What Makes Paediatric Patients So Much at Risk of Medical Adhesive-Related Skin Injury in Intensive Care Unit?
Özlem Şensoy, Seda Çağlar, Emine Aybı and 1 others
PMID 40459034WHAT IT FOUND
44 of 72 paediatric ICU patients developed 140 medical adhesive skin injuries; skin stripping and facial injuries were common.
Age under 12 months, more devices, and sedation over 24 hours were linked to higher risk.
Key findings
01In 72 analysed PICU patients, 44 developed 140 medical adhesive skin injuries, with incidence of 61.1 per 100 patients, 14.6 per 100 adhesives, and 23.5 per 1000 adhesive days.
02Most injuries were skin stripping (101 of 140) and most occurred on the face (84 of 140).
03Age 12 months or younger, more medical devices, and sedation for more than 24 hours were independent risk factors, with odds ratios of 5.3, 2.4, and 5.4.
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 study included only 72 analysed patients from one paediatric intensive care unit, so the incidence and risk-factor estimates may not apply elsewhere. It was an observational cohort, not an intervention trial, so it cannot show that changing adhesives, devices, sedation, or mobilization prevents injury. The injury counts are inconsistent: the text says 140 cases occurred in 44 patients, while Table 2 lists 44 cases and 140 characteristics, so the exact injury denominator is unclear. Children with pre-existing skin disease or injury before admission were excluded, so the study does not describe risk in those groups.
Declared interests
The authors declare no conflicts of interest. No funding source is reported.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the 4-device cut-off or the risk-factor odds ratios as proof that removing devices or changing adhesives prevents medical adhesive-related skin injury. This was an observational study in 72 patients, so it shows association, not a tested cause-and-effect prevention strategy.