Patient Repositioning during Hospitalization and Prevention of Pressure Ulcers: a Narrative Review.
Olga L Cortés, Skarlet M Vásquez
PMID 39083819WHAT IT FOUND
For nurses, 2-hour versus 4-hour turning did not show a clear advantage in preventing pressure injuries, and 30° versus 90° bed angle also showed no clear advantage.
Key findings
01A systematic review found no significant difference in pressure injury onset between turning every 2 hours and turning every 4 hours (relative risk 1.06, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.41).
02A systematic review found no significant difference between 30° and 90° bed inclination for reducing pressure injuries (relative risk 0.62, 95% CI 0.10 to 3.97).
03The review states that evidence is still insufficient to support a specific repositioning frequency for immobile patients.
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
The review is described as narrative, not systematic, so its conclusions are less tightly controlled. Trials included small samples, poor blinding of outcome assessors, and incomplete randomization reporting. Most studies were done in developed countries and ICU settings, so results may not apply to other hospital wards. Cost data are heterogeneous and methodologically limited. The review does not resolve optimal night-shift repositioning frequency.
Declared interests
Funded by Colombia's MINCIENCIAS, Code 277884467846, Contract No. 439-2020: PENFUP phase 2 project. The funding source had no role in the design of this study.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this review as proof that 2-hour turning prevents pressure ulcers better than 4-hour turning. The compared intervals and bed angles showed no significant differences, and the authors say high-quality evidence is still lacking.