Sex-specific differences in prevention and treatment of institutional-acquired pressure ulcers in hospitals and nursing homes

Introduction: Gender and/or sex have a major impact on staying healthy, becoming ill, or care dependent. Differences between men and women have been described for socioeconomic positions, health behaviors, courses and severities of diseases and mortality rates. Consequently, sex and/or gender need to be adequately taken into account while developing and implementing evidence-based healthcare. Evidence regarding differences between men and women in pressure ulcer care is limited. Our research aim was to measure possible differences between male and female hospital patients and nursing home residents in prevention and treatment of institutional-acquired pressure ulcers. Methods: A secondary data analysis was conducted including data sets collected in nursing homes and hospitals in Germany annually from 2001 to 2016. Relevant variables were compared according to biological sex (men/woman). Results: The study included 38,655 nursing home residents (mean age 85.4 years women, 77.3 years men) and 58,760 hospital patients (mean age 66.7 years women, 63.4 years men). More women were underweight and at pressure ulcer risk in both settings. The proportion of institutional-acquired pressure ulcers was higher for men in hospitals. Slightly more men had a PU category 2 to 4 (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.99) in nursing homes or developed an institutional-acquired pressure ulcers category 2 to 4 in both settings (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.95). Special mattresses were more often used by women at PU risk. More men with an institutional-acquired pressure ulcer in hospitals received counseling of relatives (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.72). Conclusion: Although slightly more men had institutional-acquired pressure ulcers than women, overall differences regarding pressure ulcer occurrence were minor. Gender and/or sex can rather not be considered as an independent risk factor for pressure ulcer development and differences regarding pressure ulcer prevention interventions seem to be minor.