Is There Relationship between Quality Indicators and Acquired Pressure Ulcers in Austrian Hospitals and Nursing Homes

Eman S. M. Shahin; Christa Lohrmann

doi:doi:10.11648/j.js.s.2015030201.11

| Peer-Reviewed

Is There Relationship between Quality Indicators and Acquired Pressure Ulcers in Austrian Hospitals and Nursing Homes

Eman S. M. Shahin, Christa Lohrmann

Published in Journal of Surgery (Volume 3, Issue 2-1)

Received: 7 February 2015 Accepted: 3 March 2015 Published: 23 April 2015

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

Objectives: this study aims to assess the period prevalence of Austrian hospital- and nursing home-acquired pressure ulcers, and of pressure ulcer quality indicators in both settings over time. Methods: Design: A descriptive study (period prevalence) was conducted in hospitals and nursing homes between 2009 and 2012. The study sample covered hospital patients and nursing home residents who gave informed consent in the study (n= 13,438). The instrument used in this study was the German version of the Dutch National Prevalence Measurement of Care Problems (Landelijke Prevalentiemeting Zorgproblemen/LPZ) which covers demographic data, questions regarding quality indicators of pressure ulcers and the Braden scale. The results revealed that the period prevalence of pressure ulcers, excluding category one, was 6.4% in hospitals and 6.3% in nursing homes, whereas the period prevalence of hospital-acquired pressure ulcers, excluding category one, was 2.4% in hospitals and 4.6% in nursing homes. Six quality indicators for pressure ulcers (e.g. pressure ulcer prevention committee, pressure ulcer agreement guidelines, management protocol/guidelines for pressure ulcer prevention products, information brochures) exist in hospitals and five in nursing homes. Conclusion: The results indicated that 44% of pressure ulcer period prevalence in hospitals was hospital-acquired while 75.7% of pressure ulcer period prevalence in nursing homes was nursing home-acquired. A longitudinal study is needed to clarify the relationship between different quality indicators of pressure ulcers and the increase/decrease of the pressure ulcer rate in response to the use of these quality indicators.

Published in	Journal of Surgery (Volume 3, Issue 2-1) This article belongs to the Special Issue Postoperative Pain Syndrome
DOI	10.11648/j.js.s.2015030201.11
Page(s)	1-7
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Quality Indicators, Pressure Ulcer, Prevalence, Hospitals, Nursing Homes

References

[1]	Barker AL, Kamar J, Tyndall TJ, White L, Hutchinson A, Klopfer N, Weller C, Implementation of pressure ulcer prevention best practice recommendations in acute care: an observational study. Int Wound J. 2013; 10:313-320.
[2]	Lyder C, Pressure ulcer prevention and management. JAMA 2003;289:223–6.
[3]	Spilsbury K , Nelson A, Cullum N, Iglesia C, Nixon J & Mason S, Pressure ulcers and their treatment and effects on quality of life: hospital inpatient perspectives. J Adv Nurs 2007; 57: 494–504
[4]	Whittington K T, Briones R, National Prevalence and Incidence Study: 6-year sequential acute care data. Adv Skin Wound Care 2004;17: 490–494.
[5]	Vanderwee K, Clark M, Dealey C, Gunningberg L, Defloor T, Pressure ulcer prevalence in Europe: a pilot study. J Eval Clin Pract 2007; 13: 227–235.
[6]	Tannen A, Dietz E, Dassen T, Halfens R,Explaining the national differences Inpressure ulcer prevalence between the Netherlands and Germany –adjusted For personal risk factors and institutional quality indicators. JEval Clin Pract 2009; 15: 85–90
[7]	Wann-Hansson C, Hagell P, Willman A, Risk factors and prevention among patients with hospital-acquired and pre-existing pressure ulcers in an acute care hospital. J Clin Nurs 2007; 17:1718–1727
[8]	Coleman S, Gorecki C, Nelson EA, et al, Patient risk factors for pressure ulcer development: Systematic review.Int J Nurs Stud 2013; 50: 974-1003
[9]	Temkin-Greener H, Cai S, Zheng NT, Zhao H, Mukamel DB, NursingHomeWork Environment and the Risk of Pressure Ulcers and Incontinence. Health Serv Res 2012; 47: 1180 – 1200
[10]	Benbow M, Bateman S, Working towards clinical excellence Pressure ulcer prevention and management in primary and secondary care. J Wound Care 2012; 21: S25 - S40.
[11]	Aydin C E, Bolton LB, Donaldson N, Brown D, Mukerji A. Beyond nursingQuality measurement: the nation’s first regional nursing virtual dashboard. InAdvances in Patient Safety: New Directions and Alternative Approaches. 2008;Volumes 1-4,AHRQ Publication Nos. 08-0034 (1-4). July 2008. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD.http://www.ahrq.gov/qual/advances2/
[12]	Glickman SW, Baggett KA, Krubert CG, Peterson ED, Schulman KA, Promoting quality: the health-care organization from a management perspective.IntJ Qual Health Care 2007; 19: 341–348.
[13]	Lena- Gunningberg, L., Donaldson N, Aydin C, Ewa Idvall E, Exploring variation in pressure ulcer prevalence in Sweden and the USA: benchmarking in action. JEval Clin Pract2012; j18: 904–910 ep
[14]	Donabedian A. Explorations in Quality Assessment and Monitoring: TheDefinition of Quality and Approaches to Its Assessment. Michigan: Health Administration Press 1980.
[15]	McGlynn EA, Asch SM, Adams J, Keesey J, Hicks J, DeCristofaro A, Kerr EA, The Quality of Health Care Delivered to Adults in the United States. N Eng J Med 2003; 348: 2635 – 2645.
[16]	Berlowitz, D. R., G. H. Brandeis, J. N. Morris, et al, Deriving a Risk-Adjustment Model for Pressure Ulcer Development Using the Minimum Data Set. JAGS 2001; 49: 866–71.
[17]	De vos M, Graafmans W, Kooistra M, Meijboom B., et al,Using quality indicators to improve hospital care: a review of the Literature. Int J Qualy Health Care2009;21: 119–129
[18]	Halfens RJG, Janssen MAP, Meijers JMM & Wansink SW. Landelijke Prevalentiemeting Decubitus en andere zorgproblemen: herziene resultatenzevende jaarlijkse meting 2004. Universiteit Maastricht, Maastricht, ISBN 90-806663-5-1.
[19]	Meijers JMM, Schols JMGA, Jackson PA. et al. Differences in nutritional care in pressure ulcer patients whether or not using nutritional guidelines. Nutrition 2008; 24: 127–132
[20]	Lohrmann C. P rävalenzerhebung 07. April 2009. Institut für Pflegewissenschaft, Medizinische Universität Graz.
[21]	Lohrmann C. Die Pflegeabhängigkeitsskala: ein Einscha¨tzungsinstrument für Heime und Kliniken – Eine methodologische Studie, PhD Thesis, 2003, CentreofHumanities and Health Science, Charite-Universita¨tsmedizin, Berlin, Germany.
[22]	Dijkstra A. Care Dependency – An Assessment Instrument for Use in Long-term Care Facilities, PhD Thesis 1998; Rijksuniversiteit Groningen,Groningen, The Netherlands.
[23]	Meijers JMM, Schols JMGA, Van Bokhorstde van der Schueren MAE, Dassen T,Janssen MAP, Halfens RJG, Malnutrition prevalence in the Netherlands: Results of the annual Dutch National Prevalence Measurement of Care Problems.BrJ Nutr 2009; 101: 417–423.
[24]	McGuinness J, Persaud-Roberts S, Marra S, Ramos J, Toscano D, Policastro L, and Epstein NE, How to reduce hospital-acquired pressure ulcers on aneuroscience unit with a skin and wound assessment team. Surg Neurol Int 2012; 3:773 – 777.
[25]	Gunningberg L and Stotts NA, Tracking quality over time: what do pressure ulcer data show? Int Qual Health Care. 2008;20 (4): 246–253.
[26]	Pressure ulcer prevalence and incidence in intensive care pts.: a literature review. Nursing in critical care. 2008;13(2): 71-79
[27]	Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality AHRQ. Bowel incontinence and other clinical pressure ulcers. 2012; 18.(384).
[28]	European pressure ulcer advisory panel (EPUAP). Prevalence and incidence Monitoring of pressure ulcers. 2005; 6: 69-84.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Eman S. M. Shahin, Christa Lohrmann. (2015). Is There Relationship between Quality Indicators and Acquired Pressure Ulcers in Austrian Hospitals and Nursing Homes. Journal of Surgery, 3(2-1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.js.s.2015030201.11

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Eman S. M. Shahin; Christa Lohrmann. Is There Relationship between Quality Indicators and Acquired Pressure Ulcers in Austrian Hospitals and Nursing Homes. J. Surg. 2015, 3(2-1), 1-7. doi: 10.11648/j.js.s.2015030201.11

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Eman S. M. Shahin, Christa Lohrmann. Is There Relationship between Quality Indicators and Acquired Pressure Ulcers in Austrian Hospitals and Nursing Homes. J Surg. 2015;3(2-1):1-7. doi: 10.11648/j.js.s.2015030201.11

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.js.s.2015030201.11,
  author = {Eman S. M. Shahin and Christa Lohrmann},
  title = {Is There Relationship between Quality Indicators and Acquired Pressure Ulcers in Austrian Hospitals and Nursing Homes},
  journal = {Journal of Surgery},
  volume = {3},
  number = {2-1},
  pages = {1-7},
  doi = {10.11648/j.js.s.2015030201.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.js.s.2015030201.11},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.js.s.2015030201.11},
  abstract = {Objectives: this study aims to assess the period prevalence of Austrian hospital- and nursing home-acquired pressure ulcers, and of pressure ulcer quality indicators in both settings over time. Methods: Design: A descriptive study (period prevalence) was conducted in hospitals and nursing homes between 2009 and 2012. The study sample covered hospital patients and nursing home residents who gave informed consent in the study (n= 13,438). The instrument used in this study was the German version of the Dutch National Prevalence Measurement of Care Problems (Landelijke Prevalentiemeting Zorgproblemen/LPZ) which covers demographic data, questions regarding quality indicators of pressure ulcers and the Braden scale. The results revealed that the period prevalence of pressure ulcers, excluding category one, was 6.4% in hospitals and 6.3% in nursing homes, whereas the period prevalence of hospital-acquired pressure ulcers, excluding category one, was 2.4% in hospitals and 4.6% in nursing homes. Six quality indicators for pressure ulcers (e.g. pressure ulcer prevention committee, pressure ulcer agreement guidelines, management protocol/guidelines for pressure ulcer prevention products, information brochures) exist in hospitals and five in nursing homes. Conclusion: The results indicated that 44% of pressure ulcer period prevalence in hospitals was hospital-acquired while 75.7% of pressure ulcer period prevalence in nursing homes was nursing home-acquired. A longitudinal study is needed to clarify the relationship between different quality indicators of pressure ulcers and the increase/decrease of the pressure ulcer rate in response to the use of these quality indicators.},
 year = {2015}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Is There Relationship between Quality Indicators and Acquired Pressure Ulcers in Austrian Hospitals and Nursing Homes
AU  - Eman S. M. Shahin
AU  - Christa Lohrmann
Y1  - 2015/04/23
PY  - 2015
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.js.s.2015030201.11
DO  - 10.11648/j.js.s.2015030201.11
T2  - Journal of Surgery
JF  - Journal of Surgery
JO  - Journal of Surgery
SP  - 1
EP  - 7
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2330-0930
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.js.s.2015030201.11
AB  - Objectives: this study aims to assess the period prevalence of Austrian hospital- and nursing home-acquired pressure ulcers, and of pressure ulcer quality indicators in both settings over time. Methods: Design: A descriptive study (period prevalence) was conducted in hospitals and nursing homes between 2009 and 2012. The study sample covered hospital patients and nursing home residents who gave informed consent in the study (n= 13,438). The instrument used in this study was the German version of the Dutch National Prevalence Measurement of Care Problems (Landelijke Prevalentiemeting Zorgproblemen/LPZ) which covers demographic data, questions regarding quality indicators of pressure ulcers and the Braden scale. The results revealed that the period prevalence of pressure ulcers, excluding category one, was 6.4% in hospitals and 6.3% in nursing homes, whereas the period prevalence of hospital-acquired pressure ulcers, excluding category one, was 2.4% in hospitals and 4.6% in nursing homes. Six quality indicators for pressure ulcers (e.g. pressure ulcer prevention committee, pressure ulcer agreement guidelines, management protocol/guidelines for pressure ulcer prevention products, information brochures) exist in hospitals and five in nursing homes. Conclusion: The results indicated that 44% of pressure ulcer period prevalence in hospitals was hospital-acquired while 75.7% of pressure ulcer period prevalence in nursing homes was nursing home-acquired. A longitudinal study is needed to clarify the relationship between different quality indicators of pressure ulcers and the increase/decrease of the pressure ulcer rate in response to the use of these quality indicators.
VL  - 3
IS  - 2-1
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Eman S. M. Shahin

Medical-Surgical Nursing department, Faculty of Nursing, Port Said University, Port Said, Egypt; Department of Nursing Science, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria
Christa Lohrmann

Department of Nursing Science, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Eman S. M. Shahin, Christa Lohrmann. (2015). Is There Relationship between Quality Indicators and Acquired Pressure Ulcers in Austrian Hospitals and Nursing Homes. Journal of Surgery, 3(2-1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.js.s.2015030201.11

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Eman S. M. Shahin; Christa Lohrmann. Is There Relationship between Quality Indicators and Acquired Pressure Ulcers in Austrian Hospitals and Nursing Homes. J. Surg. 2015, 3(2-1), 1-7. doi: 10.11648/j.js.s.2015030201.11

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Eman S. M. Shahin, Christa Lohrmann. Is There Relationship between Quality Indicators and Acquired Pressure Ulcers in Austrian Hospitals and Nursing Homes. J Surg. 2015;3(2-1):1-7. doi: 10.11648/j.js.s.2015030201.11

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.js.s.2015030201.11,
  author = {Eman S. M. Shahin and Christa Lohrmann},
  title = {Is There Relationship between Quality Indicators and Acquired Pressure Ulcers in Austrian Hospitals and Nursing Homes},
  journal = {Journal of Surgery},
  volume = {3},
  number = {2-1},
  pages = {1-7},
  doi = {10.11648/j.js.s.2015030201.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.js.s.2015030201.11},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.js.s.2015030201.11},
  abstract = {Objectives: this study aims to assess the period prevalence of Austrian hospital- and nursing home-acquired pressure ulcers, and of pressure ulcer quality indicators in both settings over time. Methods: Design: A descriptive study (period prevalence) was conducted in hospitals and nursing homes between 2009 and 2012. The study sample covered hospital patients and nursing home residents who gave informed consent in the study (n= 13,438). The instrument used in this study was the German version of the Dutch National Prevalence Measurement of Care Problems (Landelijke Prevalentiemeting Zorgproblemen/LPZ) which covers demographic data, questions regarding quality indicators of pressure ulcers and the Braden scale. The results revealed that the period prevalence of pressure ulcers, excluding category one, was 6.4% in hospitals and 6.3% in nursing homes, whereas the period prevalence of hospital-acquired pressure ulcers, excluding category one, was 2.4% in hospitals and 4.6% in nursing homes. Six quality indicators for pressure ulcers (e.g. pressure ulcer prevention committee, pressure ulcer agreement guidelines, management protocol/guidelines for pressure ulcer prevention products, information brochures) exist in hospitals and five in nursing homes. Conclusion: The results indicated that 44% of pressure ulcer period prevalence in hospitals was hospital-acquired while 75.7% of pressure ulcer period prevalence in nursing homes was nursing home-acquired. A longitudinal study is needed to clarify the relationship between different quality indicators of pressure ulcers and the increase/decrease of the pressure ulcer rate in response to the use of these quality indicators.},
 year = {2015}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Is There Relationship between Quality Indicators and Acquired Pressure Ulcers in Austrian Hospitals and Nursing Homes
AU  - Eman S. M. Shahin
AU  - Christa Lohrmann
Y1  - 2015/04/23
PY  - 2015
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.js.s.2015030201.11
DO  - 10.11648/j.js.s.2015030201.11
T2  - Journal of Surgery
JF  - Journal of Surgery
JO  - Journal of Surgery
SP  - 1
EP  - 7
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2330-0930
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.js.s.2015030201.11
AB  - Objectives: this study aims to assess the period prevalence of Austrian hospital- and nursing home-acquired pressure ulcers, and of pressure ulcer quality indicators in both settings over time. Methods: Design: A descriptive study (period prevalence) was conducted in hospitals and nursing homes between 2009 and 2012. The study sample covered hospital patients and nursing home residents who gave informed consent in the study (n= 13,438). The instrument used in this study was the German version of the Dutch National Prevalence Measurement of Care Problems (Landelijke Prevalentiemeting Zorgproblemen/LPZ) which covers demographic data, questions regarding quality indicators of pressure ulcers and the Braden scale. The results revealed that the period prevalence of pressure ulcers, excluding category one, was 6.4% in hospitals and 6.3% in nursing homes, whereas the period prevalence of hospital-acquired pressure ulcers, excluding category one, was 2.4% in hospitals and 4.6% in nursing homes. Six quality indicators for pressure ulcers (e.g. pressure ulcer prevention committee, pressure ulcer agreement guidelines, management protocol/guidelines for pressure ulcer prevention products, information brochures) exist in hospitals and five in nursing homes. Conclusion: The results indicated that 44% of pressure ulcer period prevalence in hospitals was hospital-acquired while 75.7% of pressure ulcer period prevalence in nursing homes was nursing home-acquired. A longitudinal study is needed to clarify the relationship between different quality indicators of pressure ulcers and the increase/decrease of the pressure ulcer rate in response to the use of these quality indicators.
VL  - 3
IS  - 2-1
ER  -

Copy | Download