IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v25y2016i15-16p2336-2347.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The relationship among pressure ulcer risk factors, incidence and nursing documentation in hospital‐acquired pressure ulcer patients in intensive care units

Author

Listed:
  • Dan Li

Abstract

Aims and objectives To explore the quality/comprehensiveness of nursing documentation of pressure ulcers and to investigate the relationship between the nursing documentation and the incidence of pressure ulcers in four intensive care units. Background Pressure ulcer prevention requires consistent assessments and documentation to decrease pressure ulcer incidence. Currently, most research is focused on devices to prevent pressure ulcers. Studies have rarely considered the relationship among pressure ulcer risk factors, incidence and nursing documentation. Thus, a study to investigate this relationship is needed to fill this information gap. Design A retrospective, comparative, descriptive, correlational study. Method A convenience sample of 196 intensive care units patients at the selected medical centre comprised the study sample. All medical records of patients admitted to intensive care units between the time periods of September 1, 2011 through September 30, 2012 were audited. Data used in the analysis included 98 pressure ulcer patients and 98 non‐pressure ulcer patients. The quality and comprehensiveness of pressure ulcer documentation were measured by the modified European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel Pressure Ulcers Assessment Instrument and the Comprehensiveness in Nursing Documentation instrument. Result The correlations between quality/comprehensiveness of pressure ulcer documentation and incidence of pressure ulcers were not statistically significant. Patients with pressure ulcers had longer length of stay than patients without pressure ulcers stay. There were no statistically significant differences in quality/comprehensiveness scores of pressure ulcer documentation between dayshift and nightshift. Conclusion This study revealed a lack of quality/comprehensiveness in nursing documentation of pressure ulcers. This study demonstrates that staff nurses often perform poorly on documenting pressure ulcer appearance, staging and treatment. Moreover, nursing documentation of pressure ulcers does not provide a complete picture of patients’ care needs that require nursing interventions. Relevance to clinical practice The implication of this study involves pressure ulcer prevention and litigable risk of nursing documentation.

Suggested Citation

  • Dan Li, 2016. "The relationship among pressure ulcer risk factors, incidence and nursing documentation in hospital‐acquired pressure ulcer patients in intensive care units," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(15-16), pages 2336-2347, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:25:y:2016:i:15-16:p:2336-2347
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.13363
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13363
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.13363?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dan Li & Carol Mathews & Fei Zhang, 2018. "The characteristics of pressure injury photographs from the electronic health record in clinical settings," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3-4), pages 819-828, February.
    2. Dan Li & Carol Mathews, 2017. "Automated measurement of pressure injury through image processing," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(21-22), pages 3564-3575, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:25:y:2016:i:15-16:p:2336-2347. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.