Adherence to evidence-based pressure injury prevention guidelines in routine clinical practice: A longitudinal study

Wendy Chaboyer, Tracey Bucknall, Brigid M. Gillespie, Lukman Thalib, Elizabeth McInnes, Julie Considine, Edel Murray, Paula Duffy, Michelle Tuck, Emma Harbeck

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

37 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The aim of this longitudinal study was to describe adherence to evidence-based pressure injury (PI) prevention guidelines in routine clinical practice in Australian hospitals. Data were analysed from four control sites of a larger-cluster randomised trial of a PI intervention. The sample of 799 included 220 (27·5%) Not at risk, 344 (43·1%) At risk and 110 (13·8%) At high risk patients. A total of 84 (10·5%) patients developed a PI during the study: 20 (9·0% of 220) in the Not at risk group, 45 (13·1% of 344) in the At risk group, 15 (13·6% of 110) in the At high risk group and 4 (3·2% of 125) patients who did not have a risk assessment completed. Of all patients, 165 (20·7%) received only one PI prevention strategy, and 494 (61·8%) received ≥2 strategies at some point during the study period. There was no statistical difference in the proportion of time the three risk groups received ≥1 and ≥2 strategies; on average, this was less than half the time they were in the study. Thus, patients were not receiving PI prevention strategies consistently throughout their hospital stay, although it is possible patients' risk changed over the study period.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1290-1298
Number of pages9
JournalInternational Wound Journal
Volume14
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2017
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Adverse events
  • Clinical practice guidelines
  • Pressure ulcer
  • Prevention
  • Processes of care

Cite this