Our objective was to estimate the US national cost burden of hospital-acquired pressure injury (HAPI) using economic simulation methods. We created a Markov simulation to estimate costs for staged pressure injuries acquired during hospitalisation from the hospital perspective. The model analysed outcomes of hospitalised adults with acute illness in 1-day cycles until all patients were terminated at the point of discharge or death. Simulations that developed a staged pressure injury after 4 days could advance from Stages 1 to 4 and accrue additional costs for Stages 3 and 4. We measured costs in 2016 US dollars representing the total cost of acute care attributable to HAPI incidence at the patient level and for the entire United States based on the previously reported epidemiology of pressure injury. US HAPI costs could exceed $26.8 billion. About 59% of these costs are disproportionately attributable to a small rate of Stages 3 and 4 full-thickness wounds, which occupy clinician time and hospital resources. HAPIs remain a concern with regard to hospital quality in addition to being a major source of economic burden on the US health care system. Hospitals should invest more in quality improvement of early detection and care for pressure injury to avoid higher costs.

https://www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/iwj.13071

The national cost of hospital-acquired pressure injuries in the United States.

The production and application of hydrogels for wound management: A review

There are many factors involved in wound healing, and the healing process is not static. The therapeutic effect of modern wound dressings in the clinical management of wounds is documented. However, there are few reports regarding the reasonable selection of dressings for certain types of wounds in the clinic. In this article, we retrospect the history of wound dressing development and the classification of modern wound dressings. In addition, the pros and cons of mainstream modern wound dressings for the healing of different wounds, such as diabetic foot ulcers, pressure ulcers, burns and scalds, and chronic leg ulcers, as well as the physiological mechanisms involved in wound healing are summarized. This article provides a clinical guideline for selecting suitable wound dressings according to the types of wounds.

/pdf/selection-of-appropriate-wound-dressing-for-various-wounds-2vhjyh9l8k.pdf

Selection of Appropriate Wound Dressing for Various Wounds.

Background: Pressure ulcers, localised injuries to the skin or underlying tissue, or both, occur when people cannot reposition themselves to relieve pressure on bony prominences. These wounds are difficult to heal, painful, expensive to manage and have a negative impact on quality of life. Prevention strategies include nutritional support and pressure redistribution. Dressing and topical agents aimed at prevention are also widely used, however, it remains unclear which, if any, are most effective. This is the first update of this review, which was originally published in 2013. Objectives: To evaluate the effects of dressings and topical agents on pressure ulcer prevention, in people of any age, without existing pressure ulcers, but considered to be at risk of developing one, in any healthcare setting. Search methods: In March 2017 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Embase, and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We searched clinical trials registries for ongoing trials, and bibliographies of relevant publications to identify further eligible trials. There was no restriction on language, date of trial or setting. In May 2018 we updated this search; as a result several trials are awaiting classification. Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials that enrolled people at risk of pressure ulcers. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Main results: The original search identified nine trials; the updated searches identified a further nine trials meeting our inclusion criteria. Of the 18 trials (3629 participants), nine involved dressings; eight involved topical agents; and one included dressings and topical agents. All trials reported the primary outcome of pressure ulcer incidence. Topical agentsThere were five trials comparing fatty acid interventions to different treatments. Two trials compared fatty acid to olive oil. Pooled evidence shows that there is no clear difference in pressure ulcer incidence between groups, fatty acid versus olive oil (2 trials, n=1060; RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.17; low-certainty evidence, downgraded for very serious imprecision; or fatty acid versus standard care (2 trials, n=187; RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.18; low-certainty evidence, downgraded for serious risk of bias and serious imprecision). Trials reported that pressure ulcer incidence was lower with fatty acid-containing-treatment compared with a control compound of trisostearin and perfume (1 trial, n=331; RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.80; low-certainty evidence, downgraded for serious risk of bias and serious imprecision). Pooled evidence shows that there is no clear difference in incidence of adverse events between fatty acids and olive oil (1 trial, n=831; RR 2.22 95% CI 0.20 to 24.37; low-certainty evidence, downgraded for very serious imprecision). Four trials compared further different topical agents with placebo. Dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) cream may increase the risk of pressure ulcer incidence compared with placebo (1 trial, n=61; RR 1.99, 95% CI 1.10 to 3.57; low-certainty evidence; downgraded for serious risk of bias and serious imprecision). The other three trials reported no clear difference in pressure ulcer incidence between active topical agents and control/placebo; active lotion (1 trial, n=167; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.19), Conotrane (1 trial, n=258; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.07), Prevasore (1 trial, n=120; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.11) (very low-certainty evidence, downgraded for very serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision). There was limited evidence from one trial to determine whether the application of a topical agent may delay or prevent the development of a pressure ulcer (Dermalex 9.8 days vs placebo 8.7 days). Further, two out of 76 reactions occurred in the Dermalex group compared with none out of 91 in the placebo group (RR 6.14, 95% CI 0.29 to 129.89; very low-certainty evidence; downgraded for very serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision). Dressings Six trials (n = 1247) compared a silicone dressing with no dressing. Silicone dressings may reduce pressure ulcer incidence (any stage) (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.41; low-certainty evidence; downgraded for very serious risk of bias). In the one trial (n=77) we rated as being at low risk of bias, there was no clear difference in pressure ulcer incidence between silicone dressing and placebo-treated groups (RR 1.95, 95% CI 0.18 to 20.61; low-certainty evidence, downgraded for very serious imprecision). One trial (n=74) reported no clear difference in pressure ulcer incidence when a thin polyurethane dressing was compared with no dressing (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.83 to 2.07). In the same trial pressure ulcer incidence was reported to be higher in an adhesive foam dressing compared with no dressing (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.48). We rated evidence from this trial as very low certainty (downgraded for very serious risk of bias and serious imprecision). Four trials compared other dressings with different controls. Trials reported that there was no clear difference in pressure ulcer incidence between the following comparisons: polyurethane film and hydrocolloid dressing (n=160, RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.41); Kang' huier versus routine care n=100; RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.05); 'pressure ulcer preventive dressing' (PPD) versus no dressing (n=74; RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.76) We rated the evidence as very low certainty (downgraded for very serious risk of bias and serious or very serious imprecision). Authors' conclusions: Most of the trials exploring the impact of topical applications on pressure ulcer incidence showed no clear benefit or harm. Use of fatty acid versus a control compound (a cream that does not include fatty acid) may reduce the incidence of pressure ulcers. Silicone dressings may reduce pressure ulcer incidence (any stage). However the low level of evidence certainty means that additional research is required to confirm these results.

/pdf/dressings-and-topical-agents-for-preventing-pressure-ulcers-1vgu9oslzk.pdf

Dressings and topical agents for preventing pressure ulcers

This systematic review considers the evidence supporting the use of prophylactic dressings for the prevention of pressure ulcer. Electronic database searches were conducted on 25 July 2013. The searches found 3026 titles and after removal of duplicate records 2819 titles were scanned against the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Of these, 2777 were excluded based on their title and abstract primarily because they discussed pressure ulcer healing, the prevention and treatment of other chronic and acute wounds or where the intervention was not a prophylactic dressing (e.g. underpads, heel protectors and cushions). Finally, the full text of 42 papers were retrieved. When these 42 papers were reviewed, 21 were excluded and 21 were included in the review. The single high-quality randomised controlled trial (RCT) and the growing number of cohort, weak RCT and case series all suggest that the

Systematic review of the use of prophylactic dressings in the prevention of pressure ulcers

The prevention of hospital acquired pressure ulcers in critically ill patients remains a significant clinical challenge. The aim of this trial was to investigate the effectiveness of multi-layered soft silicone foam dressings in preventing intensive care unit (ICU) pressure ulcers when applied in the emergency department to 440 trauma and critically ill patients. Intervention group patients (n = 219) had Mepilex(®) Border Sacrum and Mepilex(®) Heel dressings applied in the emergency department and maintained throughout their ICU stay. Results revealed that there were significantly fewer patients with pressure ulcers in the intervention group compared to the control group (5 versus 20, P = 0·001). This represented a 10% difference in incidence between the groups (3·1% versus 13·1%) and a number needed to treat of ten patients to prevent one pressure ulcer. Overall there were fewer sacral (2 versus 8, P = 0·05) and heel pressure ulcers (5 versus 19, P = 0·002) and pressure injuries overall (7 versus 27, P = 0·002) in interventions than in controls. The time to injury survival analysis indicated that intervention group patients had a hazard ratio of 0·19 (P = 0·002) compared to control group patients. We conclude that multi-layered soft silicone foam dressings are effective in preventing pressure ulcers in critically ill patients when applied in the emergency department prior to ICU transfer.

/pdf/a-randomised-controlled-trial-of-the-effectiveness-of-soft-4iuyimqlhr.pdf

A randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness of soft silicone multi-layered foam dressings in the prevention of sacral and heel pressure ulcers in trauma and critically ill patients: the border trial.

Little is known about the cost-benefit of soft silicone foam dressings in pressure ulcer (PU) prevention among critically ill patients in the emergency department (ED) and intensive care unit (ICU). A randomised controlled trial to assess the efficacy of soft silicone foam dressings in preventing sacral and heel PUs was undertaken among 440 critically ill patients in an acute care hospital. Participants were randomly allocated either to an intervention group with prophylactic dressings applied to the sacrum and heels in the ED and changed every 3 days in the ICU or to a control group with standard PU prevention care provided during their ED and ICU stay. The results showed a significant reduction of PU incidence rates in the intervention group (P = 0·001). The intervention cost was estimated to be AU$36·61 per person based on an intention-to-treat analysis, but this was offset by lower downstream costs associated with PU treatment (AU$1103·52). Therefore, the average net cost of the intervention was lower than that of the control (AU$70·82 versus AU$144·56). We conclude that the use of soft silicone multilayered foam dressings to prevent sacral and heel PUs among critically ill patients results in cost savings in the acute care hospital.

The cost-benefit of using soft silicone multilayered foam dressings to prevent sacral and heel pressure ulcers in trauma and critically ill patients: a within-trial analysis of the Border Trial.

Objective: Critically ill patients are at high risk of developing pressure ulcers (PU), with the sacrum and heels being highly susceptible to pressure injuries. The objective of our study was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of a new multi-layer, self-adhesive soft silicone foam heel dressing to prevent PU development in trauma and critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Method: A cohort of critically ill patients were enrolled at the Royal Melbourne Hospital. Each patient had the multi-layer soft silicone foam dressing applied to each heel on admission to the emergency department. The dressings were retained with a tubular bandage for the duration of the patients’ stay in the ICU. The skin under the dressings was examined daily and the dressings were replaced every three days. The comparator for our cohort study was the control group from the recently completed Border Trial. Results: Of the 191 patients in the initial cohort, excluding deaths, loss to follow-up and transfers to an...

Clinical effectiveness of a silicone foam dressing for the prevention of heel pressure ulcers in critically ill patients: Border II Trial

Due to the changes in delivering medical care during the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, such as the heavy reliance on telehealth, it is worth exploring if this is suitable when treating complex wounds. A literature rapid review was performed to explore the existing evidence around alternative service delivery modalities. While there are organisations that have successful telehealth systems and infrastructure, for services that do not already widely use telehealth it is difficult to implement a standardised system in the current state of emergency. The evidence reviewed demonstrates that telehealth appears to currently have a limited place in chronic wound management; therefore, standardisation on determining suitability in conjunction with evaluation of telehealth during this period is needed to shape implementation of telehealth systems in the future.

https://www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/iwj.13488

Sarah Sage

Papers

A randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness of soft silicone multi-layered foam dressings in the prevention of sacral and heel pressure ulcers in trauma and critically ill patients: the border trial.

The cost-benefit of using soft silicone multilayered foam dressings to prevent sacral and heel pressure ulcers in trauma and critically ill patients: a within-trial analysis of the Border Trial.

Clinical effectiveness of a silicone foam dressing for the prevention of heel pressure ulcers in critically ill patients: Border II Trial

Modified telehealth for care of chronic wounds during the Coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: A rapid literature review of alternative care modalities.

Clinical innovation: results from a 5-year pressure ulcer prevention project in an Australian university