Determination of medical device-related pressure injury in COVID-19 patients: A prospective descriptive study.
Eylem Togluk Yiğitoğlu, Semine Aydoğan
PMID 36371244WHAT IT FOUND
Medical device-related pressure injuries developed in 78.2% of ICU patients placed prone, compared to 21.8% of those in other positions.
Injuries appeared quickly, often within 72 hours, and concentrated on the mouth and lips.
Key findings
01Medical device-related pressure injuries developed in 78.2% of patients in the prone position, compared to 21.8% of those in lateral or supine positions.
02The most common devices causing injury were endotracheal tubes and non-invasive mechanical ventilation masks, with the nose and mouth being the most frequent injury sites.
03Pressure injuries typically appeared by the second day of observation, with 25.7% of cases detected at the 72-hour mark.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
This was a single-center study, so the results may not apply to other hospitals or patient populations. Patients were only observed for seven days; those who stayed longer or were discharged early were not re-evaluated, so the true incidence over a longer stay is unknown. The nursing team changed their practice during the study, discontinuing the use of gel pads and switching to improvised bedsheet padding. This mid-study change in intervention may have influenced the injury rates. The study was observational, so it identifies associations between prone positioning and injury but does not prove that prone positioning alone caused the increase.
Declared interests
The researchers funded the study themselves. There were no conflicts of interest declared.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume the high injury rate in the prone group is solely due to the position itself. The study authors note that the nursing team stopped using gel pads and switched to improvised padding during the observation period, which may have changed the results. This means the effectiveness of specific preventive measures cannot be judged from this data.