Benchmarking to the International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence Survey

PURPOSE: Authors and team members from the naval medical center at portsmouth (NMCP), virginia, obtained data on the prevalence and incidence of pressure ulcers (PUs) in our agency and compared them to national benchmark data as a basis for improving our wound care protocols. SUBJECTS AND SETTING: health care facilities throughout the nation volunteered to participate in the data collection process for a multiday PU prevalence survey performed in february 2009, including nmcp. Each facility collected prevalence data during a preselected 24-hour period out of the 72-hour time frame selected by the national study. METHODS: A standardized 1-page data collection form for each subject included demographic data, use of wound care protocols and pressure redistribution surfaces, PU stage and location, risk assessment using the braden scale for pressure sore risk, head-of-bed position, turning and repositioning, mobility, weight, incontinence, documentation of a PU within 24 hours of admission, device-related ulcers, and adequacy of documentation. Facility-specific data on a second form included braden scale score, bed type, use of pressure redistribution devices on the heels, hospital unit, turn schedule use, plastic brief use, presence of incontinence-associated dermatitis, and nursing documentation. Chart reviews were performed to determine hospital- versus non–hospital-acquired PU occurrence. Each PU was recorded separately and linked to its identifying stage. RESULTS: The PU incidence of adults managed in acute care inpatient units at NMCP was 6.6% and the prevalence was 10%. The most common location of facility-acquired PUs was the heels (50%). In contrast, national benchmarking data found that the highest incidence of PUs occurred in the sacral region. CONCLUSIONS: Benchmarking allows health care professionals to compare outcomes in their agencies to outcomes in comparable facilities. Identification of areas in which agency outcomes compare negatively to benchmark data should prompt implementation of quality improvement initiatives. National PU prevalence surveys provide a benchmark to evaluate an individual facility's care and treatment of patients at risk for pressure ulceration. The true benefit of participation in such surveys, however, is determined by local health care professionals' ability to use national data to improve clinical practice.

[1]  C. Vangilder,et al.  Results of the 2008-2009 International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence Survey and a 3-year, acute care, unit-specific analysis. , 2009, Ostomy/wound management.

[2]  Vicky S Lyman Successful heel pressure ulcer prevention program in a long-term care setting. , 2009, Journal of wound, ostomy, and continence nursing : official publication of The Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nurses Society.

[3]  K. Barrett,et al.  Pressure ulcer management in the acute care setting: a response to regulatory mandates. , 2009, Journal of wound, ostomy, and continence nursing : official publication of The Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nurses Society.

[4]  Heather L. Orsted,et al.  Pressure Ulcer Awareness and Prevention Program: A Quality Improvement Program Through the Canadian Association of Wound Care , 2009, Journal of wound, ostomy, and continence nursing : official publication of The Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nurses Society.

[5]  R. Halfens,et al.  Pressure ulcer prevalence and incidence in intensive care patients: a literature review. , 2008, Nursing in critical care.

[6]  C. Vangilder,et al.  Results of nine international pressure ulcer prevalence surveys: 1989 to 2005. , 2008, Ostomy/wound management.

[7]  R. Briones,et al.  National Prevalence and Incidence Study: 6‐Year Sequential Acute Care Data , 2004, Advances in skin & wound care.

[8]  L. Birchall,et al.  Implementing the Essence of Care benchmark for pressure ulcers. , 2004, Nursing times.

[9]  Suzanne Stewart,et al.  Preventing hospital-acquired pressure ulcers: a point prevalence study. , 2004, Ostomy/wound management.

[10]  L. Morris Clinical practice benchmarking: implications for tissue viability. , 2002, British journal of nursing.

[11]  D. Gray,et al.  Best practice statement of the prevention of pressure ulcers. , 2002, British journal of nursing.

[12]  J. A. N. Eedleman,et al.  Nurse-Staffing Levels and the Quality of Care in Hospitals , 2002 .

[13]  J. Beitz Overcoming barriers to quality wound care: a systems perspective. , 2001, Ostomy/wound management.

[14]  M. Patrick,et al.  A National Study of Pressure Ulcer Prevalence and Incidence in Acute Care Hospitals , 2000, Journal of wound, ostomy, and continence nursing : official publication of The Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nurses Society.

[15]  Pressure ulcer stages revised by the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel. , 2007, Ostomy/wound management.

[16]  Peter Buerhaus,et al.  Nurse-staffing levels and the quality of care in hospitals. , 2002, The New England journal of medicine.