Objective To review observational studies reporting medical device-related pressure injuries and to identify the medical devices commonly associated with pressure injuries. Design A systematic review of primary research was undertaken, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Data sources A comprehensive electronic literature search of AMED, CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, British Nursing Database and Google Scholar was conducted from inception to 31 st December 2018. Studies that reported the prevalence or incidence of medical device-related pressure injuries and published in English language were included in the review. Review methods The eligibility of studies was evaluated independently by three of the four authors and audited by an independent researcher. The titles and abstracts of all studies were screened to identify studies that met the inclusion criteria. Full-text articles of the remaining studies were obtained and screened against the inclusion criteria. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Meta-analysis was conducted using the 'metaprop' routine, with estimates of medical device-related pressure injuries from the included studies pooled using DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model. Meta-regression analysis was also conducted to examine between-study heterogeneity. Results Twenty-nine studies (17 cross-sectional studies; 12 cohort studies) comprising data on 126,150 patients were eligible for inclusion in this review. The mean ages for patients were approximately 36.2 years (adults) and 5.9 years (children). The estimated pooled incidence and prevalence of medical device-related pressure injuries were 12% (95% CI 8-18) and 10% (95%

Findings of our study support the need to develop an appropriate assessment tool for pressure injury patients in the community to enable healthcare professionals and patients to recognize and manage pressure injury-related pain effectively.

Background: Attention to patient safety and harm has largely focused upon hospital-based

Aims Deep surgical site infection (SSI) is common after lower limb fracture. We compared the diagnosis of deep SSI using alternative methods of data collection and examined the agreement of clinical photography and in-person clinical assessment by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) criteria after lower limb fracture surgery. Methods Data from two large, UK-based multicentre randomized controlled major trauma trials investigating SSI and wound healing after surgical repair of open lower limb fractures that could not be primarily closed (UK WOLLF), and surgical incisions for fractures that were primarily closed (UK WHiST), were examined. Trial interventions were standard wound care management and negative pressure wound therapy after initial surgical debridement. Wound outcomes were collected from 30 days to six weeks. We compared the level of agreement between wound photography and clinical assessment of CDC-defined SSI. We are also assessed the level of agreement between blinded independent assessors of the photographs. Results Rates of CDC-defined deep SSI were 7.6% (35/460) after open fracture and 6.3% (95/1519) after closed incisional repair. Photographs were obtained for 77% and 73% of WOLLF and WHiST cohorts respectively (all participants n = 1,478). Agreement between photographic-SSI and CDC-SSI was fair for open fracture wounds (83%; k = 0.27 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.42)) and for closed incisional wounds (88%; k = 0.29 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.37)) although the rate of photographically detected deep SSIs was twice as high as CDC-SSI (12% vs 6%). Agreement between different assessors for photographic-SSI (WOLLF 88%, k = 0.63 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.72); WHiST 89%; k = 0.61 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.69)); and wound healing was good (WOLLF 90%; k = 0.80 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.86); WHiST 87%; k = 0.57 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.64)). Conclusion Although wound photography was feasible within the research context and inter-rater assessor agreement substantial, digital photographs used in isolation overestimated deep SSI rates, when compared to CDC criteria. Wound photography should not replace clinical assessment in pragmatic trials but may be useful for screening purposes where surgical infection outcomes are paramount. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(12):1802–1808.

a b s t r a c tBackground: Costs for the prevention and management of pressure ulcers have increased significantly with limited published advice from health and social care organisations on seating and preventing pressure ulcers. At the request of the UK Tissue Viability Society the aim of the publication was to develop a practical guide for people, carers and health and social care professionals on how the research and evidence base on pressure ulcer prevention and management can be applied to those who remain seated for extended periods of time. Methods and findings: The evidence base informing the guidelines was obtained by applying a triangulation of methods: a literature review, listening event and stakeholder group consultation. The purpose was to engage users and carers, academics, clinicians, inspectorate and charities, with an interest in seating, positioning and pressure management to: gather views, feedback, stories, and evidence of the current practices in the field to create a greater awareness of the issue. Conclusion:The new guidelines are inclusive of all people with short and long-term mobility issues to include all population groups. The document includes evidence on where pressure ulcers develop when seated, risk factors, best possible seated position and what seat adjustments are required, the ideal seating assessment, interventions, self-help suggestions and key seating outcomes. The updated TVS CPGs have been informed by the best available evidence, the insights and wisdom of experts, stakeholders and people who spend extended periods of time sitting.