Evaluation of patient outcomes: pressure ulcer prevention mattresses.

This article reports the findings of a small evaluation audit which compares the Dyna-Form Mercury Advance Mattress to that of the Softform Premier Active Mattress (a foam mattress with dynamic underlay). A small group of patients with similar co-morbidities who were an emergency admission were recruited to an evaluation audit. Their median age and Waterlow score indicated that these patients were at high risk of pressure ulcer development. All patients were given the same nursing care on the two mattresses and all were moved, handled and repositioned 2-4 hourly. Of the patients nursed on the Dyna-Form Mercury Advance mattress, three did not develop pressure ulcers. The two who already had pressure ulcers when they were recruited appeared to have healed within four days. Of the patients nursed on the Softform Premier Active mattress, three patients did not develop ulcers and two did. Although the sample size was small, the comprehensive assessment gave interesting results, particularly on the Dyna-Form Mercury Advance. A larger study may be of benefit to demonstrate efficacy of these products further.

[1]  M. Jones Best practice statement (2nd edn): Care of the older person’s skin , 2012 .

[2]  H. Sanada,et al.  Development and validity of a new model for assessing pressure redistribution properties of support surfaces. , 2011, Journal of tissue viability.

[3]  J. stephen-Haynes Achieving effective outcomes: monitoring the effectiveness of the Softform Premier Active (TM) mattress. , 2010, British journal of community nursing.

[4]  G. Thompson Softform Premier Active mattress: a novel step-up/step-down approach. , 2006, British journal of nursing.

[5]  D. Steed,et al.  Wound‐healing trajectories as outcome measures of venous stasis ulcer treatment * , 2006, International wound journal.

[6]  L. Russell,et al.  Evidence-based practice and support surfaces: are we throwing the baby out with the bath water? , 2005, Journal of wound care.

[7]  J. Posnett,et al.  The cost of pressure ulcers in the UK. , 2004, Age and ageing.

[8]  D. Torgerson,et al.  Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing 2 Support Surfaces: Results of the Prevention of Pressure Ulcers Study , 2003, Advances in skin & wound care.

[9]  P. Beldon Transfoam Visco: evaluation of a viscoelastic foam mattress. , 2002, British journal of nursing.

[10]  L. Russell,et al.  Randomised controlled trial of two pressure-relieving systems. , 2000, Journal of wound care.

[11]  P. Price The challenge of outcome measures in chronic wounds. , 1999, Journal of wound care.

[12]  T. Defloor,et al.  The risk of pressure sores: a conceptual scheme. , 1999, Journal of clinical nursing.

[13]  M. Campbell,et al.  A Randomised Clinical Trial of Two Types of Foam Mattresses , 1994 .

[14]  M. Versluysen How elderly patients with femoral fracture develop pressure sores in hospital. , 1986, British medical journal.

[15]  K. Harding,et al.  Measuring outcomes with complex patients: An audit of the effect of Actiform Cool on painful wounds , 2008 .

[16]  D. Gray,et al.  A clinical audit of the Softform Premier Active™ mattress in two acute care of the elderly wards , 2008 .

[17]  M. Clark Changing pressure-redistributing mattress stocks: costs and outcomes. , 2005, British journal of nursing.

[18]  Dirk De Bacquer,et al.  The effect of various combinations of turning and pressure reducing devices on the incidence of pressure ulcers. , 2005, International journal of nursing studies.

[19]  R Legood,et al.  Support surfaces for pressure ulcer prevention. , 2004, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.