Collecting pressure ulcer prevention and management outcomes: 2

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
The first part of this article (Vol 11(4): 230–8) outlined the argument that a combination of efficacy and effectiveness is required to assess fully the impact of interventions such as pressure-redistributing (PR) beds and mattresses. In addition, it described the methodology of this multinational, multicentre, prospective, non-randomized cohort study designed to record the occurrence and characteristics of patients vulnerable to, or with, established pressure ulcers. This article reports further details of the characteristics of the 2507 UK adult hospital patients recruited to the study. Over 40% (42%; n = 1046) of all subjects were considered to be at an elevated risk of developing ulcers (Waterlow score of 15 or greater) (Waterlow, 1985). Many were inactive with 332 (13%) confined to bed alone with a further 262 (10%) confined to bed and their chair. Most (74%; n = 1868) were nursed upon PR beds and mattresses, while fewer subjects were provided with a PR seat cushion (n = 547; 27%). Two hundred and fifty-seven subjects (10%) experienced at least one change of bed mattress during their stay in hospital, with two subjects being nursed on five different mattresses during their hospital stay.