Effect of Varying Repositioning Frequency on Pressure Injury Prevention in Nursing Home Residents: TEAM-UP Trial Results.

No pressure injuries occurred during the intervention, so the trial could not directly compare pressure injury rates across the 2-, 3-, and 4-hour arms. The 2-hour arm continued the same schedule as baseline, so it could not be directly compared with the 3- or 4-hour arms. Residents at severe pressure injury risk were excluded, so the results do not apply to them. The intervention period was 4 weeks, which the authors note may still be insufficient to fully demonstrate pressure injury outcomes. Staff knew the assigned repositioning schedule and were prompted by sensors, which may have changed their behavior. The nursing homes and residents differed across arms, and propensity analysis partially addressed this but could not fully account for length of stay or short-stay and long-stay differences. Many residents wore sensors intermittently, for an average of 16.06 to 17.44 days, although all residents were observed for pressure injuries as part of standard care. Repositioning interval, sensor cueing, staff education, high-density foam mattresses, and standard prevention care were delivered together, so the effect of any one component cannot be separated.

The supplied text does not report a funding source or author conflicts. It notes a business associates' agreement between the nursing home corporation and the patient monitoring system company.

Do not conclude that 3- or 4-hour repositioning prevents pressure injuries. No pressure injuries occurred in any arm, so the study could not show a difference, and residents also received high-density foam mattresses, staff education, sensor cueing, and standard prevention care, so no single component can be credited.