Premium
Relationship Between Prescription and Documentation of Pressure Injury Prevention Interventions and Their Implementation: An Exploratory, Descriptive Study
Author(s) -
Lovegrove Josephine,
Fulbrook Paul,
Miles Sandra
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
worldviews on evidence‐based nursing
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.052
H-Index - 49
eISSN - 1741-6787
pISSN - 1545-102X
DOI - 10.1111/wvn.12473
Subject(s) - psychological intervention , medical prescription , medicine , intervention (counseling) , pressure injury , descriptive statistics , risk assessment , relative risk , family medicine , emergency medicine , nursing , confidence interval , statistics , mathematics , computer security , computer science
Background Formal assessment by nurses of a patient’s pressure injury (PI) risk level is often highlighted as being key to PI prevention. However, if no action is taken to address the determined risk (i.e., if appropriate preventative interventions are not implemented), the patient remains vulnerable to PI development, and the assessment process is rendered pointless. Aim To explore the relationship between the prescription (planning) and implementation of PI preventative interventions by nurses following formal risk assessment. Methods Using an exploratory, descriptive design, the charts and bedside areas of 200 adult patients admitted across four hospital wards were examined. Data collected included PI risk level, documented prescribed preventative interventions, and interventions for which there was evidence of implementation. Results Of the final sample ( n = 187), 66.8% of cases were categorized as being “at‐risk” or above. As the risk category of patients increased, proportionately more patients in each category were prescribed each intervention. However, in most cases, significantly fewer interventions were actually implemented than were prescribed, except for several interventions that were implemented in more cases than were prescribed. There were 14 cases, including four at‐risk and three high‐risk patients, in which no preventative interventions were prescribed, while 88.7% of not at‐risk patients had (unnecessary) preventative interventions prescribed. Discussion These results indicate that intervention prescription increased relative to assessed level of risk; however, the rates of intervention prescription and actual implementation were suboptimal. The results indicate a significant mismatch between these two steps of PI prevention. Linking evidence to action These results indicate that intervention prescription increased relative to assessed level of risk; however, the rates of intervention prescription and actual implementation were suboptimal. A significant mismatch between these two steps of PI prevention was evident. Following patient risk assessment, there should be a greater focus on appropriate preventative intervention prescription (planning) with regular review and audit to help ensure that interventions are implemented as prescribed. Improved implementation of preventative interventions should, in turn, help to reduce hospital‐acquired pressure injuries.