9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Incidencia de lesiones por presión en unidades de cuidados intensivos pediátricas y neonatales: revisión sistemática (2000-2016) Translated title: Pressure injury incidence in pediatric and neonatal intensive care units: systematic review (2000-2016)

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          RESUMEN Objetivos: Describir la incidencia de lesiones por presión (LPP) en pacientes pediátricos atendidos en unidades de críticos, así como diferentes variables relacionadas con la metodología de su cálculo. Introducción: Las LPP constituyen un serio problema de salud con importantes repercusiones en los pacientes que las sufren. Las UCI pediátricas (UCIP) y neonatales (UCIN) atienden a pacientes en alto riesgo para el desarrollo de LPP. Existen pocos datos sistematizados acerca de la incidencia y variables definitorias de LPP en UCIP y UCIN. Métodos: Revisión sistemática de la literatura científica publicada entre el 1 de enero de 2000 y el 31 de diciembre de 2016, que incluía artículos que reportaban datos sobre incidencia en UCIP o UCIN. Se han incluido trabajos que notifican datos sobre LPP relacionadas con el apoyo, con o sin lesiones relacionadas con dispositivos sanitarios; se han excluido los artículos que incluían exclusivamente datos de lesiones relacionadas con dispositivos sanitarios. Resultados: La revisión sistemática ha permitido identificar 27 artículos con un total de 53 reportes de incidencia con información sobre 15 587 pacientes. En el caso de las UCIP, la mediana de la incidencia de lesiones por presión es del 19,4% en los trabajos prospectivos que no incluyen de manera implícita lesiones por presión relacionadas con dispositivos sanitarios y del 16,97% en los que incluyen a la vez lesiones relacionadas con dispositivos sanitarios y lesiones por presión por apoyo de los pacientes. En el caso de las UCIN encontramos unos valores del 3,9% y del 23,58%. Conclusiones: Los resultados del presente trabajo permiten definir el alcance de la incidencia de las LPP en pacientes críticos pediátricos y resaltan aspectos relacionados con la metodología utilizada para su cálculo.

          Translated abstract

          ABSTRACT Aims: To describe the incidence and main characteristics of pressure injuries in pediatric patients in intensive care units and some variables related to the methodology for pressure injury incidence calculation. Background: Pressure injuries (PI) represent a serious health problem with major consequences for the patients affected. Neonatal and pediatric ICU (NICU) (PICU) care for patients at high risk of developing pressure injuries. There is a paucity of systematic data on the incidence and defining variables of injuries in PICU and NICU. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of the literature published between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2016, including articles reporting data on the incidence of these injuries in PICU or NICU. We included studies reporting data on pressure injuries related to position, with or without injuries related to medical devices; we excluded studies which only reported data on pressure injuries related to medical devices. Findings: We identified 27 articles with a total of 53 reports on incidence and information on 15,587 patients. In the case of PICU, the mean incidence of PI was 19.4% in prospective studies that did not implicitly include PI related to medical devices, and 16.97% in those which included pressure injuries related both to medical devices and position. For NICU, we found values of 3.9% and 23.58% respectively. Conclusions: The results of this study shed light on the incidence of pressure injuries in pediatric intensive care patients and highlight aspects related to the methodology used for the calculation of PI incidence.

          Related collections

          Most cited references72

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews

          Background Our objective was to develop an instrument to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews, building upon previous tools, empirical evidence and expert consensus. Methods A 37-item assessment tool was formed by combining 1) the enhanced Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire (OQAQ), 2) a checklist created by Sacks, and 3) three additional items recently judged to be of methodological importance. This tool was applied to 99 paper-based and 52 electronic systematic reviews. Exploratory factor analysis was used to identify underlying components. The results were considered by methodological experts using a nominal group technique aimed at item reduction and design of an assessment tool with face and content validity. Results The factor analysis identified 11 components. From each component, one item was selected by the nominal group. The resulting instrument was judged to have face and content validity. Conclusion A measurement tool for the 'assessment of multiple systematic reviews' (AMSTAR) was developed. The tool consists of 11 items and has good face and content validity for measuring the methodological quality of systematic reviews. Additional studies are needed with a focus on the reproducibility and construct validity of AMSTAR, before strong recommendations can be made on its use.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Patient risk factors for pressure ulcer development: systematic review.

            To identify risk factors independently predictive of pressure ulcer development in adult patient populations? A systematic review of primary research was undertaken, based upon methods recommended for effectiveness questions but adapted to identify observational risk factor studies. Fourteen electronic databases were searched, each from inception until March 2010, with hand searching of specialist journals and conference proceedings; contact with experts and a citation search. There was no language restriction. Abstracts were screened, reviewed against the eligibility criteria, data extracted and quality appraised by at least one reviewer and checked by a second. Where necessary, statistical review was undertaken. We developed an assessment framework and quality classification based upon guidelines for assessing quality and methodological considerations in the analysis, meta-analysis and publication of observational studies. Studies were classified as high, moderate, low and very low quality. Risk factors were categorised into risk factor domains and sub-domains. Evidence tables were generated and a summary narrative synthesis by sub-domain and domain was undertaken. Of 5462 abstracts retrieved, 365 were identified as potentially eligible and 54 fulfilled the eligibility criteria. The 54 studies included 34,449 patients and acute and community patient populations. Seventeen studies were classified as high or moderate quality, whilst 37 studies (68.5%) had inadequate numbers of pressure ulcers and other methodological limitations. Risk factors emerging most frequently as independent predictors of pressure ulcer development included three primary domains of mobility/activity, perfusion (including diabetes) and skin/pressure ulcer status. Skin moisture, age, haematological measures, nutrition and general health status are also important, but did not emerge as frequently as the three main domains. Body temperature and immunity may be important but require further confirmatory research. There is limited evidence that either race or gender is important. Overall there is no single factor which can explain pressure ulcer risk, rather a complex interplay of factors which increase the probability of pressure ulcer development. The review highlights the limitations of over-interpretation of results from individual studies and the benefits of reviewing results from a number of studies to develop a more reliable overall assessment of factors which are important in affecting patient susceptibility. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              What are incident reports telling us? A comparative study at two Australian hospitals of medication errors identified at audit, detected by staff and reported to an incident system

              Objectives To (i) compare medication errors identified at audit and observation with medication incident reports; (ii) identify differences between two hospitals in incident report frequency and medication error rates; (iii) identify prescribing error detection rates by staff. Design Audit of 3291patient records at two hospitals to identify prescribing errors and evidence of their detection by staff. Medication administration errors were identified from a direct observational study of 180 nurses administering 7451 medications. Severity of errors was classified. Those likely to lead to patient harm were categorized as ‘clinically important’. Setting Two major academic teaching hospitals in Sydney, Australia. Main Outcome Measures Rates of medication errors identified from audit and from direct observation were compared with reported medication incident reports. Results A total of 12 567 prescribing errors were identified at audit. Of these 1.2/1000 errors (95% CI: 0.6–1.8) had incident reports. Clinically important prescribing errors (n = 539) were detected by staff at a rate of 218.9/1000 (95% CI: 184.0–253.8), but only 13.0/1000 (95% CI: 3.4–22.5) were reported. 78.1% (n = 421) of clinically important prescribing errors were not detected. A total of 2043 drug administrations (27.4%; 95% CI: 26.4–28.4%) contained ≥1 errors; none had an incident report. Hospital A had a higher frequency of incident reports than Hospital B, but a lower rate of errors at audit. Conclusions Prescribing errors with the potential to cause harm frequently go undetected. Reported incidents do not reflect the profile of medication errors which occur in hospitals or the underlying rates. This demonstrates the inaccuracy of using incident frequency to compare patient risk or quality performance within or across hospitals. New approaches including data mining of electronic clinical information systems are required to support more effective medication error detection and mitigation.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                geroko
                Gerokomos
                Gerokomos
                Sociedad Española de Enfermería Geriátrica y gerontológica (Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain )
                1134-928X
                2020
                : 31
                : 3
                : 180-192
                Affiliations
                [1] Cataluña orgnameUniversitat de Lleida orgdiv1Facultat d’Infermeria i Fisioteràpia Spain
                [6] Logroño La Rioja orgnameServicio Riojano de Salud España
                [13] Esplugues de Llobregat Barcelona orgnameHospital Sant Joan de Déu orgdiv1Unidad de Cuidados Intensivos Pediátricos España
                [2] orgnameComisión de Heridas Crónicas Pediátricas
                [12] orgnameGNEAUPP orgdiv1Comité Director
                [8] orgnameGRECS orgdiv1grupos de investigación
                [16] orgnameGNEAUPP orgdiv1Comité Consultivo
                [3] Cataluña orgnameUniversitat de Barcelona orgdiv1Programa de Enfermería y Salud Spain
                [5] Santander Cantabria orgnameUniversidad de Cantabria orgdiv1Departamento de Enfermería Spain
                [17] orgnameGNEAUPP
                [9] Cataluña orgnameUniversitat de Lleida orgdiv1IRB Lleida Spain
                [10] orgnameUniversitat de Vic-Universitat Central de Catalunya orgdiv1TR2Lab
                [7] Alicante Valencia orgnameUniversidad de Alicante orgdiv1Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud orgdiv2Departamento de Enfermería Comunitaria, Medicina Preventiva y Salud Pública e Historia de la Ciencia Spain
                [14] Esplugues de Llobregat Barcelona orgnameHospital Sant Joan de Déu orgdiv1Unidad de Cuidados Intensivos Pediátricos España
                [4] Jaén Andalucía orgnameUniversidad de Jaén orgdiv1Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud orgdiv2Departamento de Enfermería Spain
                [15] orgnameGNEAUPP-Universidad de Jaén orgdiv1Cátedra de Manejo Avanzado en Heridas
                [11] Andalucía orgnameUniversidad de Jaén orgdiv1Manejo Avanzado en Heridas Spain
                Article
                S1134-928X2020000300180 S1134-928X(20)03100300180
                448c498b-ef39-4e81-808d-633fad1e8ef2

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

                History
                : 15 November 2019
                : 01 October 2019
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 0, Equations: 0, References: 73, Pages: 13
                Product

                SciELO Spain

                Categories
                Helcos

                pediatric patients,cuidados intensivos,intensive care,pacientes pediátricos,incidencia,incidence,Pressure injuries,Lesiones por presión

                Comments

                Comment on this article