Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32304347›Full record

Observational studyInternational wound journal2020

Positioning immobile critically ill patients who are at risk of pressure injuries using a purpose-designed positioning device and usual care equipment: An observational feasibility study.

Ines Sousa, Suzanne Kapp, Nick Santamaria

Open access · bronzeAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in International wound journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ines SousaIntensive Care Unit, Northern Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7199-897X
Suzanne KappFaculty of Medicine Dentistry and Health Sciences, Department of Nursing, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5438-8384
Nick SantamariaFaculty of Medicine Dentistry and Health Sciences, Department of Nursing, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5270-6943
The University of Melbourne · AUNorthern Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The prevalence of pressure injuries in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting is high with rates ranging from 13.1% to 45.5%. Evaluation of interventions to prevent pressure injuries should be informed by preliminary research to identify factors that should be considered during the design of future trials. The study objectives were to evaluate the process of participant recruitment and monitoring in the ICU; measure the maintenance of body angle (in the side-lying lateral tilt position) and head and neck alignment angle (in the supine position) among immobile critically ill patients when using a purpose-designed positioning device and usual care equipment, and; ascertain the time required to position patients with the purpose-designed positioning device and the usual care equipment. A prospective, observational, feasibility study was conducted in an ICU in Victoria, Australia. The sample was immobile critically ill adults at high-risk of developing pressure injuries. The usual care interventions were pillows, foam wedges, and rolled towels, and the intervention device was the Z-Flo Fluidized Positioner. The body angle and head and neck alignment were measured on six occasions (at baseline, 1 hour, and 2 hours). The time required for positioning was also measured. The sample was predominately male (n = 5, 62%) with a mean age of 59 years. The majority of patients (n = 106, 92.2%) were not immobile and therefore were ineligible to participate. A total of 48 turning and positioning interventions were observed. For the side-lying lateral tilt position, the degree of difference from baseline to 2 hours was no more than three degrees for all the devices (the Fluidized Positioner 25°-26°, the foam wedge 29°-27°, and the pillow 23°-21°). For the head and neck position, the degree of difference from baseline to 2 hours was the greatest for the pillow and rolled towel (78°-71°, a difference of 7°) and the pillow alone (79°-74°, a difference of 5°). The degree of difference was the lowest for the Fluidized Positioner (84°-86°, a difference of 2°). Future research to evaluate positioning equipment in the ICU should consider patient eligibility characteristics, particularly immobility. The conduct of preliminary studies to inform the design of larger pressure injury prevention trials is recommended.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overCritical CareCritical IllnessFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient PositioningPressure UlcerProspective StudiesVictoriaYoung Adultfeasibility studyFluidized Positionerintensive care unitpatient positioningpressure injury prevention

Identifiers

PMID32304347
PMCPMC7949009
OpenAlexW3016536350

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.