Conectar
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.
To explore clinicians' and patients' perceptions of implementing evidence-based practice to improve clinical practice for preventing and managing surgical site infections within hospital acute care settings.
A convergent integrated mixed-methods systematic review using the Joanna Briggs Institute approach.
Included studies reported (i) acute care hospital clinicians' and patients' experiences and preferences for preventing and managing surgical site infections and (ii) barriers and facilitators to implementing surgical site infection prevention and management guidelines. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and the Quality Improvement Minimum Quality Criteria Set were used for critical appraisal. Quantitative data was transformed into qualitised data, then thematically synthesised with qualitative data and coded all findings into themes. Clinicians' and patients' views were also compared.
English language peer-reviewed studies published from 2009 to March 2023 were identified from Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Cochrane Central Library.
Thirty-seven studies (16 quantitative, 17 qualitative, 3 mixed-methods and 1 quality improvement) met the inclusion criteria. Five main themes represent key factors believed to influence the implementation of evidence-based surgical site infection prevention and management guidelines: (1) Intentional non-adherence to insufficiently detailed and outdated guidelines, (2) Knowledge deficits on evidence-based SSI care bring about inconsistent clinical practice, (3) Collaborative interdisciplinary and patient-provider relationship to enhance guideline uptake, (4) Infection surveillance to improve patient safety and quality of life and (5) Negative physical and psychological impacts on patients.
The five themes reflect a need for updated hospital guidelines as a medium to improve surgical site infection knowledge and ensure consistent and evidence-based clinical practice. This review also highlights the significance of interdisciplinary and patient-provider collaboration and infection surveillance to facilitate guideline uptake. The effectiveness of intervention bundles designed to improve these aspects of care will need to be evaluated in future research.
A future intervention bundle that includes (1) ensuring up-to-date hospital guidelines/policies; (2) fostering collaborative interdisciplinary teamwork culture between physicians, nurses, podiatrists, pharmacists and allied health professionals; (3) encouraging patient or carer involvement in shared decision-making and (4) implementing audit and feedback mechanism on infection surveillance is proposed to improve SSI prevention and management in acute care settings.
This paper followed the PRISMA 2020 checklist guideline for reporting systematic reviews.
This mixed-methods systematic review collates evidence of clinicians' and patients' experiences and preferences for preventing and managing surgical site infections. The inclusion of hospital patients' perspectives supports the development of patient-centred interventions.
Trial Registration: The review protocol is registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021250885). Available at: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021250885
FreshRSS 