Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2004 Apr;52(4):583-8.
doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2004.52166.x.

Nursing home quality and pressure ulcer prevention and management practices

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Nursing home quality and pressure ulcer prevention and management practices

Deidre D Wipke-Tevis et al. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004 Apr.

Abstract

Objectives: To measure pressure ulcer quality indicator (QI) scores and to describe the self-reported skin integrity assessment, pressure ulcer risk assessment, and pressure ulcer prevention and treatment practices in long-term care facilities (LTCFs).

Design: Retrospective analysis of a large data set and comparative survey.

Setting: LTCFs in Missouri.

Participants: Three hundred sixty-two LTCFs participated in the survey. Three hundred twenty-one facilities had pressure ulcer QI scores between April 1 and September 30, 1999.

Measurements: Pressure ulcer QI scores, Pressure Ulcer Prevention & Treatment Practices Survey.

Results: The mean+/-standard deviation pressure ulcer QI score was 10.9+/-6.2%, with a risk-adjusted score of 15.7+/-8.9% for high-risk residents and 3.1+/-3.6% for low-risk residents. Minimizing head-of-bed elevation to less than 30 degrees was used by fewer than 20% of facilities. More than 40% of facilities used a risk assessment tool that was not evidence based. Fewer than 13% of facilities used the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research pressure ulcer prevention and treatment guidelines. No relationship was found between the number of prevention strategies (P=.892) or the number of treatment strategies (P=.921) and the pressure ulcer QI scores.

Conclusion: Valid and reliable pressure ulcer risk assessment tools are seriously underused. Evidence-based pressure ulcer prevention and treatment guidelines appear to be rarely implemented. This study provides a basis for developing educational and quality improvement programs and future research related to pressure ulcer prevention and treatment in LTCFs.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources