Device-related pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: An Australian and New Zealand point prevalence study. Issue 6 (November 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Coyer, Fiona; Barakat-Johnson, Michelle; Campbell, Jill; Palmer, Jennifer; Parke, Rachael L.; Hammond, Naomi E.; Knowles, Serena; Doubrovsky, Anna
• Is Part Of: Australian critical care. Volume 34:Issue 6(2021)
• Page Start: 561
• Page End: 568
• Publication Date: 2021-11
• Subjects: Adult intensive care -- Device-related pressure injury -- Point prevalence -- Pressure injury; Intensive care nursing -- Periodicals; Intensive care nursing -- Australia -- Periodicals; Electronic journals; 616.028
• DOI: 10.1016/j.aucc.2020.12.011
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1036-7314

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Device-related pressure injuries (DRPIs) are an ongoing iatrogenic problem evident in intensive care unit (ICU) settings. Critically ill patients are at high risk of developing pressure injuries caused by devices. Objective: The aim of the study was to determine the prevalence of DRPI in critically ill patients in intensive care and the location, stage, and attributable device of DRPI and describe the products and processes of care used to prevent these injuries. Methods: This was a prospective, multicentre, cross-sectional point prevalence study of patients aged more than 16 years in Australian and New Zealand ICUs. The study was part of the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Clinical Trials Group Point Prevalence Program coordinated by The George Institute for Global Health. Main outcome measure: Identification of DRPI on the study day was the main outcome measure. Results: Of the 624 patients included from 44 participating ICUs, 27 were found to have 35 identified DRPIs, giving a point prevalence DRPI rate of 4.3% (27/624). Study patients had a mean age of 59 years, and 60.3% were men. Patients with DRPI compared with patients without DRPI were significantly heavier (median: 92 kg versus 80 kg, respectively, p = 0.027), were less likely to survive the ICU (63.0% versus 85.9%, respectively, p = 0.015), had higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores at admission to the ICU (median: 20 versus 16, respectively, p = 0.001), received mechanical ventilation more often (88.9% versus 43.5%, respectively, p < 0.001), and were more frequently diagnosed with respiratory conditions (37.0% versus 18.6%, respectively, p = 0.022). Processes of care activities were surveyed in 42 ICUs. Most DRPIs were attributed to endotracheal tubes and other respiratory devices. Forty-two ICUs reported processes of care to prevent DRPI, and just more than half of the participating sites (54.8%, 23/44) reported a dedicated ICU-based protocol for prevention of DRPI. Conclusion: DRPIs pose a burden on patients in the ICU. Our study showed a DRPI prevalence comparable with other studies. Prevention strategies targeting DRPI should be included in ICU-specific pressure injury prevention guidelines or protocols.