4.6 Article

Implementation of Pressure Injury Prevention Best Practices Across 6 Canadian Rehabilitation Sites: Results From the Spinal Cord Injury Knowledge Mobilization Network

Journal

ARCHIVES OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION
Volume 100, Issue 2, Pages 327-335

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2018.07.444

Keywords

Evidence-based practice; Pressure ulcer; Rehabilitation; Spinal cord injury; Translational research

Funding

  1. SCI KMN Group
  2. Alberta Paraplegic Foundation
  3. Ontario Neurotrauma Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To use the theoretical frameworks of implementation science to implement pressure injury (PI) prevention best practices in spinal cord injury (SCI) rehabilitation. Design: Quality improvement. Setting: Six Canadian SCI rehabilitation centers. Participants: Inpatients (N=2371) admitted from 2011 to 2015. Interventions: The SCI Knowledge Mobilization Network (SCI KMN) selected and implemented 2 PI prevention best practices at 6 Canadian SCI rehabilitation centers: (1) completing a comprehensive PI risk assessment comprised of a structured risk assessment instrument followed by an individualized, interprofessional risk factor determination and prevention plan; and (2) providing structured and individualized PI prevention patient education. Active Implementation Frameworks provided a systematic approach to best practice implementation. Main Outcome Measures: Implementation indicators (completion rates) and patient outcomes (PI incidence, patient education survey). Results: After implementation, risk assessment completion rates improved from 46% to 94% (P<.05). Between initial (2012-2013) and full (2014-2015) implementation stages, completion rates improved for both interprofessional risk factor determination (67% to 96%) and prevention plans (67% to 94%). Documentation of patient education also increased to 86% (vs. 71% preimplementation). At rehabilitation admission 22% of patients had PIs, with 14% of individuals developing new PIs during rehabilitation. The overall PI prevalence was 30%. Considering only PIs of stage 2 or greater, prevalence was 21% and incidence 7%. There were no statistically significant differences in PI incidence between pre- and postimplementation. Patient education surveys indicated that PI education improved patients' knowledge of prevention strategies. Conclusions: Active Implementation Frameworks supported successful implementation of PI prevention best practices across the 6 participating SCI KMN sites. Achieving a reduction in PI incidence will require additional measures, and there is an ongoing need to strengthen the evidence base underpinning PI prevention guidelines. (C) 2018 by the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available