4.3 Article

Incidence of Pressure Ulcers in the Institutionalized Elderly

Journal

JOURNAL OF WOUND OSTOMY AND CONTINENCE NURSING
Volume 37, Issue 3, Pages 272-276

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/WON.0b013e3181d8c25c

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to analyze the incidence of pressure ulcers (PUs) in elderly people living in long-term care facilities (LTCFs). DESIGN: We completed a prospective, comparison cohort study. SUBJECTS AND SETTING: Ninety-four persons, 60 years or older, participated in the study. Participants resided in 4 not-for-profit LTCFs in 3 cities in the southern region of the Brazilian state of Minas Gerais. METHODS: Participants underwent complete skin examination and Braden Scale rating every 2 days for 3 months. When a PU was detected, a careful examination was done to assess its stage, location, and size. From this moment on, the patient was included in the incidence rate and was excluded from the study. RESULTS: The incidence rate of PUs was 39.4%; 37 (77.1%) developed a single ulcer. The most common locations were the malleolus (27.1%) and the ischium (25.0%). Stage I PU were most frequent (66.7%). Females (62.8%) and whites (68.19%) prevailed, with an average age of 79.06 +/- 9.6 years. Body mass index was 20.93 +/- 4.9, with a predominance of urinary diseases (58.5%) and use of neuroleptics/psychotropics (52.1%); 28.7% had had a previous ulcer. Gender and the occurrence of a previous ulcer were found to predict the development of PU, based on logistic regression analysis (r(2) = 0.311). CONCLUSIONS: The overall incidence of PU was significant, but the incidence of stage II and higher PUs was less than 12% and no elders had stage III or IV ulcers. Factors associated with PU development include female gender, regular use of neuroleptic or psychotropic medications, and a history of pressure ulceration.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available