皮肤干燥和压疮风险:德国医院和疗养院的多中心横断面患病率研究。

PubMed ID
G H
发表日期 2017年Aug月

原始出处 国际护理研究杂志
International journal of nursing studies
作者 Lechner  Anna  Lahmann  Nils  Neumann  Konrad  Blume-Peytavi  Ulrike  Kottner  Jan 

文献标题 皮肤干燥和压疮风险:德国医院和疗养院的多中心横断面患病率研究。
Dry skin and pressure ulcer risk: A multi-center cross-sectional prevalence study in German hospitals and nursing homes.
Dry skin and pressure ulcer risk: A multi-center cross-sectional prevalence study in German hospitals and nursing homes.

文献摘要 BACKGROUND

压疮是一个严重的健康问题,在医疗和护理。因此,有效预防至关重要。主要的压疮危险因素已经确定,但干性皮肤(皮肤干燥症)的特殊作用尚不清楚。

OBJECTIVES

研究干性皮肤与骶骨/大转子和足跟/脚踝皮肤区域的压疮之间的可能联系。

DESIGN

两项多中心横断面研究。

SETTINGS/PARTICIPANTS

2014年和2015年,德国共有30家养老院和13家医院参与。共有3837名参与者被纳入研究。平均年龄76.1岁(标准差15.5岁)。

METHODS

皮肤评估和数据收集由经过培训的护士根据标准化的数据收集表进行。进行描述性比较和多水平logistic回归分析,预测骶骨/大转子和踝关节/足跟的压疮。

RESULTS

骶骨部位有2+类压疮的受试者躯干皮肤干燥的患病率明显高于无压疮的受试者(39.0%对24.4%,p=0.010)。根据人口统计学变量调整后,活动性和躯干干皮类型不再与压疮相关(OR 1.11(95%CI 0.62-2.00))。71.9%的2+类足跟/踝关节压力性溃疡患者受腿部或足部皮肤干燥的影响,而无压力性溃疡患者受影响的比例为42.8%(p<0.001)。在校正分析中,OR为1.85(95%ci0.83-4.14)。

CONCLUSIONS

研究结果表明,足部皮肤干燥可能是足跟部压疮的危险因素。皮肤干燥对骶骨压疮可能不太重要。因此,在未来的研究和压力性溃疡风险模型中,应更好地定义可变的皮肤状况。结果进一步支持不同解剖部位的压疮病因差异。


BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers are a serious health problem in medical and nursing care. Therefore, effective prevention is crucial. Major pressure ulcer risk factors have been identified but the particular role of dry skin (xerosis cutis) is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate possible associations between dry skin and pressure ulcers focusing on the sacrum/trochanter and at heel/ankle skin areas.

DESIGN

Two multicenter cross-sectional studies.

SETTINGS/PARTICIPANTS

In 2014 and 2015 thirty nursing homes and thirteen hospitals in Germany participated. In total 3837 participants were included. Mean age was 76.1 (SD 15.5) years.

METHODS

Skin assessments and data collection were performed by trained nurses based on a standardized data collection form. Descriptive comparisons and multilevel logistic regressions predicting pressure ulcers at sacrum/trochanter and ankle/heel were conducted.

RESULTS

The prevalence of skin dryness at the trunk was significantly higher for subjects with pressure ulcers category 2+ at the sacral area compared to without (39.0% vs. 24.4%, p=0.010). Adjusted to demographic variables, mobility and type of institution dry skin at the trunk was no longer associated with pressure ulceration (OR 1.11 (95% CI 0.62-2.00)). 71.9% of patients with heel/ankle pressure ulcers category 2+ were affected by dry skin at legs or feet, compared to 42.8% of subjects without pressure ulcers (p<0.001). In the adjusted analysis the OR was 1.85 (95% CI 0.83-4.14).

CONCLUSIONS

Study results indicate that dry skin at the feet may be considered as a risk factor for heel pressure ulcer development. Skin dryness may be less important for sacral pressure ulcers. Therefore, the variable skin status should be better defined in future studies and pressure ulcer risk models. Results further support differences in pressure ulcer aetiologies between anatomical locations.

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers are a serious health problem in medical and nursing care. Therefore, effective prevention is crucial. Major pressure ulcer risk factors have been identified but the particular role of dry skin (xerosis cutis) is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate possible associations between dry skin and pressure ulcers focusing on the sacrum/trochanter and at heel/ankle skin areas.

DESIGN

Two multicenter cross-sectional studies.

SETTINGS/PARTICIPANTS

In 2014 and 2015 thirty nursing homes and thirteen hospitals in Germany participated. In total 3837 participants were included. Mean age was 76.1 (SD 15.5) years.

METHODS

Skin assessments and data collection were performed by trained nurses based on a standardized data collection form. Descriptive comparisons and multilevel logistic regressions predicting pressure ulcers at sacrum/trochanter and ankle/heel were conducted.

RESULTS

The prevalence of skin dryness at the trunk was significantly higher for subjects with pressure ulcers category 2+ at the sacral area compared to without (39.0% vs. 24.4%, p=0.010). Adjusted to demographic variables, mobility and type of institution dry skin at the trunk was no longer associated with pressure ulceration (OR 1.11 (95% CI 0.62-2.00)). 71.9% of patients with heel/ankle pressure ulcers category 2+ were affected by dry skin at legs or feet, compared to 42.8% of subjects without pressure ulcers (p <0.001). In the adjusted analysis the OR was 1.85 (95% CI 0.83-4.14).

CONCLUSIONS

Study results indicate that dry skin at the feet may be considered as a risk factor for heel pressure ulcer development. Skin dryness may be less important for sacral pressure ulcers. Therefore, the variable skin status should be better defined in future studies and pressure ulcer risk models. Results further support differences in pressure ulcer aetiologies between anatomical locations.


获取全文 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.05.011