ArticleJournal of clinical nursing2026
Examining Risk Factors for Pressure Injury Development Among Nursing Home Residents: A Retrospective Study.
Article in Journal of clinical nursing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo examine the relationship between resident-level (intrinsic) and facility-level (extrinsic) factors associated with pressure injury development among nursing home residents.
designExploratory, retrospective cohort design using secondary data from the Turn Everyone and Move for Pressure Ulcer Prevention study.
methodsData from a convenience sample of 998 residents across nine nursing homes were analysed. Resident-level factors included demographics, body mass index, comorbidities, Braden Scale scores, and clinical severity. Facility-level factors included staffing hours and location. Multivariable logistic regression identified factors associated with pressure injury development.
resultsOf 998 residents, 61 (6.1%) developed new pressure injuries. Four significant predictors were: higher clinical severity laboratory values, underweight, fewer licensed practical nurse staffing hours, and lower Braden Scale Mobility subscale scores.
conclusionsThis study highlights the importance of considering both intrinsic resident-level and extrinsic facility-level factors when assessing pressure injury risk in nursing home residents. Clinical severity measures capturing individualized physiological status may provide valuable information beyond traditional risk assessment tools. IMPLICATIONS FOR PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: Pressure injury prevention benefits from incorporating physiological markers with traditional risk factors, enhancing early identification of high-risk residents. Effective prevention strategies address both resident vulnerability and care environment factors, particularly staffing levels. Clinical mobility assessments remain essential but gain value when integrated with physiological markers. As electronic health record use increases in nursing homes, future research can leverage these data to develop targeted interventions. IMPACT: Elevated pressure injury rates in nursing homes are a persistent problem. Main findings reveal that intrinsic resident-level and extrinsic facility-level factors influence pressure injury risk. These findings enable a shift in assessment focus from primarily mobility-based to more comprehensive risk profile evaluations. Vulnerable residents will benefit from earlier risk identification that leads to targeted interventions. For healthcare systems and administrators, it highlights the importance of adequate staffing models in pressure injury prevention efforts. PATIENTS OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Data were from resident participants in the implementation of the parent study.
Indexed as
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.