Pressure Ulcer Risk in the Incontinent Patient
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
PURPOSE: To measure the prevalence of incontinence in the 2013-2014 International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence (IPUP) surveys and determine the relative risk of developing a facility-acquired pressure ulcers (FAPUs) by stage and by Braden Scale score groupings. DESIGN: The IPUP survey is an observational, cross-sectional cohort database designed to determine the frequency and severity of pressure ulcers in various populations. SUBJECTS AND SETTING: The survey includes acute care (91.4%), long-term acute care (1.7%), rehabilitation patients (1.7%) and long-term care residents (5.2%). Geographic distribution included 182,832 patients in the United States, 22,282 patients in Canada, and the rest of the world, primarily in Europe and the Middle East. METHODS: We analyzed data from the 2013 and 2014 IPUP surveys to better understand the relationship between incontinence and the frequency and severity of FAPUs. The IPUP survey is an annual voluntary survey of patients who are hospitalized or who reside in long-term care facilities. Data were collected over a 24-hour period within each participating facility. Data collection included limited demographics, presence and stage of pressure ulcers, and pressure ulcer risk assessment score (Braden Scale for Pressure Sore Risk, Braden Q, Norton, Waterlow, and others). In addition, data were collected on pertinent pressure ulcer risk factors including the number of linen layers, use of a pressure redistributing surface, adherence to repositioning schedule, and whether moisture management was provided in the last 24 hours. We aggregated data by urinary, urinary catheter, fecal, fecal management system, double (urinary and fecal), and ostomy incontinence category. If patients were managed by indwelling urinary catheter or fecal management systems, they were considered incontinent in this analysis. In order to analyze ulcers likely to be affected by incontinence, we defined a subset of ulcers as Relevant Pressure Ulcers, which are ulcers that are facility-acquired, non-device-related, and located in the pelvic region. RESULTS: We analyzed 176,689 patients based on data collected between 2013 and 2014. Slightly less than half (n = 83,800; 47%) of patients did not have incontinence, and 92,889 (53%) were deemed to be incontinent. The prevalence of pressure ulcers was 4.1% for continent patients and 16.3% for incontinent patients; the prevalence of FAPUs was 1.6% and 6.0%, respectively. The relative risk for PU development in incontinent patients was higher than predicted by the Braden Scale risk score. As wound severity increased, the odds ratios for pressure ulcer development for incontinent patients versus continent patients also increased, especially in patients with fecal incontinence. CONCLUSIONS: Incontinent patients had higher Braden Scale scores and higher overall and FAPU prevalence. Incontinence was associated with an increased risk for all pressure ulcers, but especially full-thickness injuries.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».