PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to examine clinical characteristics and risk factors for critically ill patients who develop pressure injuries and identify the proportion of validated unavoidable pressure injuries associated with the proposed risk factors for acute skin failure (ASF). DESIGN: Retrospective case-control comparative study. SUBJECTS AND SETTING: The sample comprised adult critically ill participants hospitalized in critical care units such as surgical, trauma, cardiovascular surgical, cardiac, neuro, and medical intensive care and corresponding progressive care units in 5 acute care hospitals within a large Midwestern academic/teaching healthcare system. Participants who developed hospital-acquired pressure injuries (HAPIs) and patients without HAPIs (controls) were included. METHODS: A secondary analysis of data from a previous study with HAPIs and matching data for the control sample without HAPIs were obtained from the electronic health record. Descriptive and multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The sample comprised 475 participants; 165 experienced a HAPI and acted as cases, whereas the remaining 310 acted as controls. Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) mean score (23.8, 8.7%; P < .001), mortality (n = 45, 27.3%; P = .002), history of liver disease (n = 28, 17%; P < .001), and unintentional loss of 10 lb or more in 1 month (n = 20, 12%; P = .002) were higher in the HAPI group. Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified participants with respiratory failure (odds ratio [OR] = 3.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.27-7.08; P = .012), renal failure (OR = 7.48; 95% CI, 3.49-16.01; P < .001), cardiac failure (OR = 4.50; 95% CI, 1.76-11.51; P = .002), severe anemia (OR = 10.89; 95% CI, 3.59-33.00; P < .001), any type of sepsis (OR = 3.15; 95% CI, 1.44-6.90; P = .004), and moisture documentation (OR = 11.89; 95% CI, 5.27-26.81; P <.001) were more likely to develop a HAPI. No differences between unavoidable HAPI, avoidable HAPI, or the control group were identified based on the proposed ASF risk factors. CONCLUSION: This study provides important information regarding avoidable and unavoidable HAPIs and ASF. Key clinical characteristics and risk factors, such as patient acuity, organ failure, tissue perfusion, sepsis, and history of prior pressure injury, are associated with avoidable and unavoidable HAPI development. In addition, we were unable to support a relationship between unavoidable HAPIs and the proposed risk factors for ASF. Unavoidability of HAPIs rests with the documentation of appropriate interventions and not necessarily with the identification of clinical risk factors.

A process evaluation was conducted as part of a comparative effectiveness trial of a mailed interactive educational DVD intervention to promote colorectal cancer screening among average-risk patients who did not attend a scheduled colonoscopy. Participants (n = 371) for the trial were randomized to (1) mailed DVD, (2) mailed DVD plus patient navigation, or (3) usual care. Participants (n = 243) randomized to the two DVD intervention arms were called 2 weeks after mailing materials to complete a process evaluation interview about the DVD (September 2017–February 2020). Forty-nine (20%) participants were not reached, and 194 (80%) participants watched the DVD and completed the interview. The process evaluation assessed whether (1) the DVD content was helpful, (2) any new information was learned by participants, (3) the appropriate amount of information was included in the DVD, (4) participants were engaged when watching the DVD, (5) the DVD content was relevant, (6) participants were satisfied with the DVD (7) participants would recommend the DVD to others, and (8) their opinion about colorectal cancer screening was changed by watching the DVD. Among participants who watched the DVD, 99% reported the screening information was very or somewhat helpful, 47% learned new information, 75% said the DVD included the right amount of information, they were engaged (M = 3.35 out of 4, SD = 0.49), 87% reported all or most information applied to them, they were satisfied (M = 3.42 out of 4, SD = 0.39) with DVD content, 99% would recommend the DVD to others, and 45% reported changing their opinion about screening. To understand the effects of interventions being tested in trials and to plan the dissemination of evidence-based interventions, process evaluation is critical to assess the dose received and acceptability of behavioral interventions.