Patient and Family Perspectives of Pressure Injury Prevention and Management in Acute Care: A Cross-Sectional Survey.
Amelia Wells, Saleen Shivji, Inam Khalfan and 4 others
PMID 42136072WHAT IT FOUND
Many patients and caregivers knew pressure injuries exist, but most did not hear about their risk or receive prevention resources during hospital admission.
They preferred verbal information and brochures. Not hearing about risk was linked to more self-reported pressure injuries.
Key findings
0180.7% reported some knowledge of pressure injuries, but 53.4% did not hear about their risk during admission and 69.6% had not heard about prevention or received resources.
02Participants most preferred verbal information (57.8%) and brochures/pamphlets (52.2%), while 30.4% received no prevention resources during admission.
03Participants who did not hear about pressure-injury risk during admission had 3.31 times higher odds of reporting a pressure injury; after adjustment for age and gender, 2.59 times higher odds.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTsWhat 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
The sample was a convenience sample with a 44% response rate, so it may not represent all acute-care patients or families. Participants had to communicate in English. This excluded non-English speakers and likely people with low literacy. The sample lacked racial and gender diversity, with less than 10% identifying as minority ethnic groups and no non-binary or self-identified gender responses. Pressure-injury status and length of stay were self-reported, not confirmed by chart review. Longer hospital stays may have caused recall bias about education and involvement. People with cognitive impairment were excluded, although caregivers of such patients could respond. Only 7 intensive-care-unit participants were included, so ICU perspectives were not analysed in depth. The study is cross-sectional, so it cannot show that hearing about pressure-injury risk prevented pressure injuries.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that pressure-injury education prevents pressure injuries. This was a cross-sectional survey with self-reported outcomes, so the link between not hearing about risk and reporting a pressure injury shows association, not cause.