Pressure Ulcer Prevention Program Study: a randomized, controlled prospective comparative value evaluation of 2 pressure ulcer prevention strategies in nursing and rehabilitation centers
- PMID: 22990343
- DOI: 10.1097/01.ASW.0000421461.21773.32
Pressure Ulcer Prevention Program Study: a randomized, controlled prospective comparative value evaluation of 2 pressure ulcer prevention strategies in nursing and rehabilitation centers
Abstract
Objective: This article assesses the comparative prevention-effectiveness and economic implications of a Pressure Ulcer Prevention Program (PUPP) against standard practice of prevention using Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (now the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality [AHRQ]) guidelines and a mixture of commercial products.
Design: The study is a randomized, controlled, prospective cohort study with an accompanying economic evaluation. The economic evaluation is performed from the perspective of the nursing and rehabilitation centers.
Settings: Two nursing and rehabilitation centers under the same quality and safety support organization. Both institutions are experiencing high nursing staff turnover and incidence of pressure ulcers (PrUs).
Participants: 133 residents at risk of developing PrUs (EQUIP-for-Quality Risk Score Moderate to Very High [MVH]). All are Medicare-eligible residents with Minimum Data Set (MDS) 2.0 evaluations.
Interventions: The PUPP includes a strategic product bundle and decision algorithms driven by MDS 2.0 Resident Assessment Scores to assist in reducing or preventing PrUs and incontinence-associated skin conditions. The control group utilizes a different brand and assortment of commercial skin care products, briefs, pads, and mattresses, but without use of the decision algorithms driven by MDS 2.0 Resident Assessment Scores. Pressure ulcer prevention education was done for all nurses by a nurse certified in the PUPP program at the beginning and ad libitum by trained senior nursing staff at the end of the study.
Main outcome measures: Comparative reduction in the incidence of nosocomial PrUs and average 6-month net cost savings per MVH-risk resident.
Methods: Residents were assessed for PrU risk using EQUIP-for-Quality risk assessment algorithm based on data from their Minimum Data Set (MDS 2.0), then assigned to either the PUPP program or control group (standard practice following AHRQ guidelines). Residents were followed until discharge, death, development of PrU, or a maximum time period of 6 months. Direct medical costs of prevention and PrU treatment were recorded using a modified activity-based costing method. A decision model was used to estimate the net cost savings attributed to the PUPP program over a 6-month period.
Results: A 67% reduction in the incidence of nosocomial pressure ulcers is attributable to the PUPP strategy over a 6-month period for MVH residents. The average 6-month cost for a MVH Medicare resident is $1928 and $1130 for the control group and PUPP group respectively. Mean difference (net cost savings per resident at risk of pressure ulceration) is $798 per resident for PUPP.
Conclusions: PUPP assisted in reducing the incidence of PrUs by 67% in a 6-month period in nursing home facilities. The estimated annual net cost savings attributed to PUPP for 300 MVH residents is estimated at approximately $240,000.
Similar articles
-
Pressure ulcer prevention in long-term-care facilities: a pilot study implementing standardized nurse aide documentation and feedback reports.Adv Skin Wound Care. 2010 Mar;23(3):120-31. doi: 10.1097/01.ASW.0000363516.47512.67. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2010. PMID: 20177165
-
Evaluation of AHRQ's on-time pressure ulcer prevention program: a facilitator-assisted clinical decision support intervention for nursing homes.Med Care. 2014 Mar;52(3):258-66. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000080. Med Care. 2014. PMID: 24374408
-
Turning for Ulcer ReductioN: a multisite randomized clinical trial in nursing homes.J Am Geriatr Soc. 2013 Oct;61(10):1705-13. doi: 10.1111/jgs.12440. Epub 2013 Sep 19. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2013. PMID: 24050454 Clinical Trial.
-
The business case for nursing in long-term care.Policy Polit Nurs Pract. 2008 May;9(2):88-93. doi: 10.1177/1527154408320420. Policy Polit Nurs Pract. 2008. PMID: 18650413 Review.
-
Successful heel pressure ulcer prevention program in a long-term care setting.J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2009 Nov-Dec;36(6):616-21. doi: 10.1097/WON.0b013e3181bd813e. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2009. PMID: 19920742 Review.
Cited by
-
Standards and quality of care for older persons in long term care facilities: a scoping review.BMC Geriatr. 2022 Mar 19;22(1):226. doi: 10.1186/s12877-022-02892-0. BMC Geriatr. 2022. PMID: 35303830 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Impact of structured educational interventions on the prevention of pressure ulcers in immobile orthopedic patients in India: A pragmatic randomized controlled trial.J Family Med Prim Care. 2021 Mar;10(3):1267-1274. doi: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_1436_20. Epub 2021 Apr 8. J Family Med Prim Care. 2021. PMID: 34041164 Free PMC article.
-
Education of healthcare professionals for preventing pressure ulcers.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 May 25;5(5):CD011620. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011620.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018. PMID: 29800486 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Education and process change to improve skin health in a residential aged care facility.Int Wound J. 2017 Dec;14(6):1140-1147. doi: 10.1111/iwj.12772. Epub 2017 May 26. Int Wound J. 2017. PMID: 28547751 Free PMC article.
-
Contextual Facilitators of and Barriers to Nursing Home Pressure Ulcer Prevention.Adv Skin Wound Care. 2016 May;29(5):226-38; quiz E1. doi: 10.1097/01.ASW.0000482113.18800.1c. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2016. PMID: 27089151 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Research Materials
Miscellaneous
