The trend of pressure ulcer prevalence rates in German hospitals: Results of seven cross-sectional studies

Kottner, Jan; Wilborn, Doris; Dassen, Theo; Lahmann, Nils

doi:10.1016/j.jtv.2009.02.002

Cited by 72 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example it can be assumed that due to higher PU prevalence and incidence rates on intensive care units as compared to other specialties37 ICU patients are also at much greater PU risk. This assumption was confirmed in numerous studies38,39 supporting the construct validity of PU risk scales. However, the known group design is a necessary step in instrument validation but it is not sufficient 15…”

Section: Quality Of Pressure Ulcer Risk Scalessupporting

confidence: 57%

Do pressure ulcer risk assessment scales improve clinical practice?

Kottner

Balzer²

2010

JMDH

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standardized assessment instruments are deemed important for estimating pressure ulcer risk. Today, more than 40 so-called pressure ulcer risk assessment scales are available but still there is an ongoing debate about their usefulness. From a measurement point of view pressure ulcer (PU) risk assessment scales have serious limitations. Empirical evidence supporting the validity of PU risk assessment scale scores is weak and obtained scores contain varying amounts of measurement error. The concept of pressure ulcer risk is strongly related to the general health status and severity of illness. A clinical impact due do the application of these scales could also not be demonstrated. It is questionable whether completion of standardized pressure ulcer risk scales in clinical practice is really needed.

show abstract

Section: Quality Of Pressure Ulcer Risk Scalessupporting

confidence: 57%

Do pressure ulcer risk assessment scales improve clinical practice?

Kottner

Balzer²

2010

JMDH

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…centros hospitalarios, tanto a nivel nacional (16) como internacional (8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15), se aboga, al igual que otros autores (4), por continuar realizando estudios de prevalencia para disminuir la tasa de prevalencia de UPP.…”

Section: Conclusionesunclassified

Estudio de prevalencia de úlceras por presión en la Clínica Universidad de Navarra

Labiano-Turrillas¹,

Larrea-Leoz²,

Vázquez‐Calatayud

et al. 2013

Gerokomos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The prevalence of PUs varies between 5-30% but has been decreasing during the last two decades. [1][2][3][4][5] PUs cause morbidity, carry a considerable risk of complications, and their treatment is costly and a burden for nursing staff. 2,5,6 Different pathophysiological factors contribute to the development of PUs in different patient groups.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Occurrence of Pressure Ulcers and Risk Factors in a Mixed Medical-Surgical ICU — A Cohort Study

Ahtiala

Soppi

Wiksten

et al. 2014

Journal of the Intensive Care Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2010, a three-year research programme was launched to study the occurrence and significance of certain risk factors for pressure ulcers (PUs) in a mixed intensive care unit (ICU), and to find previously unidentified risk factors. A modified Jackson/Cubbin (mJ/C) risk scale was used to formalise PU risk assessment. Adult patients needing intensive or high dependency care were included. The first results of a whole cohort (n=1,629 patients) treated in 2010 are reported. In this cohort, 72% of the patients had a surgical condition and 31% needed treatment for three or more days. The prevalence of PUs was 11.8% and the incidence was 11.1% (181/1,629) or the incidence rate was 3.0/100 ICU days. The most common sites of PUs were the sacrum, heels and nose. Nasal PUs were associated with masks used for noninvasive ventilation. Demographic variables did not differ between patients with or without PUs. Medical patients had the highest incidence of PUs (18.2%). In this group, 46.6% of patients without PU had a mJ/C-score ≤29 and 55.8% of the patients with PUs had a similar score. Patients with longer treatment times (three days or more) and medical patients had increased risk for PU development. The results indicate that the previously published J/C cut-off score of 29 may not be optimal for the identification of high/extremely high-risk patients. Further analysis of the patient populations, their PU risk factors and the significance of individual components of the J/C risk scale are ongoing.

show abstract

The trend of pressure ulcer prevalence rates in German hospitals: Results of seven cross-sectional studies

Cited by 72 publications

References 27 publications

Do pressure ulcer risk assessment scales improve clinical practice?

Do pressure ulcer risk assessment scales improve clinical practice?

Estudio de prevalencia de úlceras por presión en la Clínica Universidad de Navarra

Occurrence of Pressure Ulcers and Risk Factors in a Mixed Medical-Surgical ICU — A Cohort Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About