Pressure ulcers in the adult intensive care unit: a literature review of patient risk factors and risk assessment scales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background : Critically ill patients are at high risk for pressure ulcer (PrU) development due to their high acuity and the invasive nature of the multiple interventions and therapies they receive. With reported incidence rates of PrU development in the adult critical care population as high as 56%, the identification of patients at high risk of PrU development is essential. This paper will explore the association between PrU development and risk factors. It will also explore PrU development and the use of risk assessment scales for critically ill patients in adult intensive care units. Method : A literature search from 2000 to 2012 using the CINHAL, Cochrane Library, EBSCOHost, Medline (via EBSCOHost), PubMed, ProQuest and Google Scholar databases was conducted. Key words used were: pressure ulcer/s; pressure sore/s; decubitus ulcer/s; bed sore/s; critical care; intensive care; critical illness; prevalence; incidence; prevention; management; risk factor; risk assessment scale. Results : Nineteen articles were included in this review; eight studies addressing PrU risk factors, eight studies addressing risk assessment scales and three studies overlapping both. Results from the studies reviewed identified 28 intrinsic and extrinsic risk factors which may lead to PrU development. Development of a risk factor prediction model in this patient population, although beneficial, appears problematic due to many issues such as diverse diagnoses and subsequent patient needs. Additionally, several risk assessment instruments have been developed for early screening of patients at higher risk of developing PrU in the ICU. No existing risk assessment scales are valid for identification high risk critically ill patient, with the majority of scales potentially over-predicting patients at risk for PrU development. Conclusion: Research studies to inform the risk factors for potential pressure ulcer development are inconsistent. Additionally, there is no consistent or clear evidence which demonstrates any scale to better or more effective than another when used to identify the patients at risk for PrU development. Furthermore robust research is needed to identify the risk factors and develop valid scales for measuring the risk of PrU development in ICU.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".