ArticlePediatric quality & safety
Impact of a Pressure Injury Prevention Bundle in the Solutions for Patient Safety Network.
Article in Pediatric quality & safety. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pressure Injury Preventive Mattresses in Paediatric Patients: A Scoping Review.International wound journal · 2026Article
- The role of QI collaboratives in neonatology.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2025Review
- Skin injury: Associations with variables related to perfusion and pressure.Anaesthesia and intensive care · 2024Article
- A science of collaborative learning health systems.Learning health systems · 2021Article
- Accelerating Improvement in Children's Healthcare Through Quality Improvement Collaboratives: A Synthesis of Recent Efforts.Current treatment options in pediatrics · 2019Article
- Quality improvement in pediatric intensive care: A systematic review of the literature.Pediatric investigation · 2019Review
- Priorities for Pediatric Patient Safety Research.Pediatrics · 2019Article
- Adverse Events in Hospitalized Pediatric Patients.Pediatrics · 2018Article
- Key Drivers in Reducing Hospital-acquired Pressure Injury at a Quaternary Children's Hospital.Pediatric quality & safetyArticle
- High-stage Device-related Pressure Injury Reduction in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: A Quality Improvement Project.Pediatric quality & safetyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOur objective was to describe changes in pressure injury (PI) rates in pediatric hospitals after implementation of an active surveillance and prevention bundle and to assess the impact of bundle elements.
methodsThe Children's Hospitals Solutions for Patient Safety (SPS) Network is a learning collaborative working together to eliminate harm to hospitalized children. SPS used a 3-pronged approach to prevent pressure injuries: (1) active surveillance, (2) implementing and measuring compliance with the prevention bundle, and (3) deploying a wound ostomy team. Among hospitals participating since 2011 (phase 1), we used negative binomial analyses to assess change in PI rates. Only phase 1 hospitals had a baseline period before any prevention bundle intervention. Among all hospitals participating in 2013 (phases 1 and 2), we used funnel charts to assess the association between reliable bundle implementation and PI rates.
resultsAmong the 33 hospitals that participated in SPS from 2011 to 2013 (phase 1), the rate of stage 3 pressure injuries declined from 0.06 to 0.03 per 1,000 patient-days (
conclusionsSPS hospitals saw a significant reduction in stage 3 and 4 PIs over a 2-year period. Reliable implementation of each element of a prevention bundle was associated with lower PI rates.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.