Mattresses
Bick, D. and F. Stephens (2003). "Pressure ulcer risk: audit findings." Nurs Stand 17(44): 63-66, 68, 70 passim.
This article describes the findings of a pilot audit project that assessed the effects on practice and patient care of guideline recommendations for reducing pressure ulcer development. A national audit project to enable the implementation strategy and audit tools to be evaluated across a range of healthcare settings and patient groups should now be undertaken.
Butler, F. (2008). "Essence of Care and the pressure ulcer benchmark--an evaluation." J Tissue Viability 17(2): 44-59.
Cavicchioli, A. and G. Carella (2007). "Clinical effectiveness of a low-tech versus high-tech pressure-redistributing mattress." J Wound Care 16(7): 285-289.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of a high-specification foam mattress (control) with a high-tech (Duo2, Hill Rom) alternating/continuous low-pressure mattress (treatment) in the prevention of pressure ulceration. The study also evaluated if there is a difference in performance between the two working modalities (alternating and continuous low pressure) of the high-tech mattress in a comparable sample of patients. MethoD: Thirty-three patients were observed for two weeks in the control group. In the treatment group, 86 patients were randomised to receive alternating low pressure and 84 continuous low pressure. Incidence of pressure ulcers in both arms was recorded. Student's t-test was used to compare all Braden scores, and the chi-square test and Fisher's exact test to evaluate differences between groups. RESULTS: There was a high difference in the number of new pressure ulcers in the control group when compared with the treatment group. There was no difference in performance between the alternating and continuous low-pressure modes. However, the sample size is too small to prove or disprove a statistically significant difference between the two modalities. CONCLUSION: The high-tech mattress was markedly more effective than the high-specification foam mattress in preventing the onset of pressure ulcers. Initial data suggest that the use of alternating or continuous low pressure made little or no difference to the results.
Chaloner, D. and J. Stevens (2003). "Evaluating selection and efficacy of pressure-relieving equipment." Br J Nurs 12(11 Suppl): S26, S28, S30 passim.
The drive towards evidence-based practice has highlighted the lack of randomized controlled trials that compare interventions such as pressure-relieving medical devices. This may influence practitioners, particularly purchasing practitioners, to consider other types of evidence when appraising literature to determine clinical practice and support recommendations and local guidelines. This article will illustrate the development of an audit tool used to evaluate nurses' knowledge and skills in patient assessment, selection and installation of appropriate pressure-relieving equipment. The tool also assists in assessing clinical effectiveness and user satisfaction of equipment. This article focuses on a small audit of the Karomed Ltd Transair 1500 (also known as the 3-Comm) mattress replacement system.
Clark, M. and N. Cullum (1992). "Matching patient need for pressure sore prevention with the supply of pressure redistributing mattresses." J Adv Nurs 17(3): 310-316.
The authors have conducted a series of pressure sore prevalence surveys within one health district over a 4-year period. Additional surveys of the availability and deployment of pressure redistributing (PR) bed mattresses have also been made within the same district. The prevalence of pressure sores increased from 6.8% (1986) to 14.2% (1989) while the available stocks of PR mattresses increased from 69 (1987) to 186 (1989). Our results appear to question the common assumption that successful pressure sore prevention can be achieved through expanding the stocks of PR mattresses. Five possible reasons why the increase in mattress provision was matched with an increased prevalence of pressure sores are forwarded. The use of measures of prevalence rather than incidence rates to monitor the effects of clinical initiatives is discussed.
Dukich, J. and D. O'Connor (2001). "Impact of practice guidelines on support surface selection, incidence of pressure ulcers, and fiscal dollars." Ostomy Wound Manage 47(3): 44-53.
Predicated on a need to control overall hospital costs and to integrate a Level 1 trauma center (Campus A) with a family practice based tertiary care hospital system (Campus B), expenditures associated with rental support surfaces were evaluated. Consistency and appropriateness of support surface selection is necessary to promote positive clinical outcomes, patient comfort, and a healthier bottom line, despite increasing costs. Clinical practice guidelines for therapeutic support surfaces were developed to decrease support surface expenditures and maintain prevalence rates below national averages. Utilizing the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research algorithm for managing tissue loads, along with other guidelines, criteria for prevention, comfort, and treatment were developed to assist nurses and physicians in support surface selections. A prevalence study was conducted before these criteria were implemented and repeated 1 year later. Expenditures for all rental support surfaces were assessed quarterly. Campus A, with a history of higher financial expenditures, was monitored weekly to assess whether support surfaces selections met guideline recommendations. Nursing staff reviewed hospital protocol regarding guidelines before implementation, and a self-administered review test was required during the first year post-implementation. One year later, a modest decrease in annual expenditures for rental support surfaces was noted. Campus A had a decrease in nosocomial pressure ulcers, while Campus B had an increased prevalence rate. Staff selection of support surfaces, within guideline recommendations, improved to 75% on medical/surgical units, and 98.8% in ICUs on Campus A. Although implementing support surface selection guidelines did not result in a significant reduction in cost, it created a framework for monitoring future related decisions.
Evans, D., L. Land, et al. (2000). "A clinical evaluation of the Nimbus 3 alternating pressure mattress replacement system." J Wound Care 9(4): 181-186.
This study assessed the clinical effectiveness of the Nimbus 3 alternating pressure mattress replacement system (APMRS) on pressure ulcer healing and comfort in subjects > or = 65 years, with at least a Grade 2 ulcer and some mobility problems. Twelve patients in a hospital setting were randomly allocated to the Nimbus 3 or another APMRS, and 20 residents in a nursing home setting to the Nimbus 3 or an alternating pressure mattress overlay. Wound surface area (WSA) (cm2) was recorded twice weekly and comfort once weekly. In the hospital setting, there were no significant differences between groups in the reduction in WSA per day. In the nursing home setting, though subjects on Nimbus 3 had significantly more pressure ulcers at baseline, there were no significant differences between groups in the reduction in WSA per day. Nimbus 3 was statistically more comfortable than control surfaces. The study's sample size has not shown the products were different with regard to clinical effectiveness. However, it might serve as a pilot for a larger, multi-centre RCT aimed at establishing the efficacy of a pressure-relieving (PR) device on pressure ulcer healing.
Flanagan, M. (1995). "Who is at risk of a pressure sore? A practical review of risk assessment systems." Prof Nurse 10(5): 305-308.
1. The validity and reliability of many commonly used risk assessment scores in inconclusive. 2. Particular risk assessment scores appear to be more suitable for specific clinical settings, therefore selection and use of individual scoring systems requires careful consideration. 3. Use of risk assessment scores can assist selection of patient support surfaces, but such tools should be an adjunct to clinical decision-making rather than a replacement. 4. Further research is required to investigate the relationship between predictions of risk status and the selection of appropriate patient support surfaces.
Gebhardt, K. S., J. Hookway, et al. (1998). "Evaluating alternating pressure overlays." J Wound Care 7(5): 227-230.
This study evaluates 53 overlays (six types of alternating pressure overlays) which were purchased, placed into the hospital pool and examined for mechanical malfunction and mismanagement every working day (excluding 22 days' annual leave) for one year. Reasons for malfunction were recorded and categorised. Results show that 69 mechanical failures and seven cases of physical damage were recorded. There were significant differences between the different types of overlay in performance and the length of time to effect repairs. There were 56 errors in management (mainly units not plugged in or not switched on) and five cases of design features contributing to mismanagement. Although some alternating pressure overlays perform better than others, mechanical unreliability remains a problem for most.
Hampton, S. (1999). "Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of the Thermo contour mattress." Br J Nurs 8(15): 990-996.
Use of air mattresses in reduction of pressure sore incidence is an important part of quality patient care. However, there will never be enough air mattresses to match the demand as increased education and an increase in the general provision of air mattresses can lead to an unrealistic expectation of obtaining air mattresses when required for patients. This raises the demand for air mattresses and increases costs within hospital trusts. This study examined a way to redress the balance through use of an alternative, cost-effective type of mattress (thermoelastic polymer) in the prevention of pressure sores. Prime consideration was given to the comfort of the patient. The claims of the manufacturers, Barrington Healthcare, that 'patients with Waterlow scores of 23 can be nursed safely on this product' were explored as part of the study. A total of 407 patients took part over a 6-month period. Twenty-four Thermo contour mattresses were loaned to one ward for the study and patients were allocated to the mattress through admission to the experimental ward. Patients were then split into two groups on two wards. Group B were allocated to a Thermo contour mattress and group A were nursed on air mattresses and foam mattresses generally used throughout the trust. Results showed that more patients were comfortable on the Thermo contour mattresses than on all other mattresses. Patients with Waterlow scores under 25 did not develop pressure sores on the Thermo contour mattress. However, the sample of patients with a Waterlow score of between 20 and 25 was small and therefore further research is required.
Hardin, J. B., S. N. Cronin, et al. (2000). "Comparison of the effectiveness of two pressure-relieving surfaces: low-air-loss versus static fluid." Ostomy Wound Manage 46(9): 50-56.
Limited research has been done to determine the effectiveness of the multitude of pressure reduction devices currently available for patient care. The purpose of this investigation was to examine the relative effectiveness of a dynamic low-air-loss (LAL) mattress and a static fluid mattress in reducing the risk of pressure ulcer development. The investigation consisted of two components: a comparative laboratory study and a retrospective clinical study. In the laboratory study, tissue interface pressures were measured on the two surfaces at three interface sites in a sample of six healthy adult volunteers. In the clinical study, a retrospective chart review was conducted to compare the actual incidence of pressure ulcer formation in a sample of 73 postoperative transplant patients who were placed on either the static fluid or LAL product. The instruments used were the Xsensor Pressure Mapping System (laboratory) and chart review tool (clinical). The main outcome measures included tissue interface pressures and incidence of pressure ulcer formation. The results were as follows: the laboratory study revealed significantly lower sacral pressures (t = -5.30, P = .003) on the low-air-loss mattress than on the static fluid mattress. Pressures did not differ significantly at the heel or trochanter sites. In the clinical study, the overall incidence of skin breakdown was 8.2%, with 5 occurrences (13.8%) in the LAL group and 1 occurrence (2.7%) in the static fluid group. However, this difference was not significant (Fisher's exact test = 0.107, P = .09). When considered jointly, the results of the two studies suggest that the static fluid and LAL products may be comparable in efficacy. Although the relatively small sample sizes used in the investigation limit generalizability, the results provide some initial direction for further clinical research in this area.
Maylor, M. (2001). "Debating the relative unimportance of pressure-reducing equipment." Br J Nurs 10(15 Suppl): S42-50.
This article examines some assumptions underlying the provision of pressure-reducing equipment, and argues that failure to 'act first and ask questions later' may be a key source of pressure damage. Indeed, it is argued that prevention of pressure damage can be simplified by identifying three groups of patients: those who have pressure ulcers; those who will develop them in faction is not taken; and those who will not get them. The linkage of risk assessment scores and guidelines is challenge as erroneous and misleading.
Nixon, J., G. Cranny, et al. (2006). "Randomised, controlled trial of alternating pressure mattresses compared with alternating pressure overlays for the prevention of pressure ulcers: PRESSURE (pressure relieving support surfaces) trial." BMJ 332(7555): 1413.
OBJECTIVE: To compare whether differences exist between alternating pressure overlays and alternating pressure mattresses in the development of new pressure ulcers, healing of existing pressure ulcers, and patient acceptability. DESIGN: Pragmatic, open, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 11 hospitals in six NHS trusts. PARTICIPANTS: 1972 people admitted to hospital as acute or elective patients. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised to an alternating pressure mattress (n = 982) or an alternating pressure overlay (n = 990). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer of grade 2 or worse; time to development of new pressure ulcers; proportions of participants developing a new ulcer within 30 days; healing of existing pressure ulcers; and patient acceptability. RESULTS: Intention to treat analysis found no difference in the proportions of participants developing a new pressure ulcer of grade 2 or worse (10.7% overlay patients, 10.3% mattress patients; difference 0.4%, 95% confidence interval--2.3% to 3.1%, P = 0.75). More overlay patients requested change owing to dissatisfaction (23.3%) than mattress patients (18.9%, P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: No difference was found between alternating pressure mattresses and alternating pressure overlays in the proportion of people who develop a pressure ulcer.
Nixon, J., E. A. Nelson, et al. (2006). "Pressure relieving support surfaces: a randomised evaluation." Health Technol Assess 10(22): iii-iv, ix-x, 1-163.
OBJECTIVES: To determine differences between alternating pressure overlays and alternating pressure replacement mattresses with respect to the development of new pressure ulcers, healing of existing pressure ulcers, patient acceptability and cost-effectiveness of the different pressure-relieving surfaces. Also to investigate the specific additional impact of pressure ulcers on patients' well-being. DESIGN: A multicentre, randomised, controlled, open, fixed sample, parallel-group trial with equal randomisation was undertaken. The trial used remote, concealed allocation and intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. The main trial design was supplemented with a qualitative study involving a purposive sample of 20-30 patients who developed pressure ulcers, to assess the impact of the pressure ulcers on their well-being. In addition, a focus group interview was carried out with clinical research nurses, who participated in the PRESSURE (Pressure RElieving Support SUrfaces: a Randomised Evaluation) Trial, to explore the experiences of their role and observations of pressure area care. SETTING: The study took place in 11 hospital-based research centres within six NHS trusts in England. PARTICIPANTS: Acute and elective patients aged 55 years or older and admitted to vascular, orthopaedic, medical or care of the elderly wards in the previous 24 hours were investigated. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomised to either an alternating pressure overlay or an alternating pressure mattress replacement, with mattress specifications clearly defined to enable the inclusion of centres using products from different manufacturers, and to exclude hybrid mattress systems (which either combine foam or constant low pressure with alternating pressure in one mattress, or can be used as either an overlay or a replacement mattress). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Development of a new pressure ulcer (grade < or =2, i.e. partial-thickness wound involving epidermis/dermis only) on any skin site. Also healing of existing pressures ulcers, patient acceptability and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: In total, 6155 patients were assessed for eligibility to the trial and 1972 were randomised: 990 to the alternating pressure overlay (989 after one postrandomisation exclusion) and 982 to the alternating pressure mattress replacement. ITT analysis found no statistically significant difference in the proportions of patients developing a new pressure ulcer of grade 2 or above [10.7% overlay patients, 10.3% mattress replacement patients, a difference of 0.4%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.3 to 3.1%, p = 0.75]. When logistic regression analysis was used to adjust for minimisation factors and prespecified baseline covariates, there was no difference between the mattresses with respect to the odds of ulceration (odds ratio 0.94, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.29). There was no evidence of a difference between the mattress groups with respect to time to healing (p = 0.86). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the median time to healing was 20 days for each intervention. More patients allocated overlays requested mattress changes due to dissatisfaction (23.3%) than mattress replacement patients (18.9%, p = 0.02) and more than one-third of patients reporting difficulties associated with movement in bed and getting into or out of bed. There is a higher probability (64%) that alternating mattress replacements are cost-saving; they were associated with lower overall costs (74.50 pounds sterling per patient on average, mainly due to reduced length of stay) and greater benefits (a delay in time to ulceration of 10.64 days on average). Patients' accounts highlighted that the development of a pressure ulcer could be pivotal in the trajectory from illness to recovery, by preventing full recovery or causing varied impacts on their quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: There is no difference between alternating pressure mattress replacements and overlays in terms of the proportion of patients developing new pressure ulcers; however, alternating pressure mattress replacements are more likely to be cost-saving. The results suggest that when renewing alternating pressure surfaces or ordering equipment within a rental contract, mattress replacements should be specified; however, overlays are acceptable if no replacement mattress is available. Similarly, patient preferences can be supported, without any great increase in risk, if individual patients request an overlay rather than a replacement mattress. Further research could include a randomised controlled trial comparing alternating pressure mattress replacements and high-specification foam mattresses in patients at moderate to high risk; an accurate costing study to understand better how much pressure ulcers cost health and social services in the UK; and trials in higher risk groups of patients. Also future trials should measure time to ulceration as the primary end-point, since this is more informative economically and possibly also from a patient and clinical perspective.
Ooka, M., M. G. Kemp, et al. (1995). "Evaluation of three types of support surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers in patients in a surgical intensive care unit." J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs 22(6): 271-279.
Because critical care nurses recognize that many of their patients are at risk for pressure ulcer development, they provide them with support surfaces that can reduce this risk. Few reported studies, however, are available to help these nurses choose these surfaces wisely. This project was a new-product evaluation that compared the clinical effectiveness of three types of support surfaces: two dynamic mattress replacement surfaces and a static foam mattress replacement. Members of a convenience sample of 110 patients admitted to a surgical intensive care unit each used one of the three support surfaces. When each patient was placed on one of the three surfaces, the evaluators rated likelihood of pressure ulcer development (Braden Scale score) and assessed the skin for pressure ulcers. The evaluators repeated the Braden Scale score weekly and the skin assessment three times each week. Nine patients (8%), three patients on each support surface, acquired pressure ulcers. The log-rank test did not find a statistically significant difference between the three types of support surfaces with respect to the risk of pressure ulcer development. Stepwise Cox proportional hazards regression revealed a statistically significant relationship between the risk of developing a pressure ulcer, the averaged total Braden Scale score, and the averaged score for the sensory perception subscale of the Braden Scale. Although these three surfaces were comparable in effectiveness, they were not comparable in cost. Both dynamic mattress replacement surfaces cost approximately $2000 each, whereas the cost of the static foam mattress replacement was only $240 each. The results of this product evaluation should encourage other nurses to evaluate patient care products carefully before making recommendations.
Russell, L., T. M. Reynolds, et al. (2000). "Randomised controlled trial of two pressure-relieving systems." J Wound Care 9(2): 52-55.
The primary objective of this randomised controlled trial was to determine whether there were significant differences between two pressure-relieving systems. A secondary aim was to investigate whether the availability of extra pressure-relieving equipment would reduce the incidence of ulcers in an acute hospital setting. A total of 141 patients in a care-of-the-elderly unit, who were assessed to have a high risk of developing pressure ulcers using the Waterlow score, were recruited; 70 were nursed using Huntleigh Nimbus 3 in conjunction with the Aura cushion (Group A), and 71 using the Pegasus Cairwave Therapy System in conjunction with the Proactive 2 Seating cushion (Group B). The main outcome measure was visual assessment, supported by a photographic record. There were three main findings: for non-heel ulcers and overall improvement, there was no statistically significant difference between the two products tested; for heel ulcers there was a significant difference (P = 0.019) with more patients healing in Group A than in Group B. The average length of stay of patients who completed the trial was 21.6 days (Group A) and 21.7 days (Group B) for patients completing a live (range 1-121 days) and for patients who died 29.7 days (Group A) and 24.3 days (Group B). Routine monitoring showed that, before the trial, the incidence of hospital-acquired pressure ulcers (Torrance grade 2+) was 0.2%; during the trial, this dropped to 0.13%. The study showed differences in the efficacy of different mattress products; with a sufficiently large study, it is possible to demonstrate statistically significant results. Provision of extra pressure-relieving equipment can reduce the incidence of pressure ulcers but may not influence length of stay.
Thompson, G. (2006). "Softform Premier Active mattress: a novel step-up/step-down approach." Br J Nurs 15(18): 988-993.
In the UK it is estimated that as many as 412,000 patients who are already ill will develop pressure ulcers (Bennett et al, 2004), which are an unnecessary and expensive complication to treat (Hitch, 1995). One way to try and reduce these risks is by investing in suitable mattresses. The author's investigations into existing mattress stock in the years 1996-97 illustrated the inadequacy of the NHS standard mattress (Santy, 1995; Fox, 1997). Investigators (e.g. Rithalia, 1996) were recognizing the inadequacy of the pink marbled standard NHS foam mattress for pressure reduction (Medical Device Directorate, 1993; Dunford, 1994) which included reports necessary to help develop guidelines in pressure ulcer prevention and management (Coull, 2004), as well as make value-for-money recommendations about product purchases (Fletcher et al, 1994; Value For Money Update, 1994; Cullum et al, 1995).
Wolf, J. G. (1995). "Selection of appropriate support surfaces." J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs 22(6): 259-262.
Many claims are made regarding the appropriate selection of support surfaces. ET nurses do not need to "reinvent the wheel" when they decide which system is best for their patients, but they do need to be aware of the most current scientific and expert recommendations. The WOCN and the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research have published guidelines that list concrete suggestions about the prediction and prevention of pressure ulcers in adults. I developed an algorithm that incorporates the two groups' recommendations and the most recent scientific research. This algorithm can be used in multiple nursing settings.
Xakellis, G. C. (1993). "Guidelines for the prediction and prevention of pressure ulcers. The Agency for Health Care Policy and Research." J Am Board Fam Pract 6(3): 269-278.
Of the 26 recommendations made by the panel, only six (23 percent) have sufficient research data to warrant a level A or B strength of evidence rating. Thus expert opinion, while traditionally valuable for filling the gaps where research-based information is missing, is used more extensively than data to support the recommendations of this guideline. The literature on pressure ulcers is voluminous but of variable quality. After reviewing this literature, I am not surprised at the confusion and frustration that physicians feel when trying to prevent pressure ulcers. More research is needed to confirm or refute expert opinion on prevention of pressure ulcers. The guideline does, however, provide physicians five specific steps that can be used to prevent pressure ulcers in their patients: (1) perform a risk assessment on all bed- and chair-bound patients, (2) keep the pressure off the bony prominences of at-risk patients by using a turning schedule, (3) use a pressure-reducing mattress in the treatment of all at-risk patients, (4) avoid massage of bony prominences, and (5) encourage the development of institutional educational programs or skin care teams for the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers. The remaining 20 recommendations are reasonable and can be applied selectively, but they are based on expert opinion and have not been shown to reduce the rate of pressure ulcers in well-designed research studies.