Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Pressure Ulcer Prevalence (pressure + ulcer_prevalence)
Selected AbstractsRACIAL DIFFERENCES IN PRESSURE ULCER PREVALENCE IN NURSING HOMESJOURNAL OF AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY, Issue 6 2005Kate L. Lapane PhD No abstract is available for this article. [source] Differences in prevalence of pressure ulcers between the Netherlands and Germany , associations between risk, prevention and occurrence of pressure ulcers in hospitals and nursing homesJOURNAL OF CLINICAL NURSING, Issue 9 2008Antje Tannen MA Aim., This study compares pressure ulcer prevalence and prevention activities in nursing homes and hospitals within two European countries. Background., Over three years stable differences have been found between the Netherlands (NL) and Germany (GER) with higher pressure ulcer rates in the NL. As previous analyses have shown, the differences cannot be entirely explained by differences in the population's vulnerability to pressure ulcers because they still remain after risk adjustment. Therefore, the differences in prevalence must be caused by other factors. The purpose of this study is to analyse if any potential differences in preventive activities can account for the varying occurrence of pressure ulcers. Method., In both countries, nation-wide surveys were conducted annually using the same standardised questionnaires. Trained nurses examined all consenting patients of the voluntarily participating facilities. This examination included a skin assessment of the entire body. Data regarding risk factors, prevention and details about wounds were then collected. Results., In-patients of 29 German (n = 2531) and 71 Dutch (n = 10 098) nursing homes and 39 German (n = 8515) and 60 Dutch (n = 10 237) hospitals were investigated. The use of pressure-reducing devices was more common in the NL than in GER, but all other interventions were more frequently provided to German risk patients than to their Dutch counterparts. The pressure ulcer prevalence was significantly higher in the Dutch sample. After adjusting for gender, age, Braden Score and prevention, the probability of having a pressure ulcer was 8·1 times higher for Dutch nursing home residents than for German residents. Conclusion., Some of the variance in pressure ulcer prevalence between the two countries can be explained by varying pressure ulcer prevention. However, some remarkable differences still remain unexplained. Relevance to clinical practice., The extent of pressure ulcer prevention, especially repositioning and nutrition intervention provided to patients at risk, is not in accordance with international guidelines. [source] Explaining the national differences in pressure ulcer prevalence between the Netherlands and Germany , adjusted for personal risk factors and institutional quality indicatorsJOURNAL OF EVALUATION IN CLINICAL PRACTICE, Issue 1 2009Antje Tannen RN MA MPH Abstract Background, Pressure ulcers have a known impact on quality of life as well as on morbidity and mortality of the persons affected. Remarkable differences in pressure ulcer prevalence between the Netherlands and Germany have been found during the last 6 years. This study explores to what extent the individual risk of the population and quality indicators of the institutions can explain the variation in national prevalence. Methods, Data of a binational multi-centred cross-sectional study in 103 hospitals (n = 21 378 patients) and 129 nursing homes (n = 15 579 residents) were analysed using random effects regression models to calculate the differences in national prevalences within the nursing homes and hospitals, adjusted for personal risk for pressure ulcer and quality indicators. Results, The prevalence of pressure ulcers among the at-risk group (Bradenscore ,20) in nursing homes was 30.8% in the Netherlands and 8.3% in Germany [OR: 4.9 (CI 95%: 4.2,5.7)]. In hospitals, the prevalence among the at-risk group was 26.1% in the Netherlands and 21.2% in Germany [OR: 1.3 (CI 95%: 1.2,1.5)]. After adjusting for individual risk factors (age, gender, Bradenscore) as well as for quality structures (use of prevention and treatment protocols, experts groups, information leaflets, nurses training, central pressure ulcer statistics and regular updating of protocols), the chance of developing a pressure ulcer was 6.05 times higher (CI 95%: 4.0,9.2) in a Dutch nursing home than in a German nursing home. Within the hospitals, the OR for Dutch patients was 2.03 (CI 95%: 1.4,3.0). Conclusion, A remarkable national variation exists in pressure ulcer prevalence and nursing practice. Neither the populations vulnerability for pressure ulcers nor pressure ulcer management as measured in this study could explain this national variation. Therefore, other risk factors should be taken into consideration. Additionally, it is possible that quality indicators are implemented in differing ways with varying levels of effectiveness. Therefore, further research is needed to examine prospectively and in more detail the reality of care within facilities in both countries. [source] | ||||||||||