Conectar
To analyse existing knowledge on the psychometric properties of the Braden Scale when used within the acute care setting.
Systematic review and narrative synthesis.
A database search was conducted in June 2023 and updated in February 2024, seeking studies testing the psychometric properties of the Braden scale in the acute care setting. Data were sourced from five electronic databases (CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Scopus and Web of Science). Study selection, data extraction and assessment of risk of bias were completed, with two reviewers independently conducting each stage and an independent reviewer arbitrating discrepancies. Data were extracted using a customised template and synthesised narratively. Risk of bias was assessed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist.
Thirty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Internal consistency was reported between 0.64 and 0.78 (Cronbach's alpha). Inter-rater reliability was high, reported as ranging from 0.946 to 0.964 (intra-class correlations) or 0.86 to 0.949 (Pearson's correlation). Most validity studies tested predictive validity with wide variances reported.
The Braden Scale is reliable for assessing the risk of PI in acute care, but the validity of the scale is variable. Further research investigating validity beyond predictive validity is required.
Nurses working in acute care can use the Braden Scale with confidence of scale reliability. However, validity is variable and warrants a cautious approach. The true value resides in the capacity to trigger recognition of pressure injury risk.
Trial Registration: The protocol was registered a priori with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews PROSPERO ref: CRD42023407545
To describe the cumulative incidence and characteristics of hospital-acquired pressure injury in acute palliative patients.
Secondary data analysis of hospital-acquired pressure injuries during 2019–2022.
The setting was a palliative care unit at a tertiary hospital in Queensland, Australia, including adult (≥ 18 years) acute-phase palliative inpatients. Retrospective data from four databases were used to identify and analyse hospital-acquired pressure injury cases from 2019 to 2022. Clinical characteristics of patients with and without hospital-acquired pressure injury were compared.
The incidence of hospital-acquired pressure injury in acute palliative care patients was 3.9% over the 4 years. These patients were predominantly male, with an average age of 74 years, with 66 of 78 cases developing in the deteriorating palliative care phase. Using the Waterlow Score, 51.3% of patients were assessed as at very high risk of pressure injury. Ninety-five hospital-acquired pressure injuries were reported in 78 patients; 16.8% were medical device-related, 40% were Stage 1 injuries, and the most common injury sites were the sacrum, heels and genitals. Patients with hospital-acquired pressure injury had significantly higher (worse) scores on both the palliative care Resource Utilisation Group-Activities of Daily Living and Problem Severity Scores. Regression analysis identified a high Problem Severity Score on admission as a significant predictor for hospital-acquired pressure injury development.
The incidence of hospital-acquired pressure injury in acute palliative patients is lower than in previous studies. However, many injuries occurred in those in the deteriorating phase, with higher scores for severity of symptoms. These findings suggest that acute palliative patients do require nursing care for pressure injury prevention, as well as for symptom management and activities-of-daily-living. Overall, this research contributes to a deeper understanding of pressure injury incidence and characteristics for acute palliative care patients. Future research should focus on population-specific pressure injury risk assessment to explore risk factors in greater detail.
Current pressure injury risk assessment tools, like the Waterlow Score, may not provide the comprehensive evaluation needed for the acute palliative care cohort. To better address the unique needs of this cohort, it may be necessary to refine existing tools or develop new instruments that integrate palliative-specific assessments, such as the Resource Utilisation Group-Activities-of-Daily-Living (RUG-ADL) and Problem (symptom) Severity Score (PSS). These adaptations could help improve pressure injury prevention care planning and enhance outcomes for patients in this setting.
This study separated acute palliative care patients from those at end-of-life and found a 3.9% cumulative incidence of pressure injuries. There were no significant differences in age, gender, or cancer diagnosis between patients with and without injuries. Patients without injuries were more likely to be in the deteriorating phase, while those with injuries had higher (worse) RUG-ADL scores. Regression analysis showed that each one-point increase in the PSS (symptom severity) made patients 1.2 times more likely to develop a pressure injury. The findings suggest that combining a validated risk assessment tool with the RUG-ADL and PSS tools could provide a more accurate risk assessment for hospitalised acute palliative care patients.
STROBE reporting guideline.
No patient or public contribution.
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.
FreshRSS 