Heel Pressure Injuries: Consensus-Based Recommendations for Assessment and Management
- PMID: 32286202
- PMCID: PMC7155923
- DOI: 10.1089/wound.2019.1042
Heel Pressure Injuries: Consensus-Based Recommendations for Assessment and Management
Abstract
Significance: A systematic approach to develop experts-based recommendations could have a favorable impact on clinical problems characterized by scarce and low-quality evidence as heel pressure ulcers. Recent Advances: A systematic approach was used to conduce a formal consensus initiative. A multidisciplinary panel of experts identified relevant clinical questions, performed a systematic search of the literature, and created a list of statements. GRADE Working Group guidelines were followed. An independent international jury reviewed and voted recommendations for clinical practice. Consent was developed according to Delphi rules and GRADE method was used to attribute grade of strength. Critical Issues: The extensive search of the literature retrieved 42 pertinent articles (26 clinical studies, 7 systematic reviews or meta-analysis, 5 other reviews, 2 consensus-based articles, and 2 in vitro studies). Thirty-five recommendations and statements were created. Only 1 of 35, concerning ankle-brachial pressure index reliability in diabetic patients, was rejected by the panel. No sufficient agreement was achieved on toe brachial index test to rule out the orphan heel syndrome, removing dry eschar in adult patients without vascular impairment, and using an antimicrobial dressing in children with infected heel pressure injuries. Eleven recommendations were approved with a weak grade of strength. Experts strongly endorsed 20 recommendations. Offloading, stages I and II pressure injuries, and referral criteria were areas characterized by higher level of agreement. Future Directions: We believe that the results of our effort could improve practice, especially in areas where clear and shared opinions emerged. Barriers and limits that could hinder implementation are also discussed in the article.
Keywords: consensus; diabetic; guideline; heel pressure ulcers; neonatal/pediatric; vascular assessment.
Conflict of interest statement
Authors declare no competing financial interests. No ghostwriters were used to write this article.
Figures
References
-
- VanGilder C, Lachenbruch C, Algrim-Boyle C, Meyer S. The International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence™ Survey: 2006–2015: a 10-year pressure injury prevalence and demographic trend analysis by care setting. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs 2017;44:20–28 - PubMed
-
- Bennett G, Dealey C, Posnett J. The cost of pressure ulcers in the UK. Age Ageing 2004;33:230–235 - PubMed
-
- Dealey C, Posnett J, Walker A. The cost of pressure ulcers in the United Kingdom. J Wound Care 2012;21:261., 262, 264, 266. - PubMed
-
- Fowler E, Scott-Williams S, McGuire JB. Practice recommendations for preventing heel pressure ulcers. Ostomy Wound Manage 2008;54:42–48, 50–52, 54–57. - PubMed
-
- Helvig EI, Nichols LW. Use of high-frequency ultrasound to detect heel pressure injury in elders. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs 2012;39:500–508 - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
