Relationship Between Prescription and Documentation of Pressure Injury Prevention Interventions and Their Implementation: An Exploratory, Descriptive Study. Issue 6 (22nd November 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Lovegrove, Josephine; Fulbrook, Paul; Miles, Sandra
• Is Part Of: Worldviews on evidence-based nursing. Volume 17:Issue 6(2020)
• Page Start: 465
• Page End: 475
• Publication Date: 2020-11-22
• Subjects: pressure injury -- pressure ulcer -- prevention -- patient care planning -- implementation; Evidence-based nursing -- Periodicals; 610.7
• DOI: 10.1111/wvn.12473
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1545-102X

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Formal assessment by nurses of a patient's pressure injury (PI) risk level is often highlighted as being key to PI prevention. However, if no action is taken to address the determined risk (i.e., if appropriate preventative interventions are not implemented), the patient remains vulnerable to PI development, and the assessment process is rendered pointless. Aim: To explore the relationship between the prescription (planning) and implementation of PI preventative interventions by nurses following formal risk assessment. Methods: Using an exploratory, descriptive design, the charts and bedside areas of 200 adult patients admitted across four hospital wards were examined. Data collected included PI risk level, documented prescribed preventative interventions, and interventions for which there was evidence of implementation. Results: Of the final sample ( n = 187), 66.8% of cases were categorized as being "at‐risk" or above. As the risk category of patients increased, proportionately more patients in each category were prescribed each intervention. However, in most cases, significantly fewer interventions were actually implemented than were prescribed, except for several interventions that were implemented in more cases than were prescribed. There were 14 cases, including four at‐risk and three high‐risk patients, in which no preventative interventions were prescribed, while 88.7% of not at‐risk patients had (unnecessary) preventative interventions prescribed. Discussion: These results indicate that intervention prescription increased relative to assessed level of risk; however, the rates of intervention prescription and actual implementation were suboptimal. The results indicate a significant mismatch between these two steps of PI prevention. Linking evidence to action: These results indicate that intervention prescription increased relative to assessed level of risk; however, the rates of intervention prescription and actual implementation were suboptimal. A significant mismatch between these two steps of PI prevention was evident. Following patient risk assessment, there should be a greater focus on appropriate preventative intervention prescription (planning) with regular review and audit to help ensure that interventions are implemented as prescribed. Improved implementation of preventative interventions should, in turn, help to reduce hospital‐acquired pressure injuries.