2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.iccn.2021.103180
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Incidence, characteristics and risk factors of medical device-related pressure injuries: An observational cohort study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

4
43
0
4

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 37 publications
(51 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
4
43
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…In this study, the ratio of development of MDRPI in a public hospital in Turkey was examined, and it was observed that MDRPI developed in approximately one in every four patients (27.2%) treated in the ICU. In other studies conducted in Turkey, the prevalence of MDRPI was assessed to be 40%–48.8% (Dalli et al, 2022; Hanonu & Karadag, 2016), and it was observed that this rate differed in other countries. For example, the prevalence of MDRPI was 47% in Northeastern, Southeastern, and Midwestern United States (Arnold‐Long et al, 2017); 32.4% in Saudi Arabia (Amirah et al, 2017); 20.1% in the Netherlands (Ham et al, 2017); 9.7% in Australia (Ackland et al, 2007); 3.1% in Australia and USA (Coyer et al, 2014); 2.2% in the United Kingdom (Walker, 2012); 1.9% in the USA (Black et al, 2010); and 0.6% in the USA and Canada (Kayser et al, 2018).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 96%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In this study, the ratio of development of MDRPI in a public hospital in Turkey was examined, and it was observed that MDRPI developed in approximately one in every four patients (27.2%) treated in the ICU. In other studies conducted in Turkey, the prevalence of MDRPI was assessed to be 40%–48.8% (Dalli et al, 2022; Hanonu & Karadag, 2016), and it was observed that this rate differed in other countries. For example, the prevalence of MDRPI was 47% in Northeastern, Southeastern, and Midwestern United States (Arnold‐Long et al, 2017); 32.4% in Saudi Arabia (Amirah et al, 2017); 20.1% in the Netherlands (Ham et al, 2017); 9.7% in Australia (Ackland et al, 2007); 3.1% in Australia and USA (Coyer et al, 2014); 2.2% in the United Kingdom (Walker, 2012); 1.9% in the USA (Black et al, 2010); and 0.6% in the USA and Canada (Kayser et al, 2018).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Having examined the literature, there are limited studies on the risks and rate of development of MDRPIs in Turkey (Dalli et al, 2022; Hanonu & Karadag, 2016). This study is important in terms of reflecting the example of a public hospital located in the most geographically crowded region of Turkey and in terms of being conducted on a large sample group.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…At present, due to the different sample sizes and the fact that there are few large‐scale epidemiological investigations on facial pressure injury related to adult non‐invasive ventilation equipment at home and abroad, most of them are limited to a single city or country, reporting the current situation of facial pressure injury in a single institution. In addition to this, the estimated prevalence of facial pressure injury related to adult non‐invasive ventilation equipment ranges from 3.9% 15 to 100% 16 . Therefore, the prevalence of facial pressure injuries related to adult non‐invasive ventilation equipment has been reported differently in different studies.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition to this, the estimated prevalence of facial pressure injury related to adult non‐invasive ventilation equipment ranges from 3.9% 15 to 100%. 16 Therefore, the prevalence of facial pressure injuries related to adult non‐invasive ventilation equipment has been reported differently in different studies. This has made it difficult to understand the epidemiology of facial pressure injures associated with non‐invasive ventilation equipment.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…catheter displacement or slippage: the moment of placement as a reference, excluding medical adjustment of catheter position, the change in the scale of the gastric tube out of the nostril < 5cm is called displacement, and the change in the scale of the gastric tube out of the nostril > 10cm is called detachment [7]; The rate of rolled edge of nasal patch and the frequency of replacement: the upper edge of nasal patch with xed gastric tube was rolled, and the total length of detachment from the skin was ≥ 5mm, which was considered as rolled edge [8] and the average number of days to replace the nasal patch was recorded Medical device related pressure injury of the nose (MDRPI) [9] and pre-injury status: the pressure injury caused by the diagnosed or treated medical device and the shape of the injury location is consistent with the shape of the medical device type; Medical adhesive related skin injury (MARSI) [10]: observe whether the local skin from the beginning of the indwelling nasal cannula to the end of the placement of the cannula appears to last erythema and/or other skin abnormalities such as blistering, erosion or skin avulsion for 30 min or more; Patient comfort evaluation: after the end of catheterization, the kolcaba comfort status scale (GCQ) was used to evaluate the comfort level of patients [11],with 4 dimensions and 28 items, including 5 items of physical dimension, 10 items of psycho-spiritual dimension, 7 items of environmental dimension and 6 items of socio-cultural dimension 6 items. The minimum score is 30 and the maximum score is 120, with higher scores indicating greater comfort, with a total score of < 60 being low comfort, 60-90 being moderate comfort, and > 90 being high comfort.…”
Section: Assessment Of Related Indexesmentioning
confidence: 99%