Advanced search
1 file | 1.67 MB Add to list

Pressure ulcers : predicting factors, prevention and costs

(2014)
Author
Promoter
(UGent) and (UGent)
Organization
Abstract
The research outline pursued with this thesis can be divided in three parts. In the first part, studies to compare the effectiveness of several interventions for the prevention of pressure ulcers were conducted. Pressure ulcer prevention focusses on the reduction of the amount and duration of pressure and shear. An alternating device intermittently removes pressure and shear from vulnerable areas. It provides pressure relief via cyclic inflating and deflating air cells. Systematic reviews and (inter)national guidelines demonstrate inconclusive results as to the superiority of one specific alternating pressure device. An example of an active support surface is an alternating pressure air mattress (APAM), available as overlays or replacement mattress, and ALPAMs (Alternating Low Pressure Air Mattresses). Differences between several types of active support surfaces can be related to differences in surface characteristics, such as cycle time, air cell inflation sequence, and pressure amplitude. The inflation and deflation of the air cells of an APAM and ALPAMs are characterized by a steep, one-stage inflation or deflation. ALPAMs were designed by the medical technology industry to generate lower pressures compared to APAMs. More recently these ALPAMs have been modified so that the transition from deflated air cell to inflated air cell is more gradual or multi-staged. As more complex technology does not necessarily lead to more effective devices, the aim of the first trial was to examine the influence of a multi-stage inflation and deflation cycle versus a one-stage inflation and deflation cycle. The multi-stage ALPAM did not result in a significantly lower pressure ulcer incidence compared to the one-stage ALPAM. Both mattresses were equally effective to prevent pressure ulcers. The time to develop a pressure ulcer was comparable in both groups. Secondly, the effectiveness of an APAM overlay was compared with the effectiveness of a one-stage and a multi-stage ALPAM. A reduced incidence of pressure ulcers was found in the multi-stage ALPAM group compared to the APAM overlay group. No significant differences in pressure ulcer development were found between a one-stage ALPAM and an APAM overlay. The median time to develop a pressure ulcer was similar among groups. Despite preventive measures provided in the effectiveness studies, a proportion of the patients developed a pressure ulcer. The identification of these ‘high risk’ patients is examined in the second part of this dissertation and is crucial to further improve the quality of care. The aim of a subsequent study was to identify factors that independently predicted the development of a pressure ulcer in an at risk population who received standardised preventive care. The presence of non-blanchable erythema, having a urogenital disorder, and higher body temperature were found to be predictive factors associated with the development of a pressure ulcer. In the third part of this thesis the cost of pressure ulcer prevention and treatment was addressed. International literature found a cost of pressure ulcer prevention per patient at risk varying between €2.65 and €87.57 per day. The cost of pressure ulcer treatment ranged from €1.73 to €812.92 per patient per day. These studies encompassed a considerable methodological heterogeneity in terms of the type of health economic design, health economic perspective, the cost components, and the health outcomes. In a subsequent study insight was provided into the cost of pressure ulcer prevention and treatment in hospitals and nursing homes in Flanders using a mixed perspective. In hospitals, a cost for pressure ulcer prevention of €7.88 per patient at risk per day was found. In nursing homes, a cost of €2.15 per resident at risk per day was calculated. The cost of pressure ulcer prevention for patients and residents perceived not at risk for pressure ulcer development was €1.44 per day in hospitals and €0.50 per day in nursing homes. The main cost driver was found to be the cost of labour, rather than the cost of devices. The average cost of treatment per patient per day varied from €2.34 (category I) to €77.36 (category IV) in hospitals, and from €2.42 (category I) to €16.18€ (category IV pressure ulcer) in nursing homes.
Keywords
predictive factors, Nursing, pressure ulcer prevention, Pressure ulcers, costs

Downloads

  • Doctoraat Liesbet Demarre.pdf
    • full text
    • |
    • open access
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 1.67 MB

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

MLA
Demarré, Liesbet. “Pressure Ulcers : Predicting Factors, Prevention and Costs.” 2014 : n. pag. Print.
APA
Demarré, L. (2014). Pressure ulcers : predicting factors, prevention and costs. Ghent University, Ghent.
Chicago author-date
Demarré, Liesbet. 2014. “Pressure Ulcers : Predicting Factors, Prevention and Costs”. Ghent: Ghent University.
Chicago author-date (all authors)
Demarré, Liesbet. 2014. “Pressure Ulcers : Predicting Factors, Prevention and Costs”. Ghent: Ghent University.
Vancouver
1.
Demarré L. Pressure ulcers : predicting factors, prevention and costs. [Ghent]: Ghent University; 2014.
IEEE
[1]
L. Demarré, “Pressure ulcers : predicting factors, prevention and costs,” Ghent University, Ghent, 2014.
@phdthesis{5839718,
  abstract     = {The research outline pursued with this thesis can be divided in three parts. In the first part, studies to compare the effectiveness of several interventions for the prevention of pressure ulcers were conducted. Pressure ulcer prevention focusses on the reduction of the amount and duration of pressure and shear. An alternating device intermittently removes pressure and shear from vulnerable areas. It provides pressure relief via cyclic inflating and deflating air cells.  Systematic reviews and (inter)national guidelines demonstrate inconclusive results as to the superiority of one specific alternating pressure device. An example of an active support surface is an alternating pressure air mattress (APAM), available as overlays or replacement mattress, and ALPAMs (Alternating Low Pressure Air Mattresses). Differences between several types of active support surfaces can be related to differences in surface characteristics, such as cycle time, air cell inflation sequence, and pressure amplitude. The inflation and deflation of the air cells of an APAM and ALPAMs are characterized by a steep, one-stage inflation or deflation.
ALPAMs were designed by the medical technology industry to generate lower pressures compared to APAMs. More recently these ALPAMs have been modified so that the transition from deflated air cell to inflated air cell is more gradual or multi-staged. As more complex technology does not necessarily lead to more effective devices, the aim of the first trial was to examine the influence of a multi-stage inflation and deflation cycle versus a one-stage inflation and deflation cycle. The multi-stage ALPAM did not result in a significantly lower pressure ulcer incidence compared to the one-stage ALPAM. Both mattresses were equally effective to prevent pressure ulcers. The time to develop a pressure ulcer was comparable in both groups. 
Secondly, the effectiveness of an APAM overlay was compared with the effectiveness of a one-stage and a multi-stage ALPAM. A reduced incidence of pressure ulcers was found in the multi-stage ALPAM group compared to the APAM overlay group. No significant differences in pressure ulcer development were found between a one-stage ALPAM and an APAM overlay. The median time to develop a pressure ulcer was similar among groups.
Despite preventive measures provided in the effectiveness studies, a proportion of the patients developed a pressure ulcer. The identification of these ‘high risk’ patients is examined in the second part of this dissertation and is crucial to further improve the quality of care. The aim of a subsequent study was to identify factors that independently predicted the development of a pressure ulcer in an at risk population who received standardised preventive care. The presence of non-blanchable erythema, having a urogenital disorder, and higher body temperature were found to be predictive factors associated with the development of a pressure ulcer. 
In the third part of this thesis the cost of pressure ulcer prevention and treatment was addressed. International literature found a cost of pressure ulcer prevention per patient at risk varying between €2.65 and €87.57 per day. The cost of pressure ulcer treatment ranged from €1.73 to €812.92 per patient per day. These studies encompassed a considerable methodological heterogeneity in terms of the type of health economic design, health economic perspective, the cost components, and the health outcomes. In a subsequent study insight was provided into the cost of pressure ulcer prevention and treatment in hospitals and nursing homes in Flanders using a mixed perspective. In hospitals, a cost for pressure ulcer prevention of €7.88 per patient at risk per day was found. In nursing homes, a cost of €2.15 per resident at risk per day was calculated. The cost of pressure ulcer prevention for patients and residents perceived not at risk for pressure ulcer development was €1.44 per day in hospitals and €0.50 per day in nursing homes. The main cost driver was found to be the cost of labour, rather than the cost of devices. The average cost of treatment per patient per day varied from €2.34 (category I) to €77.36 (category IV) in hospitals, and from €2.42 (category I)  to €16.18€ (category IV pressure ulcer) in nursing homes.},
  author       = {Demarré, Liesbet},
  isbn         = {9789078344377},
  keywords     = {predictive factors,Nursing,pressure ulcer prevention,Pressure ulcers,costs},
  language     = {eng},
  pages        = {264},
  publisher    = {Ghent University},
  school       = {Ghent University},
  title        = {Pressure ulcers : predicting factors, prevention and costs},
  year         = {2014},
}