Interpretation of pressure‐sore prevalence

Abstract

Pressure sores result in patient morbidity and mortality as well as commanding considerable resources within the British National Health Service. To assess the impact of preventive measures, accurate and reliable rates of prevalence and incidence are required. This information is likely to be used as a measure of quality of care as well being included in future purchaser/provider contracting. A number of prevalence studies have been carried out in the United Kingdom using a variety of populations and different methods. The methods employed in these studies need to be considered before any meaningful comparisons can be drawn. In particular, there are variations in the reported rates possibly related to the under-reporting of pressure sore prevalence. This paper describes a recent point prevalence study which suggested that this may be the case. The need for caution when comparing crude rates is highlighted and the importance of standardizing the methods used for determining prevalence rates is discussed.

Nursing assessment documentation and care of hip fracture patients’ skin

“…This is in line with other studies (Allcock et al, 1994;Berglund and Nordström, 1995;Gunningberg et al, 1999).…”

Reliability of the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel classification system

“…Surprisingly, there are only a limited number of studies evaluating the interrater reliability of pressure ulcer grading scales, despite their everyday use (Allcock et al. 1994, Healey 1995, Buntinx et al.…”

“…Allcock et al. (1994) asked infection control link nurses to assess six photographs using a classification system consisting of six grades.…”

Pressure sore prevalence within a public health services area

“…There is also a risk for under‐reported or over‐reported early stages of pressure sores that is related to the grading score used. 7 …”