MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

25 Years of Pressure Ulcers and Advances in Skin & Wound Care

2012· article· en· W2080580600 on OpenAlexaff
Lawrence Charles Parish, R. Gary Sibbald

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Skin & Wound Care · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPressure Ulcer Prevention and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEtiologyErythemaWound careDermatologyPressure soresTerminologySkin careIntensive care medicineSurgeryGeneral surgeryInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Editor’s note: Lawrence Charles Parish, MD, MD (Hon), FACP, FAAD, was one of the original members of the Editorial Board of Decubitus when it launched its volume 1, number 1 issue, in February 1988. This issue marks volume 25, issue 2, of the journal. Here, Dr Parish’s reflections, along with Clinical Editor R. Gary Sibbald, BSc, MD, MEd, FRCPC(Med Derm), MACP, FAAD, MAPWCA, may help clinicians prepare us for the next 25 years. What have we learned during this past quarter of a century? Wound care practitioners and investigators are studying wounds, but does the patient suffering with the skin defect have a better outcome? Nomenclature Discussion over terminology remains: bedsore, pressure ulcer (PrU), or pressure sore? Is the name pressure sore even accurate for the current nomenclature? There is the extreme of torsion stress to downplay the poor connotation of a skin defect. With the pathophysiology of the PrU far from clear, the name is only for reference. The etiology must include the role of moisture and friction as paramount for superficial ulcers often classified as Stage I or II. These ulcers seldom transition into Stage III or IV ulcers with an etiology more related to pressure and shear as explored in ‘‘Pressure Ulcer Staging Revisited: Superficial Skin Changes and Deep Pressure Ulcer Framework,’’ December 2011 issue of Advances in Skin &Wound Care. Investigating the nomenclature even further, a so-called Stage I PrU is an area of fixed erythema. The skin can only react in so many ways, and the etiology of this type of skin change is enormous. A lack of sensitivity and specificity exists when PrU prevalence and incidence studies include Stage I lesions that can represent anything dermatological from a suspected deep tissue injury (see ‘‘Deep Tissue Injury: 25 Years of Learning,’’ page 59) to the nonblanchable erythema of pressure-related damage to a fixed drug reaction, urticarial vasculitis, or a plethora of other dermatological diagnoses. The dermatological definition of an ulcer is loss of skin with a dermal or deeper base, and yet a Stage I lesion has no loss of skin. A Stage II ulcer has loss of skin with an epidermal base (partial loss of epidermis morphologically is an erosion and not an ulcer) or dermal base, but not to subcutaneous fat (the only true ulcer in the Stage I and II classification system). Should all Stage I and II lesions be referred to as PrUs when the main component is probably unwanted skin surface moisture and friction? Clinical Presentation A PrU is an ulceration that can extend from the stratum corneum through the dermis and subcutaneous tissue down to bone. It can still be destructive and deceiving, such as the undermining or tunneling that can occur. Perhaps, not every ‘‘bedsore’’ is a PrU. If the ulcer occurs on the foot, it could be a diabetic foot ulcer. Should the defect be on the leg, then it may be a venous or arterial ulcer. When it develops on the sacrum, it could be even other diagnoses. Could the PrU really be a diagnosis of exclusion? The wound bed preparation model, which was updated in the journal’s September 2011 issue, explores the diagnosis and treatment of wounds with a ‘‘wholistic’’ approach. To treat the whole patient, we must first look beyond the hole to the treatment of the cause and patient-centered concerns (eg, pain and activities of daily living). The treatment of the causes and other factors, such as incontinence of stool and urine, nutritional deficiencies, friction and shear, and patient/client mobility, is important. It is also important to note that not all PrUs are preventable. A patient dying of cancer in negative protein balance may develop a PrU as the vital organs fail and the cutaneous blood supply is compromised. And, coexisting medications and diseases may make the PrU unavoidable. We need mechanisms to acknowledge this reality and not penalize healthcare professionals or institutions for poorquality care in these circumstances. Clinical Tools Staging has certain merit, but it may have created more confusion. What may appear to be a Stage I in the left quadrant of the defect could be called a Stage II in the right quadrant. Thus, we may be more correct to use simple descriptors, such as blanchable erythema, nonblanchable erythema, superficial ulcer, deep ulcer, and eschar/gangrene, without implying an etiology before completely assessing and investigating the patient. Treatment and Prevention Treatment and prevention are not the same actions and are often confused. Treating the cause of a wound or PrU includes pressure assessment and treatment of all surfaces, such as the bed, chair, commode, car seat, and so on; nutrition includes more than just albumin, but there must be adequate protein intake to produce granulation tissue necessary for the healing process to fill the dermal or deeper defect; friction and shear that are problems with transfers or just sitting up in bed; moisture and the need to avoid the damaging effects from incontinence of stool and urine along with damage from perspiration; and mobility and level of consciousness issues for the bedbound or spinal cord injury population. Many PrUs can be prevented in the right scenario: a team of healthcare professionals working with patients under an institutional policy with resources to deliver best clinical practices. Is the person with the PrU better off today? The answer is they could be. These improved outcomes require the integrated and specialized interprofessional team approach, facilitated by advances in knowledge and institutional financial and resource support outlined by the knowledge translation into a practice paradigm.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.852
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.364 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Skin & Wound CareSame topicPressure Ulcer Prevention and ManagementFrench-language works237,207