used within the Hendrich II Fall Risk Model®, Johns Hopkins Fall Risk Assessment Tool (JHFRAT) and Morse Fall Scale) were collected on a cohort of hospitalised patients. We predicted scores of risk assessments based on AM-PAC scores by fitting of ordinal logistic regressions between AM-PAC scores and risk assessments. STROBE checklist was used to report the present study. AM-PAC scores predicted the observed mobility components of Braden, Get Up and Go and JHFRAT with high accuracy (≥85%), but with lower accuracy for the Morse Fall Scale (40%). These findings suggest that a single mobility assessment has the potential to be a good solution for the mobility components of several fall and pressure injury risk assessments.

Predictive validity of a pressure injury risk assessment tool at different time-points in patients admitted to the intensive care unit.

Multiple risk assessment scales are available for predicting the development of pressure injuries (PIs) in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Most PI risk assessment tools have been validated at the time of admission; however, another time point during treatment could better reflect clinical changes and therefore, the risk of PIs. The study aimed to examine the predictive validity of PI risk assessment scale designed for ICU patients, the conscious level, mobility, haemodynamic, oxygenation and nutrition (COMHON) index, at several time points or intervals during ICU stay. This was an observational prospective study undertaken over a period of 1 year (July 2021-June 2022). Patients admitted to ICU for >3 days were included. The number, location and degree of the PIs were recorded. The level of risk for developing PIs during the stay was determined by calculating the COMHON scores at admission, and 72 h, as well as the highest and mean score. Predictive validity was studied using accuracy parameters and areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). The best cutoff point was also determined and used to compare risk between categories. Of the 286 patients included in the study, 160 (59%) were male. The level of severity evaluated using the APACHE II scale was 18.4 ± 5.8 points. Invasive mechanical ventilation was used in 32.1% (n = 92) of the patients and 20.6% (n = 59) received high flow oxygen therapy. The incidence of PI was 15.4% (n = 44), with sacral location in 47.7% (n = 21) and grade II in 75% (n = 33) of the patients. The AUC was 0.907 (0.872-0.942); 0.881 (0.842-0.920); 0.877 (0.835-0.920) and 0.749 (0.667-0.831) at the mean, the highest, 72 h and ICU admission scores, respectively. The best cutoff point was 13 in all patients. The risk of developing a PI was 6.4 times higher in the high-risk group (>13 points). The best predictive capacity for the COMHON index risk assessment was the mean and highest scores. The predictive accuracy was higher on the third day of the patient's stay than on admission, and this was attributed to the clinical changes observed in some patients over the course of their critical illness. Patients in ICU are at high risk of developing PIs, therefore, preventive measures should be maximized. Risk assessment should be carried out sequentially owing to the changes that patients present throughout their ICU stay and preventive measures should be used according to the risk level.

Pressure injury risk assessment and prescription of preventative interventions using a structured tool versus clinical judgement: An interrater agreement study.

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.

Inter-device agreement of sacral subepidermal oedema measurement in healthy adults during prolonged 60° head of bed elevation.

To investigate the level of agreement between the SEM 200 and Provisio® subepidermal moisture sacral delta measurements, which may indicate increased pressure injury risk, in healthy adults during 120 min of prolonged 60° head of bed elevation. This position, which requires the elevation of the patient's upper body at a 60° angle above the horizontal plane for an extended period, is used by clinicians to prevent or manage a patient's medical or surgical conditions. This prospective exploratory study recruited 20 healthy adults during October 2021 and collected sacral subepidermal moisture delta measurements using the SEM 200 and Provisio® devices. Delta measurements were taken at 20-min intervals over 120 min resulting in seven data collection timepoints. Descriptive statistics and a Bland Altman plot analysis were conducted. A total of 280 sacral subepidermal moisture delta measurements were gathered or 140 per device. There were good levels of agreement between the two devices at baseline (T0) [mean 0.025; SD 0.137] and following 60- (T3) [mean 0.025; SD 0.111], 80- (T4) [mean -0.01; SD 0.177] and 100 min (T5) [mean 0.01; SD 0.129] of prolonged 60° head of bed elevation. Head of bed elevations can increase a patient's risk of sacral pressure injuries. In some countries, nurses have access to the SEM 200 and/or the Provisio® device, so our findings may increase nurses' confidence in the interchangeability of the device measurements, although further research is needed to confirm this. The SEM 200 and Provisio® subepidermal moisture scanners show promise in gathering similar objective pressure injury risk data which could prompt clinicians to implement prevention strategies. Current pressure injury risk assessment is largely subjective in nature. This quantitative study on healthy human sacral tissue found a good level of agreement in the SEM 200 and Provisio® subepidermal moisture scanners, which may increase nurses' confidence in the interchangeability of the devices in clinical practice.

Exploring body morphology, sacral skin microclimate and pressure injury development and risk among patients admitted to an intensive care unit: A prospective, observational study

ObjectiveTo determine the association between body morphology, sacral skin microclimate and their impact on the development and risk of pressure injuries among patients in an intensive care unit. MethodologyA prospective observational exploratory study was conducted over 30 weeks. Repeat study observations occurred multiple times a week for 28 days or until discharge. Participant inclusion criteria were ≥ 18 years of age, expected intensive care length of stay > 24 h and intact skin over the sacrum region. SettingThe study was conducted in a 36-bed intensive care unit of a major metropolitan public hospital in Queensland, Australia. Outcome measuresPressure injuries were staged and independently verified according to the international pressure injury classification system. Pressure injury risk was determined by the Braden scale score and subepidermal oedema, using a subepidermal moisture scanner at the sacrum. ResultsOf the 93 participants recruited, an inverted triangle body shape (p =.049), a BMI > 25 kg/m2 (p =.008), a standard foam mattress type (p =.017) and increased length of stay (p <.001) were associated with an increased pressure injury risk according to subepidermal oedema. Participants with increased sacral skin temperature (p <.001), mechanical ventilation (p <.001), vasoactive drugs administered (p =.003), increased sequential organ failure assessment score (p =.047), neurovascular diagnosis (p =.031) and increased length of stay (p =.027) were associated with increased pressure injury risk according to the Braden scale score. ConclusionBody morphology and skin microclimate are associated with pressure injury risk during critical illness. Implications for Clinical PracticeSubepidermal oedema was associated with a patient’s shape, body mass index and mattress type, factors that directly influence the pressure loading and the skin, whereas the Braden scale was associated with sacral temperature and clinical measures of critical illness. Consideration of body morphology and skin microclimate in pressure injury risk assessment could lead to more specific prevention strategies targeting high risk patients.

Pressure Injury Risk Assessment Tools: A Literature Review

A pressure injury (PI) is defined by the National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel1 as “localized damage to the skin and underlying soft tissue usually over a bony prominence or related to a medical or other device” and results from the presence of intense and/or prolonged pressure or shear. Current best practice guidelines recommend identifying patients at risk for developing PIs in order to develop and implement interventions to mitigate PI risk factors and prevent PI development. This is frequently accomplished by utilizing PI risk assessment scales (PIRAS). Through literature review, this article summarizes a total of 42 unique PIRAS developed for both the adult and pediatric populations.

Tissue Perfusion and the Braden Scale as Predictors of Pressure Injury Risk in the Intensive Care Unit Patient

Purpose: The national rate of pressure injury (PI) in the intensive care unit (ICU) 2016-2018 was 5.97%, while at one hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii it averaged 13%. The Braden scale is the gold standard PI risk assessment tool. Researchers have reported the Braden scale has limited value in the ICU setting and consider tissue perfusion to be the better indicator. The aim was to determine if tissue perfusion, as measured by noninvasive transcutaneous tissue oxygen levels, was a predictor of PI risk development.Methods: Electronic medical records of 161 patients admitted from January 1, 2017 to June 30, 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients’ characteristics were summarized using descriptive statistics. Bivariate associations with the development of PI were examined using Fisher’s exact test for the categorical variables, and Wilcoxon rank-sum test for the continuous variables. A multivariable logistic model was fitted for the development of PI with adjustments for potential confounders.Results: Of 161 patients, 125 met the inclusion criteria. Length of stay, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, use of vasopressors, and the Braden score were statistically significant predictors of PI risk development; tissue perfusion was not significant.Conclusion: ICU patients have a higher mortality and severity of illness. The Braden score guides implementation of PI preventative measures. The relationship between tissue perfusion and PI development may warrant further research. A broader clinical picture to incorporate the Braden scale and other risk factors in PI development such as Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score and use of vasopressors should be considered.

Evaluation of perioperative pressure injury in adults 65 years and older: A prospective cohort study

IntroductionOld age is an important risk factor for the formation of pressure injury (PI). The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence, risk factors, characteristics of PI and suitability of risk assessment tools for patients aged 65 years and older. MethodThis prospective monocentric cohort study was conducted in Turkey between September 2022 and March 2023. Data were collected from a total of 240 surgical patients aged 65 years and older using a skin assessment form and the Braden and Munro scales for PI risk assessment. ResultsThe patients had a mean age of 72.90 ± 5.53 years, 123 (51 %) were male, 203 (85 %) had chronic diseases, and the mean operative time was 194.83 ± 99.45 min. PI occurred in 45 patients (18.8 %). PIs were most commonly stage I and located in the coccyx region. Postoperative Munro score, postoperative Braden score, and operative time were significant in univariate analyses (p < 0.001). According to the multiple logistic regression model, a postoperative Munro score ≥26 and postoperative Braden score ≤20 were independent factors associated with increased risk of PI. ConclusionMeasures to prevent PI in surgical patients should begin in the preoperative period. Age alone may not be a risk factor in geriatric surgical patients. The Munro and Braden PI risk assessment scales can be used in geriatric surgical patients, but changes in cut-off score calculations may be required and additional age-related risk factors should be evaluated.

Predictive validity and reliability of two pressure injury risk assessment scales at a neonatal intensive care unit.

To compare the predictive ability and reliability of two pressure injury (PI) assessment tools, the Neonatal/Infant(N/I) Braden Q and Braden QD scale, in neonates. A prospective and cross-sectional study. This study was conducted in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) of a tertiary-level university hospital in China between April and June 2023. A total of 410 patients were included in this study. Risk assessment was performed with the N/I Braden Q scale, followed immediately with the Braden QD scale once daily. Risk assessment was terminated when the PI developed or the patient was discharged from the NICU or died. Each patient's final risk assessment was considered in the data analysis. The area under the curve (AUC) of the two scales was 0.879 and 0.857, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and Cronbach's α coefficient of the N/I Braden Q Scale scores were 0.844, 0.833, 0.30, 0.984 and 0.806, respectively. The Braden QD scale scores were 0.938, 0.733, 0.229, 0.993 and 0.727, respectively. Both scales are valid and reliable in predicting the risk of PI in the NICU. The N/I Braden Q Scale was better to distinguish patients at PI risk and not at PI risk than the Braden QD scale. The literature is limited on this topic. This study provides insight into the comparison of different pressure injury risk assessment scales. The findings of this study may guide nurses to choose a suitable tool to assess the risk of pressure injury in neonates.

Comparison of four risk assessment scales in predicting the risk of intraoperative acquired pressure injury in adult surgical patients: a prospective study.

To develop and compare four predictive models for intraoperative acquired pressure injury (IAPI) in surgical patients. One hundred patients undergoing various surgeries (hepatobiliary, pancreas, spleen, gastrointestinal, and cardiac surgeries) at Ruijin Hospital from November 2021 to September 2022 were included in this prospective cohort study. Four pressure injury risk assessment scales were used to measure the pressure injury risk: the Braden scale, Munro Pressure Injury Risk Assessment Scale, Scott Triggers tool, and CORN Intraoperative Acquired Pressure Injury Risk Assessment Scale. The patients were divided into the IAPI group and non-IAPI group. In total, 37% of patients (37/100) developed class I/stage pressure injury (erythema) after surgery, which resolved within 2 hours after surgery in 86.49% of cases and further progressed to class II/stage or higher pressure injury within 6 days in 15.63% of cases. The application effects of the four commonly used risk assessment tools were compared with the sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. The Munro Scale showed the best sensitivity and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve among the four tools for postoperative assessment, but its specificity was only 20.63. More appropriate assessment tools are required for IAPI risk evaluation.

Epidemiological characteristics of pressure injury and the predictive validity of Braden scale among the older hospitalized patients: A cross-sectional study.

To investigate the epidemiological characteristics of pressure injury (PI) in older inpatients and predictive validity of the Braden scale. Cross-sectional study. Conducted in a 2600-bed tertiary hospital in Northwestern China from January to June 2022, the study included older patients (≥60 years). The Braden scale was used for the risk assessment of PI, and the epidemiological characteristics of PI were observed. The contributing factors of PI in older inpatients were examined using univariate and multiple or multivariable logistic regression analysis. The predictive validity and optimal cut-off value were assessed using receiver operating curve (ROC). The study included 13,064 older patients, with a PI incidence of 0.20%, with the highest incidence (0.95%) in those aged ≥80. Age, BMI, Braden score and length of hospital stay were related to PI occurrence. The Braden scale showed an AUC of 0.905 for predicting PI in older inpatients, with a sensitivity of 84.6% and specificity of 86.4%. The optimal cut-off value of 19 yielded the best predictive performance with a Yoden index of 0.710. PI is most likely to occur in older inpatients with older age, longer hospital stay, lower BMI and Braden score. The Braden scale demonstrated good suitability for predicting PI risk in this population, with an optimal cut-off value of 19 showing improved predictive accuracy. Throughout the investigation, patients or family members cooperated to complete all data investigation and evaluation, and nurses assisted in PI risk assessment, skin evaluation and other work.

Associations between body morphology, skin microclimate and pressure injury risk assessment during a critical illness; a prospective observational study

Associations between body morphology, skin microclimate and pressure injury risk assessment during a critical illness; a prospective observational study

Validity and Reliability Evidence of the Munro Scale for Perioperative Patients, Part I: Correlation, Multiple Regression, and Reliability.

Background and Purpose: Patients undergoing surgery are at risk of pressure injury development and should be assessed to ensure measures are taken for prevention. The study's purpose was to examine the causal relationships and reliability of the Munro Pressure Injury Risk Assessment Scale for Perioperative Patients (Munro Scale). The Munro Scale is the first dynamic risk scale available for this patient population in the acute clinical setting. Methods: This study was a retrospective review to explore the relationships of the variables in the Munro Scale, identify the strongest predictors, and measure the reliability of previously collected data from two northeastern community hospitals. A total of 630 risk assessments were analyzed to obtain regression, correlation, and reliability evidence for the Munro Scale. Results: The correlation analysis among the 15 risk variables and combined comorbidities revealed commonalities among the variables and significant relationships to the final postoperative injury score. The model as a whole is significant to predict the final level of risk. Coefficient alpha revealed a lower than anticipated reliability when compared to the Chinese, Turkish, and Brazilian versions of the Munro Scale. Conclusions: There are significant relationships among the variables, and the scale is acceptable for use in the acute perioperative practice setting. This study has both clinical and statistical significance.

The Shieh Score as a Risk Assessment Instrument for Reducing Hospital-Acquired Pressure Injuries: A Prospective Cohort Study.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the Shieh Score's effectiveness in decreasing the rate of hospital-acquired pressure injuries when combined with an early warning notification system and standard order set of preventative measures. This was a prospective cohort study. This target population was nonpregnant, adult, hospitalized patients on inpatient and observation status at a tertiary hospital (Kaiser Permanente, Baldwin Park, California) during the 2020 year of the COVID-19 pandemic. A new, risk assessment instrument, the Shieh Score, was developed in 2019 to predict hospitalized patients at high risk for pressure injuries. Data collection occurred between January 21, 2020, and December 31, 2020. When a hospital patient met the high-risk criteria for the Shieh Score, a provider-ordered pink-colored sheet of paper titled "Skin at Risk" was hung at the head of the bed and a standard order set of pressure injury preventative measures was implemented by nursing staff. Implementation of the program (Shieh Score, early warning system, and standard order set for preventive interventions) resulted in a 38% reduction in the annual hospital-acquired pressure injury rate from a mean incidence rate of 1.03 to 0.64 hospital-acquired pressure injuries per 1000 patient-days measured for the year 2020. The Shieh Score is a pressure injury risk assessment instrument, which effectively identifies patients at high risk for hospital-acquired pressure injuries and decreases the hospital-acquired pressure injury rate when combined with an early warning notification system and standard order set.

Validity and Reliability Evidence of the Munro Scale for Perioperative Patients Part II: Construct Validity.

Background and Purpose: The Munro Pressure Injury Risk Assessment Scale for Perioperative Patients (Munro Scale) is the first three-phase risk instrument designed specifically for perioperative patients. The purpose of this study was to establish validity and reliability evidence for the Munro Scale. This study also had a goal to reduce the data into more manageable constructs with fewer items. Methods: Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were used to test the hypothesized model for risk assessment using the Munro Scale to identify latent variables. A retrospective review of charts from 630 risk assessments was analyzed from two community acute care hospital settings. Results: The model explained 95% of the variance in the cumulative final risk level, R2 = .95, F(20, 588) = 501.88, p < .001. Six latent variables emerged in the model with a cumulative contribution rate of 56% of the variance. Similar results were obtained in studies with Chinese and Turkish translations of the Munro Scale. Conclusions: The validity and reliability evidence obtained in this study supports the implementation of the Munro Scale for clinical practice in the perioperative setting.

Data-driven approach to predicting the risk of pressure injury: A retrospective analysis based on changes in patient conditions.

To determine the risk of pressure injury development in the intensive care unit based on changes in patient conditions. This retrospective study was based on secondary data analysis. Patient data from electronic health records were retrospectively obtained and we included 438 and 1752 patients with and without pressure injury, respectively, among those admitted to the medical and surgical intensive care units (ICUs) from January 2017-February 2020. Changes in patient conditions were analysed based on the first and last objective data values from the day of ICU admission to the day before the onset of pressure injury and categorised as follows: improved, maintained normal, exacerbated and unchanged. Logistic regression was performed to identify the significant predictors of pressure injury development based on 11 variables. The 11 selected variables were age, body mass index, activity, acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II score, nursing severity level, pulse and albumin, haematocrit, C-reactive protein, total bilirubin and blood urea nitrogen levels. The risk for a pressure injury was high with exacerbation of or persistently abnormal levels of nursing severity, albumin, haematocrit, C-reactive protein, blood urea nitrogen and pulse >100 beat/min. Periodic monitoring of haematological variables is important for preventing pressure injury in the intensive care unit. The study followed STROBE guidelines. This study contributes to the utilisation of patient data from electronic health records. In addition to other pressure injury risk assessment tools, ICU nurses can help prevent pressure injuries by assessing patients' blood test results, thereby promoting patient safety and enhancing the efficacy of nursing practice.

Braden Scales for Pressure Injury Risk Assessment

Delmore, Barbara A. PhD, RN, CWCN, MAPWCA, FAAN; Ayello, Elizabeth A. PhD, RN, CWON, MAPWCA, FAAN Author Information

Assessment of the risk factors for intraoperative pressure injuries in patients

AimThis study was conducted to assess the risk factors for pressure injuries in patients during surgery. MethodsIn this descriptive cross-sectional study, the risk of pressure injuries during surgery was evaluated in 250 patients in a university hospital. Data were collected through a Patient Descriptive Information Form (PDIF) and the 3S Intraoperative Pressure Injury Risk Assessment Scale (IPIRAS). ResultsThe mean age of the patients was 44.15 ± 17.00, and 52.4% were female. In addition, it was determined that the mean 3S IPIRAS score was higher in patients who were male, were aged ≥60 years, were obese, had a chronic disease, and had low serum albumin and hemoglobin levels (p < .05). During the surgery of the patients included in the study, support surfaces were used in 67.6%, positioning aids were used in 82.4%, and 55.6% had normal skin. Patients who underwent CVS procedures for more than 6 h, did not use support surfaces during surgery, had moist skin, or used vasopressors had higher and significantly different mean 3S IPIRAS scores (p < .05). ConclusionsAccording to the results, all surgical patients were at risk for pressure injury in the intraoperative period. In addition, it was found that male gender was associated with risk factors and that being aged ≥60 years, obesity, chronic disease, low serum hemoglobin and albumin levels, CVS, operations lasting more than 6 h, moist skin, vasopressor drugs, and not using support surfaces during surgery increased the risk of pressure injuries significantly.

Evaluating the effects of implementing a hospital-acquired pressure injury risk assessment hand-off tool

More than 2.5 million patients suffer from pressure ulcer injuries each year, estimating that 60,000 die from complications (Joint Commission Center for Transforming Healthcare, 2021). Hospital acquired pressure injuries (HAPI) present as skin and muscle damage, slowed healing, and increased pain and infections that result from delayed wound care and treatments to fragile areas. Reports from Rondinelli et al. (2018) showed that implementing a HAPI risk assessment hand-off tool worked to reduce such events.&#x0D; In 2021, a coastal community hospital located in Southeast Texas recorded 5% HAPI events, which resulted in the creation of a student developed HAPI risk assessment hand-off tool. The aim of this quality improvement (QI) project was to decrease HAPI events in the Cardiothoracic IMU to 0% by February 2022. Kurt Lewin's Change Theory was used to guide project interventions.&#x0D; After receiving project approval, four changes were implemented. A unit champion, responsible for monitoring the accuracy of Braden Score documentation was designated. Nurses implemented interaction-based patient repositioning every 2 hours and participated in monthly HAPI prevention and education meetings. Lastly, nurses completed the hand-off tool to verify staff compliance. Chart audits and a student developed questionnaire was used to determine the usefulness of the HAPI risk assessment hand-off tool. After one month of chart audits, and use of the hand off tool, the HAPI occurrence rate decreased to 3%. This project concluded that the student developed HAPI risk assessment hand-off tool had no significant effect on the reduction of HAPI occurrences within the cardiothoracic IMU.

Effectiveness of the best practice spotlight organizations program to reduce the prevalence of pressure injuries in acute care settings for hospitalized patients in Spain: A quasi-experimental study.

Pressure injuries are a major public health problem because of their impact on morbidity and mortality, quality of life, and increased healthcare costs. The Centros Comprometidos con la Excelencia en Cuidados/Best Practice Spotlight Organization (CCEC/BPSO®) program provides guidelines that can improve these outcomes. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of the CCEC/BPSO® program in improving the care of patients at risk of pressure injury (PI) at an acute care hospital in Spain. A quasi-experimental regression discontinuity design in three periods was used: (1) baseline (2014), (2) implementation (2015-2017), and (3) sustainability (2018-2019). The study population was comprised of 6377 patients discharged from 22 units of an acute care hospital. The performance of the PI risk assessment and reassessment, the application of special pressure management surfaces, and the presence of PIs were all monitored. Forty-four percent of patients (n=2086) met the inclusion criteria. After implementing the program, the number of patients assessed (53.9%-79.5%), reassessed (4.9%-37.5%), the application of preventive measures (19.6%-79.7%), and the number of people identified with a PI in implementation (1.47%-8.44%) and sustainability (1.47%-8.8%) all increased. The implementation of the CCEC/BPSO® program achieved improved patient safety. Risk assessment monitoring, risk reassessment, and special pressure management surfaces were practices that increased during the study period and were incorporated by professionals to prevent PIs. The training of professionals was instrumental to this process. Incorporating these programs is a strategic line to improve clinical safety and the quality of care. The implementation of the program has been effective in terms of improving the identification of patients at risk and the application of surfaces.