4.5 Article

The incidence and prevalence of pressure ulcers among elderly patients in general medical practice

Journal

ANNALS OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 12, Issue 5, Pages 321-325

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S1047-2797(01)00255-1

Keywords

aged; cohort study; pressure ulcer; wound healing; human; incidence; prevalence

Funding

  1. NIAMS NIH HHS [R01 AR44695] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIA NIH HHS [K08 AG00715] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to estimate the period prevalence and incidence of pressure ulcer among those 65 years of age and older. METHODS: We used a patient-record database called the General Practice Research Database (GPRD). Subjects were 65 years of age and older and cases were ascertained based on strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. The accuracy of the ascertainment strategy was estimated using mailed physician-answered questionnaires. Annual period prevalence and age-specific incidence were estimated per 100 person-years with exact 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: The accuracy of our ascertainment strategy was excellent, with a positive predictive value of 100% (95% Cl: 92%,100%) and negative predictive value of 95% (85%, 95%). Over 200,000 person-years of data were analyzed. The annual period prevalence of pressure ulcer among those 65 years of age and older varied from 0.31% to 0.70%. The incidence varied significantly with advancing patient age from 0.18 to 3.36 per 100-person years (p < 0.001) but was not associated with gender (p = 0.95). CONCLUSIONS: Pressure ulcers are seen in the general practice setting. They are most likely to occur in those over 85 years of age. Preventative strategies within the general practice setting should concentrate on the oldest of the elderly. Ann Epidemiol 2002;12:321-325. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available