Of all patients in a hospital environment, trauma patients may be particularly at risk for developing (device-related) pressure ulcers (PUs), because of their traumatic injuries, immobility, and exposure to immobilizing and medical devices. Studies on device-related PUs are scarce. With this study, the incidence and characteristics of PUs and the proportion of PUs that are related to devices in adult trauma patients with suspected spinal injury were described. From January–December 2013, 254 trauma patients were visited every 2 days for skin assessment. The overall incidence of PUs was 28⋅3% (n = 72/254 patients). The incidence of device-related PUs was 20⋅1% (n = 51), and 13% (n = 33) developed solely device-related PUs. We observed 145 PUs in total of which 60⋅7% were related to devices (88/145). Device-related PUs were detected 16 different locations on the front and back of the body. These results show that the incidence of PUs and the proportion of device-related PUs is very high in trauma patients
DOCUMENT
Objectives To explore the influence of risk factors present at Emergency Department admission on pressure ulcer development in trauma patients with suspected spinal injury, admitted to the hospital for evaluation and treatment of acute traumatic injuries. Design Prospective cohort study setting level one trauma center in the Netherlands participants adult trauma patients transported to the Emergency Department on a backboard, with extrication collar and headblocks and admitted to the hospital for treatment or evaluation of their injuries. Methods Between January and December 2013, 254 trauma patients were included. The following dependent variables were collected: Age, Skin color and Body Mass Index, and Time in Emergency Department, Injury Severity Score, Mean Arterial Pressure, hemoglobin level, Glasgow Coma Score, and admission ward after Emergency Department. Results Pressure ulcer development during admission was associated with a higher age (p 0.00, OR 1.05) and a lower Glasgow Coma Scale score (p 0.00, OR 1.21) and higher Injury Severity Scores (p 0.03, OR 1.05). Extra nutrition decreases the probability of PU development during admission (p 0.04, OR 0.20). Pressure ulcer development within the first 48 h of admission was positively associated with a higher age (p 0.01, OR 1.03) and a lower Glasgow Coma Scale score (p 0.01, OR 1.16). The proportion of patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit and Medium Care Unit was higher in patients with pressure ulcers. Conclusions The pressure ulcer risk during admission is high in patients with an increased age, lower Glasgow Coma Scale and higher Injury Severity Score in the Emergency Department. Pressure ulcer risk should be assessed in the Emergency Department to apply preventive interventions in time.
LINK
Background: The transformation in global demography and the shortage of health care workers require innovation and efficiency in the field of health care. Digital technology can help improve the efficiency of health care. The Mercury Advance SMARTcare solution is an example of digital technology. The system is connected to a hybrid mattress and is able to detect patient movement, based on which the air pump either starts automatically or sends a notification to the app. Barriers to the adoption of the system are unknown, and it is unclear if the solution will be able to support health care workers in their work. Objective: This study aims to gain insight into health care workers’ expectations of factors that could either hamper or support the adoption of the Mercury Advance SMARTcare unit connected to a Mercury Advance mattress to help prevent patients from developing pressure injuries in hospitals and long-term care facilities. Methods: We conducted a generic qualitative study from February to December 2022. Interviews were conducted, and a focus group was established using an interview guide of health care workers from both the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Thematic analysis was performed by 2 independent researchers. Results: A total of 14 participants took part in the study: 6 (43%) participants joined the focus group, and 8 (57%) participants took part in the individual interviews. We identified 13 factors based on four themes: (1) factors specifically related to SMARTresponse, (2) vision on innovation, (3) match with health care activities, and (4) materials and resources involved. Signaling function, SMARTresponse as prevention, patient category, representatives, and implementation strategy were identified as facilitators. Perception of patient repositioning, accessibility to pressure injury aids, and connectivity were identified as barriers. Conclusions: Several conditions must be met to enhance the adoption of the Mercury Advance SMARTcare solution, including the engagement of representatives during training and a reliable wireless network. The identified factors can be used to facilitate the implementation process. JMIR Nursing 2024;7:e47992
DOCUMENT
