4.0 Article

Quality of care for hospitalized Medicare patients at risk for pressure ulcers

Journal

ARCHIVES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
Volume 161, Issue 12, Pages 1549-1554

Publisher

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/archinte.161.12.1549

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. PHS HHS [500-96-P459] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: No state peer review organization has attempted to identify processes of care related to pressure ulcer prediction and prevention in US hospitals. Objective: To profile and evaluate the processes of care for Medicare patients hospitalized at: risk fur pressure ulcer development by means of the Medicare Quality Indicator System pressure ulcer prediction and prevention module. Methods: A multicenter retrospective cohort study with medical record abstraction was used to obtain a total of 2425 patients aged 65 years and older discharged from acute care hospitals after treatment for pneumonia, cerebrovascular disease, or congestive heart failure. Six processes of care for prevention of pressure ulcers were evaluated: use of daily skin assessment; use of a pressure-reducing device; documentation of being at risk; repositioning for a minimum of 2 hours; nutritional consultation initiated for patients with nutritional risk factors; and staging of pressure ulcer. The associations between processes of care and incidence of pressure ulcer were determined with Kaplan-Meier survival analyses. Results: National estimates of compliance with process of care were as follows: use of daily skin assessment, 94%; use of pressure-reducing device, 7.5%; documentation of being at risk, 22.6%; repositioning for a minimum of 2 hours, 66.2%; nutritional consultation, 34.3%; stage 1 pressure ulcer staged, 20.2%; and stage 2 or greater ulcer staged, 30.9%. Conclusion: These results suggest that US hospitals and physicians have numerous opportunities to improve care related to pressure ulcer prediction and prevention.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available