Use Of Prophylactic Dressings Research Articles

Nurses' Perspectives on the Use of Prophylactic Dressings to Prevent Pressure Injury: A Qualitative Study.

To understand, from a nursing perspective, factors affecting the use of prophylactic dressings to prevent pressure injuries in acute hospitalised adults. Pressure injury causes harm to patients and incurs significant costs to health services. Significant emphasis is placed on their prevention. Relatively recently, prophylactic dressings have been promoted to reduce pressure injury development. However, in the acute care setting, information about the clinical use of these dressing is lacking. Qualitative, descriptive. Nineteen medical and surgical nurses participated. Semi-structured interviews were conducted and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was performed using an inductive approach using NVivo software. Three themes were identified, reflecting factors that influenced and perpetuated indiscriminate use of prophylactic dressings: False sense of security; Convenience and task prioritisation; and Navigating challenges in evidence-based pressure injury prevention. The findings indicate inconsistent prevention practices, with prophylactic dressings often applied without justification or referral to research-based evidence to guide clinical decision-making. There was a prevailing attitude of 'job done' when a prophylactic dressing was applied. This study has identified several factors that perpetuate the inappropriate use of prophylactic dressings for pressure injury prevention that may be amenable to organisational change. The findings indicate that nurses often rely on these dressings as a shortcut due to time constraints, which led to missed skin assessments and low-value care. The research can be used to inform the development of clear guidelines on dressings within hospital settings which encourage assessment-based selection for their use, and process-based guidance for their application, skin surveillance, dressing inspection and removal. The Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) reporting guideline was followed. Neither patients nor the public were directly involved in this study.

Determining the incidence and risk factors of medical device-related pressure injury in intensive care patients

AimThis study aims to determine the incidence and risk factors of Medical Device-Related Pressure Injury (MDRPI) in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients. Material and methodsThis descriptive cross-sectional study involved 300 patients who did not have an MDRPI at the time of admission to the ICU of a university hospital in Turkey. The data was collected using the Patient Information Form, the Medical Device-Related Pressure Injury Follow-Up Chart, and the Jackson/Cubbin Risk Assessment Scale. ResultsThe mean age of the patients was 71.88 ± 14.82 years old. Precisely 31% of patients were found to be at risk for pressure injuries, and MDRPI occurred in 18% of them. It was found that patients most commonly experienced stage 1 MDRPI in the hand-finger region due to pulse oximetry. It was also determined that nasal cannulas caused MDRPI the fastest. Patients with MDRPI had low Jackson/Cubbin scores, low albumin and hematocrit levels, and longer hospitalization durations (p < .05). Dependence on -respiratory support device, bedridden, and experiencing non-device-related pressure injuries were associated with MDRPI (p < .05). ConclusionIt was found that factors causing non-device-related pressure injuries may also pose an MDRPI risk for patients in intensive care. It was also observed that devices used in ICU could cause pressure injuries even in very short periods in cases where necessary precautions are not taken. Periodic evaluation of the area the medical devices are in contact with, removal of unused devices as quickly as possible, and the use of prophylactic dressings can play an important role in preventing MDRPI.

The clinical effectiveness of an integrated multidisciplinary evidence-based program to prevent intraoperative pressure injuries in high-risk children undergoing long-duration surgical procedures: A quality improvement study.

The prevention of hospital-acquired pressure injuries (HAPIs) in children undergoing long-duration surgical procedures is of critical importance due to the potential for catastrophic sequelae of these generally preventable injuries for the child and their family. Long-duration surgical procedures in children have the potential to result in high rates of HAPI due to physiological factors and the difficulty or impossibility of repositioning these patients intraoperatively. We developed and implemented a multi-modal, multi-disciplinary translational HAPI prevention quality improvement program at a large European Paediatric University Teaching Hospital. The intervention comprised the establishment of wound prevention teams, modified HAPI risk assessment tools, specific education, and the use of prophylactic dressings and fluidized positioners during long-duration surgical procedures. As part of the evaluation of the effectiveness of the program in reducing intraoperative HAPI, we conducted a prospective cohort study of 200 children undergoing long-duration surgical procedures and compared their outcomes with a matched historical cohort of 200 children who had undergone similar surgery the previous year. The findings demonstrated a reduction in HAPI in the intervention cohort of 80% (p < 0.01) compared to the comparator group when controlling for age, pathology, comorbidity, and surgical duration. We believe that the findings demonstrate that it is possible to significantly decrease HAPI incidence in these highly vulnerable children by using an evidence-based, multi-modal, multidisciplinary HAPI prevention strategy.

Fit testing and comfort evaluation of prophylactic dressing use for healthcare workers under N95/P2 respirators in one health service district in Australia

This study evaluated the use of prophylactic dressings (silicone foam, silicone tape, hydrocolloid) under N95/P2 respirators to determine which dressings fit successfully. The aim was to develop a health service protocol for one state in Australia. Data were collected during August and September 2021 as part of the Respiratory Protection Programme on 600 health workers using three types of prophylactic dressings. Five different types of respirators were used. Participant healthcare workers rated comfort on a four-point Likert scale. Successful fit was achieved by 63.6% of the respirator-dressing combinations. The best-performing respirator-dressing combination was the Trident® respirator with dressing Mepilex® Lite silicone foam (90.2% pass rate). High pass rates were found in the Trident® respirator with Mepilex® Border Lite with SofSicure silicone tape (79.1%); the 3M™ 1860 respirator with Mepilex® Border Lite with SofSicure silicone tape (74%); and the BSN orange duckbill respirator with Mepilex® Lite silicone foam (69.8%). The poorest-performing combination was the BYD™ respirator with Mepilex® Border Lite with SofSicure silicone tape (25.9% pass rate). Uncorrected chi-squared tests for association revealed significant associations between dressing type and outcome (P=0.004) and respirator type and outcome (P<0.001). Most respondents (82%) found the dressing combination markedly comfortable. When using prophylactic dressings under N95/P2 respirators, it is necessary to perform a fit test. In this study Trident® respirators had the highest probability of successful fit, while BYD™ respirators had the lowest. Combining Trident® respirators with Mepilex® Lite dressing was optimal. Most participants reported greater comfort with the dressings under the respirators.

Impact on quantitative fit-test results after application of prophylactic hydrocolloid dressing under N95 respirators.

Discomfort and device-related pressure injury (DRPI) caused by N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) are common. The use of prophylactic hydrocolloid dressings is one of the strategies that may improve comfort and reduce DRPI. In this study, we investigated the impact of these dressings on N95 respirator fit. We performed a repeat quantitative fit testing through the Respiratory Protection Program on 134 healthcare workers (HCWs), who applied hydrocolloid dressings on the bridge of their nose under the N95 FFRs that they passed the initial fit test with, but reported discomfort with the FFR. With the hydrocolloid dressings in place, the fit-test pass rate for the semirigid cup style (3M 1860) was 94% (108 of 115); for the the vertical flat-fold style (BYD), the pass rate was 85% (44 of 52); for the duckbill style (BSN medical ProShield and Halyard Fluidshield), the pass rate was 81% (87 of 108); and for the 3-panel flat-fold style (3M Aura) N95 FFRs, the pass rate was 100% (3 of 3). There was a statistically significant reduction in the overall fit factors for both the vertical flat-fold and duckbill type N95 respirators after the application of hydrocolloid dressings. Hydrocolloid dressings are likely to disturb the mask seal for nonrigid-style N95 FFRs, particularly the vertical flat-fold style and the duckbill style N95 FFRs. Given the risk of mask seal disturbance of N95 respirators as shown in this study, we advocate that any HCW requiring the use of prophylactic dressings should undergo repeat quantitative fit testing with the dressing in place prior to using the dressing and mask in combination.

Effect of Soft Silicone Foam Dressings on Intraoperatively Acquired Pressure Injuries: A Randomized Study in Patients Undergoing Spinal Surgery

To examine how the use of a soft silicone foam dressing affects the development of IAPIs in patients undergoing spinal surgery to obtain baseline data supporting evidence-based nursing care. Using a self-controlled study design, 64 patients requiring thoracic or lumbar surgery on a Wilson frame at a hospital in Seoul, South Korea, were recruited between February 12 and September 1, 2018; 50 patients were eligible. Basic demographic, health, and surgical data were obtained. Before surgery, the left or right side chest and iliac crest areas were randomly assigned to be covered with a soft silicone foam dressing. The areas were assessed at 2 time points: immediately after and 30 minutes after surgery. If an IAPI was present at 30 minutes after surgery, all sites were reevaluated after 7 days. The majority of participants were male (26 participants, 52%). Average patient age was 62.54 (± 13.83) years, with a body mass index of 24.32 (± 4.23) kg/m2. Average length of surgery was 218.4 (± 137) minutes. Immediately after surgery, 26 IAPIs were observed and there was a significant difference between dressed and non-dressed chest areas for the number of IAPIs (4% vs. 28%; P = .002). After 30 minutes, the total number of IAPIs was 20 and the difference between IAPIs in the iliac crest area was significant between dressed and non-dressed areas (0% vs. 14%; P = .012). After 1 week, there were no chest or iliac crest IAPIs in the areas that had been covered by a dressing; however, 8 chest (61.5%) and 4 iliac crest (30.8%) area IAPIs remained when no dressing had been applied. The majority of IAPIs were stage 1 at all assessment times. After 1 week, 1 IAPI had evolved into a stage 3 injury. The results of this study show that many stage 1 IAPIs do resolve over time and that use of soft silicone foam dressings during spinal surgery can significantly reduce IAPI rates. Additional longitudinal studies are needed to help guide postoperative skin assessment intervals and increase the understanding about the evolution of stage 1 IAPIs.

Prevention of skin damage caused by the protective equipment used to mitigate COVID-19: monthly update.

Prevention of skin damage caused by the protective equipment used to mitigate COVID-19: monthly update.

Device-related pressure ulcers in community settings.

Understanding the differential diagnosis between device-related pressure ulcers (DRPUs) and pressure ulcers ensures that appropriate prevention, management and intervention plans are identified. National reporting systems now include DRPUs alongside other categories of pressure ulcers listed by international pressure ulcer advisory panels. Medical devices are not the only cause of DRPUs, and, in the community setting, other objects can also cause pressure ulcers, such as spectacles and hearing aids. Skin assessment around the site of devices is essential to ensure the skin is intact, the micro-climate is considered and the skin is properly cleansed. Risk assessment for devices should be undertaken, and prevention according to the device itself may include fixation and the use of prophylactic dressings. Advice and support must be given to patients and carers to facilitate self-care and identify signs of skin damage and infection.

Guideline Implementation: Positioning the Patient

Every surgical procedure requires positioning the patient; however, all surgical positions are associated with the potential for the patient to experience a positioning injury. The locations and types of potential injuries (eg, stretching, compression, pressure injury) depend on the position. Factors that may increase the patient’s risk for an injury are the length of the procedure and risk factors inherent to the patient (eg, weight, age, frailty). AORN’s updated “Guideline for positioning the patient” provides guidance on injury prevention practices for all surgical positions including supine, Trendelenburg, reverse Trendelenburg, lateral, lithotomy, prone, and sitting positions and modifications of these positions. This article focuses on the key points of the guideline covering the use of prophylactic dressings, neurophysiological monitoring, and safely positioning the patient in the supine and prone positions. Perioperative RNs should review the complete guideline for additional information and for guidance when writing and updating policies and procedures.

The use of prophylactic dressings in the prevention of pressure ulcers: a literature review

Pressure ulcers pose a significant burden to both patients and health care resources. There are an increasing number of studies that have examined the use of prophylactic dressings, and their ability to redistribute pressure and protect the skin from shear and friction damage. This literature review examines six studies conducted on this controversial subject. Brindle and Wegelin ( 2012 ; Chaiken, 2012 ; Cubit et al, 2012 ; Santamaria et al, 2012) all examined the role of dressings to prevent pressure ulcers, and Call et al (2013a ; 2013b ), conducted in vitro research into the mode of dressings. Current research suggests that while further research is required, the use of prophylactic dressings have a place alongside standard measures, in helping to prevent pressure, shear and friction damage.

Pressure ulcer prevention and treatment: use of prophylactic dressings

Pressure ulcer prevention and treatment: use of prophylactic dressings

Role of multi-layer foam dressings with Safetac in the prevention of pressure ulcers: a review of the clinical and scientific data

Despite the implementation of prevention strategies, pressure ulcers (PUs) continue to be a challenging health problem for patients (and their carers), clinicians and health-care providers. One area of growing interest is the use of prophylactic dressings (which were originally designed for the treatment of PUs and other wound types) as a component of standard prevention measures. Over the past few years, a large amount of scientific and clinical data relating to this subject has been published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at international meetings and conferences. A substantial proportion of these data relate to one group of dressings: multi-layer foam dressings with Safetac, which are manufactured by Mölnlycke Health Care (Gothenburg, Sweden). This evidence pool has influenced the experts involved in updating the Clinical Practice Guideline, produced by the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel and Pan Pacific Pressure Injury Alliance, on the prevention and treatment of PUs. The updated Guideline, published in 2014, recommends that, as part of their PU prevention regimens, clinicians should consider applying prophylactic dressings to bony prominences in anatomical areas that are frequently subjected to friction and shear. A literature review was undertaken to identify clinical data from the entire evidence hierarchy, as well as scientific data from laboratory studies, on the use of multi-layer foam dressings with Safetac in the prevention of pressure ulceration. The MEDLINE (National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, US) and EMBASE (Elsevier B, Amsterdam, Netherlands) bibliographic databases were searched. In addition, abstract books and proceedings documents relating to national and international conferences were scanned in order to identify presentations (i.e. oral, e-posters and posters) of relevance to the review. Clinical and health economic experts have undertaken numerous studies, including randomised controlled trials, to assess the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of using multi-layer foam dressings with Safetac as a component of standard PU prevention strategies. The results of these studies indicate that the application of multi-layer foam dressings containing Safetac can reduce the occurrence of PUs on anatomical locations such as the sacrum and the heel, and underneath medical devices. Scientists have also developed and used laboratory methods to gain a better understanding of how prophylactic dressings work. The results of these studies indicate that the composition of foam dressings containing Safetac (i.e. their multi-layer structure) sets them apart from other dressings due to their ability to mediate the effects of physical forces (i.e. pressure, friction and shear) and control microclimate, all of which contribute to pressure ulceration. The evidence pool clearly indicates that the prophylactic use of multi-layer foam dressings with Safetac as a component of standard prevention measures is beneficial to the clinician, the health-care provider and the patient. It should be noted that the findings outlined in this review may not be transferable to other products as their makeup and components are likely to differ significantly from those of multi-layer foam dressings with Safetac. As the importance of evidence-based practice and the need for cost-effective care continues to grow, clinicians and provider should carefully consider this point when selecting prophylactic dressings for PU prevention.

An estimate of the potential budget impact of using prophylactic dressings to prevent hospital-acquired PUs in Australia.

To estimate the potential cost saving to the Australian health-care system of introducing the use of prophylactic dressings to prevent hospital-acquired pressure ulcers (PUs) for patients with a high-risk developing a PU. We estimated the costs of pressure ulceration based on conservative estimates of an incidence rate of 13% within 10% of the total admitted Australian patient population. RESULTS from a recent large randomised control trial of prophylactic dressing used to prevent PUs in high-risk patients were then extrapolated to this population to derive a potential national cost/benefit calculation. Our estimate revealed that within the high-risk population of acute hospitals, more than 71,000 patients could be expected to develop a PU annually costing AU$77,800,000 (£43,000,000). Whereas by implementing a national PU prevention initiative based on the use of prophylactic multilayer silicone foam dressings for high-risk patients, an annual saving of AU$34,800,000 (£19,700,000) could be achieved, which represents a cost benefit of 55% to the Australian health-care system. Our estimate of the potential cost benefit of implementing the use of prophylactic dressings to prevent hospital acquired PUs in high-risk patients uses conservative estimates of both the incidence rates of ulceration and of treatment costs. However, this is also based on one of the largest reported randomised control trials of this technique to prevent PUs. We believe that our modelling is robust yet requires replication in other countries with different health-care systems and costing structures.

Systematic review of the use of prophylactic dressings in the prevention of pressure ulcers

This systematic review considers the evidence supporting the use of prophylactic dressings for the prevention of pressure ulcer. Electronic database searches were conducted on 25 July 2013. The searches found 3026 titles and after removal of duplicate records 2819 titles were scanned against the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Of these, 2777 were excluded based on their title and abstract primarily because they discussed pressure ulcer healing, the prevention and treatment of other chronic and acute wounds or where the intervention was not a prophylactic dressing (e.g. underpads, heel protectors and cushions). Finally, the full text of 42 papers were retrieved. When these 42 papers were reviewed, 21 were excluded and 21 were included in the review. The single high-quality randomised controlled trial (RCT) and the growing number of cohort, weak RCT and case series all suggest that the introduction of a dressing as part of pressure ulcer prevention may help reduce pressure ulcer incidence associated with medical devices especially in immobile intensive care unit patients. There is no firm clinical evidence at this time to suggest that one dressing type is more effective than other dressings.