Pressure Injury Data Reconciliation in a Randomized Controlled Trial.
Jeanine Blanchard, Cheryl Vigen, Trudy Mallinson and 3 others
PMID 37121533WHAT IT FOUND
Medical record review found 82% of serious pressure injuries, while scheduled skin checks found 37%.
Phone interviews missed many injuries, especially in patients with multiple wounds. Researchers must reconcile data from multiple sources to avoid underreporting.
Key findings
01Medical record review was the most sensitive data source, identifying 82% of medically serious pressure injuries, compared to 37% by scheduled skin checks.
02Participants with a higher total number of pressure injuries were less likely to report any given injury during quarterly phone interviews.
03Medical records missed 18% of pressure injuries, indicating that they are best combined with other data sources for accurate detection.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTs
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 study was not designed to test the efficacy of the pressure injury prevention intervention, but rather to evaluate the data collection methods. There was no pre-planned standard system for reconciling data sources; procedures were developed during the study. The process may have missed some pressure injuries, meaning accuracy measures for less-trusted sources could be understated. Results may not generalize to populations that frequently seek care from multiple providers outside the primary medical center.
Declared interests
The authors report no conflicts of interest. The study was supported by the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR) and the National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR).
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret this as evidence that the pressure injury prevention program worked. This paper only describes how researchers tracked the wounds, not whether the intervention reduced them.