The frequency of pressure ulcers is expanding because of the aging populace and the growing immobility among old patients. Pressure ulcers (PU) are a condition when a part of hidden tissue or skin is harmed by an unrelieved pressing factor or pressing factor combined shear (Boyko et al., 2018). It is most prevalent among patients who have impaired mobility issues. The study shows that more than 3% of about 700 thousand patients who were in emergency clinics gained pressure ulcers (Swafford et al., 2016). Patients with PU regularly suffer torment because of imperfect administration (Gunningberg & Carli, 2014). As a result, this creates an extensive problem on expenses in the general medical care frameworks and medical services clients. Detecting the techniques which oversee pressure ulcers suitably is progressively significant. The anticipation and therapy of pressure ulcers are particularly helpful for medical care professionals. The patients require a delayed course of treatment to completely recuperate their injuries.
The purpose of the quantitative examination by Swafford et al. (2016) is to evaluate the effect of a formal, year-long Hospital-Acquired Pressure Ulcers (HAPU) program in the critical care units in the clinic. The article questions whether a thorough, proactive, shared counteraction program dependent on staff training and attention on adherence to conventions for persistent consideration can be a successful method to lessen the frequency of HAPUs in intensive care units. The scientists found that multifactorial anticipation programs help lessen the commonness of emergency clinic procured pressure ulcers.
The objective of Gunningberg and Carli’s (2014) investigation is to depict registered nurses’ and assistant nurses’ repositioning abilities as to their current opinions and awareness of PU prevention. The research question is whether the CBPM framework makes an instructive apparatus available to nurses in order to advance repositioning. The outcomes show a serious level of variety in the patients’ positioning. The pressure results were fluctuating for similar individuals with similar accessible pressing factors. This proposes that the nature of nursing care is diverse, relying upon the individual playing out the repositioning, despite the access to necessary equipment and free hardware.
The Articles’ Relevance to Nursing Practice Issue
My PICOT question addresses the impact of continuous bedside pressure mapping on the incidence of hospital-acquired pressure injuries compared with repositioning every two hours within one year of implementation in hospital patients. The following studies hold answers to the question since they evaluate the effect of Continuous Bedside Pressure Mapping (CBPM) and repositioning in patients with PU. The anticipated outcome of the PICOT question is that mapping brings more benefits in the prevention of the disease compared to repositioning as nurses become more conscious of the necessary care.
The findings of the research conducted by Swafford et al. (2016) can educate and motivate nurses and urge them to be more proactive in distinguishing patients in danger of HAPUs and lessening the rate of HAPUs in hospitals. At the same time, the results of the study by Gunningberg and Carli (2014) illustrate that pressure ulcers can be prevented and better managed with the help of simple caring measures. The specialists guarantee that medical caretakers are not generally mindful of the significance of preventive estimates, for example, repositioning, pressure-decreasing beddings, and seat and heel pads (Gunningberg & Carli, 2014). Thus, the practical proof of the study can develop the nurses’ understanding of such methods.
Methods of The Studies
Unfortunately, the article published in 2016 does not indicate the involvement of any ethics protection committee or the providence of participants with consent. This can be considered as a limitation of the research as the study was conducted on actual hospital patients. However, the protocol does not seem to pose any risks to patients and does not use the addition of any new drugs. The difference between the two studies’ methods is that Swafford et al. (2016) quantitively analyze the nurses’ knowledge and application of special dressing while Gunningberg and Carli (2014) are focused on mapping the incidence and effect of periodic repositioning.
The method of Gunningberg and Carli (2014) is reliable since they first sent the electronic questionnaires to interested professional nurses who were signed to the study through the clinic’s intranet prior to partaking in the observational meeting. It is mentioned that the examination was affirmed by the Ethics Review Board and that the researchers followed the standards set by the Declaration of Helsinki and public rules for research (Gunningberg & Carli, 2014). The participants received all the necessary information such as the reason and strategy of the examination and the voluntariness of the participation. They also were ensured of the full confidentiality of their participation and their personal information. The limitation of the research is that the sample size (52 nurses) is not big enough to make an assertive conclusion.
Results of The Studies
The researchers’ aim is to increase hospital staff’s inspiration and training. After a far-reaching ulcer prevention program was actualized in the adult intensive care hospitals, HAPUs were decreased by approximately 66%, and stage III HAPUs were encountered (Swafford et al., 2016). The utilization of fluidized positioners and silicone gel dressings at any point of some pressure, contingent upon the patient’s position proved to be effective procedures. Even though it is hard to segregate the impacts of individual cases, past studies have demonstrated that multi-layer, silicone froth dressings can supplement ulcer prevention programs (Swafford et al., 2016). As indicated by the article, patient consideration is more cooperative under the ulcer prevention project (Swafford et al., 2016). The investigators show that utilization of dressings added to the decrease in gadget-related HAPUs.
The outcome of the second study revealed a wide gap in staff’s knowledge about the effective prevention and treatment of PU in people. The questionnaires recommend that the information score did not arrive at the 60% proposed by Beeckman (Gunningberg & Carli, 2014). Additionally, the degree of awareness regarding the methods of pressure reduction was low. After the CBPM screen’s report, the medical attendants became more knowledgeable about the proper methods which were from their typical schedules. Hence, they attempted different strategies for managing the painful condition. Additionally, they utilized substantially more pads and frequently changed the positions of the bed (Gunningberg & Carli, 2014). Patients detailed their degrees of comfort as great in all positions, however, they stated it became far better after mapping.
Medical caretakers have a conventional obligation regarding the assessment of danger for pressure ulcers and making proper consideration plans. The given two research works provide guidelines for proper caring practice for patients with a high risk of developing PU. As indicated by Swafford et al. (2016), the outcomes caused the approval of the HAPU counteraction program. The investigation by Gunningberg and Carli (2014) demonstrated that the CBPM framework added to improved pressure ulcers identification and alleviation of pain for patients in the emergency unit. Thus, the anticipated outcome was confirmed because the impact of CBPM was more extensive than simple repositioning.
Boyko, T. V., Longaker, M. T., & Yang, G. P. (2018). Review of the Current Management of Pressure Ulcers. Advances in Wound Care, 7(2), 57–67. Web.
Gunningberg, L., & Carli, C. (2014). Reduced pressure for fewer pressure ulcers: Can real‐time feedback of interface pressure optimize repositioning in bed? International Wound Journal, 13(5), 774-779. Web.
Swafford, K., Culpepper, R., & Dunn, C. (2016). Use of a comprehensive program to reduce the incidence of hospital-acquired pressure ulcers in an intensive care unit. American Journal of Critical Care, 25(2), 152-155. Web.