Root Cause Analysis and Prevalence of Pressure Injuries a Neurointensive Care Unit
PDF
Cite
Share
Request
Original Research
P: 127-139
June 2023

Root Cause Analysis and Prevalence of Pressure Injuries a Neurointensive Care Unit

J Turk Soc Intens Care 2023;21(2):127-139
1. University of Health Sciences Turkey, Antalya Training and Research Hospital, R&D Unit, Antalya, Turkey
2. University of Health Sciences Turkey, Antalya Training and Research Hospital, ICU Coordinator Nurse, Antalya, Turkey
No information available.
No information available
Received Date: 12.09.2022
Accepted Date: 25.10.2022
Publish Date: 19.06.2023
PDF
Cite
Share
Request

ABSTRACT

Objective:

This study determined the prevalence and causes of the pressure injuries (PIs) in patients hospitalized our neurology intensive care unit (NICU).

Materials and Methods:

Planned as a cross-sectional, descriptive design, this study was conducted in training and research hospital NICU. The population of the study consisted of 338 patients. We retrospectively collected data from the hospital information management system that included the study period from January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020.

Results:

Most 338 patients (54.4%) were male, the mean age of the patients was 68.44±15.5. Most patients were found to have comorbidities that may have contributed to the development of the PIs. The prevalence of the PI first appeared to be 15.4%, but since the PIs of 11 patients were found to have developed before admission to the NICU, yet with no stage progression, the prevalence of the PI was finally specified as 12.1% (n=41).

Conclusion:

It is of great importance to note that since the patients in the NICUs are at high risk of the PIs, close follow-up is accordingly necessary in terms of the PIs until discharge, it is necessary that nurses be informed as regard current guidelines to ensure offering appropriate nursing care.

Introduction

Pressure injury (PI) is a localized damage over a visible bony prominence or in the skin and/or underlying soft tissue, in relation to the use of medical or other devices (1,2). PI refer to a very costly complication that triggers substantial problems in patient care and an important indicator for patient safety and health care quality (2,3). The PI classification is used to describe the extent of tissue loss and the physical appearance of the injury as a result of pressure and/or shear. The National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel and the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel have added two further classifications to the PI framework that range from stage I to IV depending on the depth of the lesion (4-6). These classifications are known as unstageable and suspected deep tissue injury. Since intensive care units (ICUs) are complicated health care facilities that provide treatment for critically ill and unstable patients who have undergone numerous medical interventions, those who are hospitalized there are especially at risk of acquiring PIs (7,8). ICU nurses need to be mindful of PI formation and treatment for this reason. Mobility/activity, perfusion, skin condition, skin moisture, age, hematological parameters, diet, body temperature, and sensory perception are some of its main risk factors (9). The risk of developing a PI is typically higher in individuals who are sedentary, older adults, have low serum albumin and body mass index, have had surgery, or have received ICU treatment (5). Other factors such as diabetes, smoking, peripheral vascular disease and hypoproteinemia are also likely to contribute to the formation of such ulcers (2,10). Research has shown that one of the most common factors that lead to prolonged hospitalization of the patients after surgery is the PIs with a rate of 3.4-66% (2). It has been reported that the incidence of pressure injuries varies between 1.9% and 35%, with the prevalence ranging between 11.1% and 31% (11). In a similar sense, the incidence of pressure injuries in the ICUs has been reported to be 4.7-15%, a rate reaching up to 56% (12,13).

In the event of a PI, a root cause analysis (RCA) should be performed to explore the underlying causes of the problem, without focusing only on the apparent cause (14). RCA is a systematic process used to identify the source of the problem, address problems or non-conformity (15). In Turkey, there are standards expressing the necessity of performing RCA as included in Health Quality Standards and Health Accreditation Standards (16,17). The purpose of a RCA is to identify, discuss and question the practices and habits of any given institution. Instead of dealing with “what happened” and “how it happened”, it is aimed to find an answer to the question of why it happened, as well as to reveal the factors that caused it, and prevent the reoccurrence of any undesirable experience (18-20).

Neurological diseases with a progressive course those are among chronic diseases as well, differ from other diseases due to the burden they bring to caregivers and society (21). Cerebrovascular diseases (CVDs), which ranks first among the causes of mortality in the world (22) and is the most common among neurological diseases. CVDs are in the second place among the causes of morbidity in Turkey (23). While intensive care need appears in the acute period of neurological diseases; the need for intensive care can increase in the later stages of motor neuron diseases (24). With the establishment of neurological ICUs, it has been observed that many patients, who were thought to be difficult to cope with, were brought back to life with quality health care delivery (21). We focused to determine the characteristics of the patients hospitalized in neurology intensive care units (NICUs), and performed RCA to find out the causes those leading to formation of pressure injuries.

Materials and Methods

Planned as a cross-sectional and descriptive design, this study was carried out in a Hospital, NICU. The NICU has 10 beds and has been registered as a tertiary ICU. Patient data were obtained from the hospital information management system (HIMS). The evolution of study consisted of 52 patients, a sample of 338 patients. We collected data retrospectively from the HIMS which including the study period from 1 October 2020 to 31 December 2020.

The data of age, gender, diagnosis, hospitalized days, Acute Physiology and Health Evaluation-II (APACHE-II) scores, Nutritional Screening Tool-2002 (NRS2002) scores, Braden risk scores, comorbidity, nutrition, haemoglobin levels, albumin levels, discharging condition of patients was obtained.

Braden risk assessment scale: Developed by Braden and Bergstrom, the Braden scale is frequently used in the PI assessment, and its validity and reliability in Turkey was confirmed in 1997. The scale had six subscales, including friction, shear, wetness, activity, mobility, nutrition, and sensory perception (25). The risk level is classified as being either high risk (12 points or less), medium risk (13 points to 14 points), or low risk (15 points to 16 points, with 15 points to 18 points for those over 75) (25-29).

APACHE-II: For critically ill patients, scoring systems can assist forecast how long they will stay in the hospital and their outcome. The measure for determining the severity of acute diseases that is most well-known and frequently used is the APACHE-II score. There are three primary parts to this scoring system: Age points, chronic health points, and acute physiology points (30,31).

NRS2002: NRS2002 is system for screening of nutritional risks developed by Kondrup et al. (32) in 2002 with the support of Danish Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition. It is a method that is scored on three factors: age (0-1 point), disease severity (0-3 point), and inadequate nutritional status (0-3 point). Extra one score is added for aged 70+ patients. The patients those have ≥3 scores is determined under nutritional risk. The Turkish validity and reliability of the system was determined by Bolayır 2014 (32,33).

Study was approved by the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of the University Health Sciences Turkey, Antalya Training and Research Hospital (decision no: 14/4, date: 16.09.2021). Because of it is a retrospective study, data usage permission was obtained from the ethics committee and the hospital management.

Statistical Analysis

Continuous data were presented with mean ± standard deviation or median (interquartile range: 25-75th percentile). Categorical variables were presented with frequency (n) and percentage (%), and analysed with Pearson chi-square and Fisher’s Exact test. The normality assumptions were controlled by the Shapiro-Wilk test. Independent t-test and Mann-Whitney U test were used for comparing the numerical data between two groups, as appropriate. One-Way ANOVA was used for comparing the parametric variables among Braden risk groups and Tukey HSD test was used as a post-hoc test for significant cases. Comparison of non-parametric variables among Braden risk groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test and Bonferroni-Dunn test was used as a post-hoc test for significant cases. Statistical analysis was made using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 23.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY). Two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

A total of 338 patients were hospitalized in the NICU in 2020. The majority of 338 patients (54.4%) were male, and the mean age of all patients was 68.44±15.5 with the mean hospital stay of 4 days. Of all the patients, 59.8% of them were hospitalized with the diagnosis of CVD, while 21.3% of them with the diagnosis of hemiplegia. The majority of the patients (74%) were found to have comorbidities [diabetes mellitus (DM), hypertension (HT) or both] that may have contributed to the development of pressure injuries. The mean score in Braden risk assessment scale was 14, and 36.4% of the patients were in the high-risk group. When the prevalence of the PIs was examined, 52 (15.4%) patients appeared to have the PI, but 11 of them were found to have developed it outside the hospital before hospitalization in the NICU, though with no stage progression. The frequency of the PIs in the NICU was found as 12.1% (n=41). The average length of stay (23 days) of the patients with the PIs was longer than those without. A statistical significance was found between the two groups (p<0.001). In 80.8% of the patients who developed the PIs, the albumin level seemed quite low, with a mean value of 2.92±0.58, indicating statistical significance when compared with the patients who did not develop any PIs (p<0.001). Furthermore, 88.5% of the patients who developed pressure injuries had low hemoglobin levels, with a mean value of 10.74±2.18, signifying statistical significance when compared with those who did not (p<0.001). All patients who developed the PIs were in the high-risk group in terms of their NRS2002 scores, being statistically significant between the two groups (p<0.001). Of all the patients, 50.3% were discharged, but 46.2% died. Statistical significance was found between the two groups (p=0.011) (Table 1).

Table 1

Having examined pressure injuries according to their stages, it appeared that 91.7% of the patients who developed a PI in the sacrum region were at stage 2, 77.8% of which developed in the hospital, yet with no statistical significance. It is apparent that 63.9% of the patients with the PIs developed them 10 days after hospitalization, and there was a statistically significant difference between the stage of the PI and the length of hospital stay (p=0.002) (Table 2).

Table 2

The mean age of the patients in the high-risk group was 72.15, and 54.5% of them were female, according to the Braden risk assessment scale score. Age and gender differences among the risk groups were statistically significant (p<0.001, p=0.017). We determined that patients in the high-risk group in terms of Braden risk assessment scale score had a longer hospital stay, lower albumin and hemoglobin levels, indicating statistical significance. We also found that the vast majority of the patients (82.1%) in the high-risk group according to the Braden risk assessment scale score were likewise in the risk group as to the NRS2002 score due to their high scores, indicating statistical significance. The patients in the high-risk group had higher APACHE-II scores with a statistically significant difference (p=0.001). No statistically significant difference was found between the Braden risk assessment scale score and the diagnosis of hospitalization. Though not statistically significant, comorbidities such as HT and DM were found in the majority of patients with the PIs (Table 3).

Table 3

Table 4 presents the detailed information regarding 52 patients (27 women, 25 men) with the PIs, most of whom  were found to be in stage II, with the majority (90.4%) having developed it in the sacrum region, and 75% of them were found to develop it during their stay in the hospital. We determined that 50 patients who developed the PIs were in the high-risk group according to the Braden risk score, that all patients had a high-risk score of NRS2002 and received enteral nutrition, and that most of the PIs developed in the sacrum region, though they were found in more than one region. Based on the evaluation of the PI RCA, sufficient data could not be found in only 8 patients, whereas in others, RCA results revealed advanced age, nutritional deficiency, prolonged hospital stay, low albumin and hemoglobin levels, and comorbidities as the root causes resulting in the PIs. It appeared that 27 of the 52 patients who developed the PIs had at least one comorbidity and more than half of them had two. Stage progression was detected in only 2 of the patients with the PI developing outside the hospital (Table 4). In the light of such data, it is clear that the factors belonging to the patients are predominant in the analysis of the root cause in the formation of the PIs. In our study, advanced age, any kind of disease that may cause limitation of movement, comorbidities, nutritional deficiency and prolonged stay appeared to be influential factors in the development of the PIs (Table 4).

Table 4

Discussion

Although there are conflicting statistics available about the incidence of PIs, the pace of their development appears to be higher in ICUs as compared to other healthcare units (34-38).

Prevelance and Feature Risk of PIs

In this study, the prevalence of the PIs was found to be 12.1%. Research conducted on the PI incidence and prevalence has shown that the rate of the PIs in the NICU 10.9% (38) and 15% hospital-wide NICU (36). These variations may have been caused by a variety of variables, such as the size of the hospital where the study was done, whether it was a public or private university hospital, the type of ICU, whether the researcher was an employee of the organization, the exclusion of the PIs in stage I from the study, and the variation in the ability of ICU nurses to assess and be aware of PIs. This study’s significance comes from the fact that it was carried out in the NICU, where elderly patients with chronic illnesses who typically have limited mobility were present, and from the fact that the RCA of the patients’ components and other factors were presented simultaneously.

Although the sacrum, trochanter, and heels are listed as the areas where PIs are frequently observed (29), it has been shown in a number of studies that it most frequently occurs in the sacrum (29,37,39-41). Similar to this, we discovered that the sacrum region was where PIs most frequently developed, which is consistent with the literature. The PIs in the sacrum region in the ICU patients may be caused by the increase in pressure applied to the sacral region, with the heads of the patients elevated to prevent aspiration pneumonia and ventilator-associated pneumonia (41). With frequent positioning, pressure and cutting time can be reduced. For example, if both the head and foot end of the bed are raised 30 degrees when the semi-fowler position is given, the lowest contact pressure occurs at this angle (42). Due to such reasons, it is necessary to monitor and protect the parts under pressure to avoid any PI formation by changing positions at certain intervals. In the ICU where the study was conducted, all patients were recorded by changing their positions every 2 hours.

There are many factors that can lead to the PI formation, such as moisture status of the skin, age, nutrition, inactivity, anaemia, albumin level, and comorbidities (2,5,35).

It was determined that PIs developed in a shorter time in patients who could not get enough calories and protein than those who did (43).

The PI risk is higher in patients over the age of 65, and risk factors increase in those over the age of 51, indicating that the risk of developing the PIs increases with age (42). Research shows that the mean age of the patients in the previous studies was 64.9 (38), 63 (44) and 72.5 years (40). The mean age of the patients who developed the PIs was 71.6 in our study.

PIs Causes

According to the pertinent literature evaluation, patients with low albumin levels (3.5 g/dL) are more likely to develop PIs. In another study, the mean serum albumin values of patients who developed the PIs were reported as 3.41±0.58 gr/dL (45,46). Haematological and biochemical parameters should be closely monitored in ICU patients, and it should be kept in mind that the PIs may develop, especially in patients with low hemoglobin and albumin levels, and necessary precautions must be taken.

It has been stated that the comorbidity accompanying the neurological diagnosis affects the formation of the PIs, in addition to other factors (47). In our study, although no significant correlation was found between comorbid chronic diseases such as HT, DM, heart disease, and the PI formation, such disorders turned out to be more common in the majority of patients with the PIs. In our study, despite the fact that we found the APACHE-II score of the group with the PIs as higher than that of the group that did not, a statistical significance was found at the border (p=0.048).

A popular method for determining the risk of pressure injuries is the Braden scale. According to the meta-analysis study, the Braden scale demonstrated a modest level of predictive power (48). The Braden risk assessment scale score found as 11.0±2.64 is regarded in the high-risk group (49). In our study, the Braden risk assessment score of the patients who developed the PIs was likewise found to be 11. It should be noted that it is very important to monitor the patients in the risk group in terms of Braden risk score, and especially those hospitalized in the ICU should be closely monitored by the ICU nurses in order not to overlook
stage I, in particular.

It is known that the PIs five times prolong the hospital stay of patients. Research shows that the length of hospitalization in PI patients has been reported as 25.14±9.87 days (50), 20.2±18.3 (38). The average length of hospital stays of the patients who developed the PIs was 23 days in our study.

A study in the literature focusing on thirty-two cases of PIs in order to perform root cause analyses, reported malnutrition as the most important cause (51). In our study, patient-related factors such as age, comorbidities, nutritional status, and length of hospital stay were by far the most important causes. Nonetheless, apart from the given reasons, it should be noted that there may be a lack of sufficient medical materials or personnel, or a defect in the PI evaluation method. Figure 1 presents the reasons for the PIs in the form of a fishbone diagram based on our study data.

Figure 1

In the ICU, where we performed this study on the prevention of the PIs, the following measures are taken: all patients are recorded by changing their lying positions every 2 hours, and they are given daily body hygiene, air mattresses are used, the bed linens are changed daily, ensuring that they stay tight, Braden risk scores are evaluated at each shift change once any PIs are detected, skin care is provided (such as keeping the skin dry), barrier cream is used, position pads in different sizes are used to reduce pressure, necessary treatment (enteral/parenteral) is initiated in cooperation with the nutrition team based on the results of the evaluation regarding the patients’ nutritional care, and the dressings are routinely changed as part of nursing interventions. The study has stressed that PI rates can be greatly decreased from 13.86% to 10.41% by employing basic precautionary measures (52). When a patient is being discharged from the ICU, it is crucial for the ICU nurse to instruct the patient and/or the patient’s family members and caregivers on how to avoid and treat PIs (26). It is necessary that patients be evaluated at their admission to the hospital, and that continuity of care be ensured by planning and monitoring the care to be given in the ongoing process (25).

As the study was conducted only a tertiary training and research hospital in a single NICU makes it difficult to generalize the results. On the other hand, it is considered important that it is one of the largest public hospitals in the service universe in the province of Antalya, where the study was conducted. Another limitation is that the study data only covers a one-year period.

Conclusion

We observed that the patients in the NICU were in the high-risk group in terms of PI development. Immobilization, age, length of stay and nutritional status during their stay in the ICU are risk factors for the PI formation. It should be highlighted that PIs in hospitalized patients are only being evaluated as a first step in the prevention of PI formation.

In conclusion, since the patients with mechanical ventilator support (in terms of a PI caused by a medical device), as well as those who are unconscious, those with oedematous skin, those fed by enteral nutrition, those getting 12 points or less from Braden pressure sore risk assessment scale, those with infection, and those with low levels of albumin and hemoglobin are at high risk for the PI development, it is necessary that the patients -especially those hospitalized in the ICUs- are periodically evaluated considering the risk factors and that appropriate nursing interventions are provided to prevent any PI development. In this context, the evaluation of patients in terms of PI risk is important in both way the the quality of care and the patient safety. There is a need for more comprehensive multi-center studies that reveal other causes of PIs (such as health personnel-related, material-related) with a holistic approach.

In future studies, there is a need for comprehensive and long-term data covering multi-centre intensive care and clinics, in which the opinions of intensive care nurses are taken, and not only patient-related causes, but also health professionals and equipment-related reasons (like socio-economic, home care and nutritional problems) of PIs.

Ethics

Ethics Committee Approval: This study was aproved by the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of the University Health Sciences Turkey, Antalya Training and Research Hospital (decision no: 14/4, date: 16.09.2021).

Informed Consent: Retrospective study.

Peer-review: Externally peer-reviewed.

Authorship Contributions

Surgical and Medical Practices: H.E., C.Ö., Concept: H.E., C.Ö., Design: H.E., C.Ö., Data Collection and Process: H.E., C.Ö., Analysis or Interpretation: H.E., C.Ö., Literature Search: H.E., C.Ö., Writing: H.E., C.Ö.

Conflict of Interest: No conflict of interest was declared by the authors.

Financial Disclosure: The authors declared that this study received no financial support.

References

1
European pressure ulcer advisory panel, national pressure injury advisory Panel, and, Prevention and Treatment of pressure ulcers/ injuies: methodology Protocol for the clinical practice guideline. third ed. EPUAP, NPIAP, PPPIA; 2018.
2
Nasiri E, Mollaei A, Birami M, Lotfi M, Rafiei MH. The risk of surgery-related pressure ulcer in diabetics: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Med Surg (Lond) 2021;65:102336.
3
Abela G. Root cause analysis to identify contributing factors for the development of hospital acquired pressure injuries. J Tissue Viability 2021;30:339-45.
4
NPIAP. NPIAP Pressure Injury Stages.
5
Uzun O, Tan M. A prospective, descriptive pressure ulcer risk factor and prevalence study at a university hospital in Turkey. Ostomy Wound Manage 2007;53:44-56.
6
National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (NPUAP) Changes Name to National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel (NPIAP); 2019.
7
Corwin GS, Mills PD, Shanawani H, Hemphill RR. Root Cause Analysis of ICU Adverse Events in the Veterans Health Administration. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2017;43:580-90.
8
Shahin ES, Dassen T, Halfens RJ. Pressure ulcer prevalence and incidence in intensive care patients: a literature review. Nurs Crit Care 2008;13:71-9.
9
Choi YH, Kim SR. The effect of uncoated paper application on skin moisture, risk of pressure injury and incidence of pressure injury in neurologic intensive care unit patients: A randomized controlled trial. Int J Nurs Pract 2021;27:e12919.
10
Padula CA, Paradis H, Goodwin R, Lynch J, Hegerich-Bartula D. Prevention of Medical Device-Related Pressure Injuries Associated With Respiratory Equipment Use in a Critical Care Unit: A Quality Improvement Project. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs 2017;44:138-41.
11
Salomé GM, Ferreira LM. Developing a Mobile App for Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Injuries. Adv Skin Wound Care 2018;31:1-6.
12
Cınar F, Sahin SK, Aslan FE. Evaluation Of Studies In Turkey On The Prevention Of Pressure Sores In The Intensive Care Unit: A Systematic Review. Balıkesir Health Sciences Journal 2018;1:42–50.
13
Ersoy EO, Öcal S, Öz A, Yılmaz P, Arsava, B, Topeli A. Evaluation of Risk Factors for Decubitus Ulcers in Intensive Care Unit Patients. Journal of Critical and Intensive Care 2013;4:9–12.
14
Samuriwo R. Pressure ulcer-related harm: beyond root cause analysis. J Wound Care 2015;24:331.
15
Samuriwo R. Pressure ulcer-related harm: beyond root cause analysis. J Wound Care 2015;24:331.
16
Ministry of Health, Standards of Accreditation in Health Hospital Kit. 2015.
17
Ministry of Health, Standards of Health Quality Standards (HQS)-Hospital-Version 6. 2020.
18
Gur O. Fatsa State Hospital Operating Room Unit Risk Analysis Method With Determination And Evaluation Of Near Misses Event. Dokuz Eylul University: 2017.
19
Black JM. Root Cause Analysis for Hospital-Acquired Pressure Injury. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs 2019;46:298-304.
20
Kellogg KM, Hettinger Z, Shah M, Wears RL, Sellers CR, Squires M, et al. Our current approach to root cause analysis: is it contributing to our failure to improve patient safety? BMJ Qual Saf 2017;26:381-7.
21
Baykal, D, Çavuşoğlu A, Erden S O. Examination of Patient Family’ Communication with Neurology Intensive Care Nurses. IGUSABDER 2021;13:88–105.
22
Bayram, A. Johnson Behavioral System Model : A Case Report of Cerebrovascular Event. Ordu Univ. J Nurs Stud 2021;4:255–67.
23
TUIK. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Death-and-Cause of Death Statistic-2019-33710.
24
Ar AY, Bayram T, Turan G. Timing for Intensive Care , Neurological Diseases and Palliative Care. Selcuk Med J 2020;36:1–5.
25
Kökcü ÖD, Önen S. Pressure sore scales used in the follow-up and treatment. Journal of the Turkish Society of Critical Care Nurses 2020;24:199-208.
26
Emma, L. Y.; Rita, W. C. How Pressure Ulcers Can Be Prevented in Intensive Care Unit ( ICU ) Patients A Descriptive Literature Review; 2018.
27
Almeida TMM, Garces ILS, Oliveira TS, Moreira GYM. Pressure injury prevention scales in intensive care units : an integrative review. Rev Rene 2020;21;1–10.
28
Adıbelli F, Korkmaz Ş. Pressure Injury Risk Assessment Scales for Adult Patients. SDU Journal of Health Sciences 2018;9136–140.
29
 Inan DG, Oztunç G. Pressure ulcer prevalence in Turkey: a sample from a university hospital. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs 2012;39:409-13.
30
Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP, Zimmerman JE. APACHE II: a severity of disease classification system. Crit Care Med 1985;13:818-29.
31
Farajzadeh M, Nasollahi E, Bahramvand Y, Mohammadkarimi , Dalfardi B, Anushiravani, A. The Use of APACHE II Scoring System for Predicting Clinical Outcome of Patients Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit : A Report From a Resource-Limited Center. Shiraz E-Med J 2021;22:10–2.
32
Kondrup J, Rasmussen HH, Hamberg O, Stanga Z; Ad Hoc ESPEN Working Group. Nutritional risk screening (NRS 2002): a new method based on an analysis of controlled clinical trials. Clin Nutr 2003;22:321-36.
33
Bolayır B. A validity and reliability study of nutritional assessment method NRS-2002 (Nutritional Screening Test-2002) in hospitalized patients (thesis). Hacettepe Univ; 2014.
34
Lin FF, Liu Y, Wu Z, Li J, Ding Y, Li C, et al. Pressure injury prevalence and risk factors in Chinese adult intensive care units: A multi-centre prospective point prevalence study. Int Wound J 2022;19:493-506.
35
Shahin ES, Dassen T, Halfens RJ. Pressure ulcer prevalence in intensive care patients: a cross-sectional study. J Eval Clin Pract 2008;14:563-8.
36
Tokgöz O, Demir OS. Pressure Ulcers Incidence and Risk Factors in Intensive Care Unit of Norology. University of Selcuk Selcuk Medical Journal 2010;26;95–8.
37
Jacq G, Valera S, Muller G, Decormeille G, Youssoufa A, Poiroux L, et al. Prevalence of pressure injuries among critically ill patients and factors associated with their occurrence in the intensive care unit: The PRESSURE study. Aust Crit Care 2021;34:411-8.
38
Cavusoglu A, Yeni K., İncekara, H, Acun A, Dünya CP. Pressure Ulcer Prevalence in an Intensive Care Unit: A Retrospective Study. JAREN 2020;6;203–9.
39
İnan DG. Pressurce Ulcer Prevalence in Patients at Çukurova University Balcalı Hospital. University of Cukurova Insitute of Medical Sciences; Adana: 2009.
40
Turgut N, Ak A, Ak E, Yakar, N, Yılmaz, B, Cora B, et al. Incidence, Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers in Intensive Care Patients. Turkish Journal of Intensive Care 2017;15:72–6.
41
Kıraner B, Terzi E, Ekinci Uzun B, Tunalı A. Characteristic of Patients with Pressure Wound in the Intensive Care Unit. Journal of Critical Care Nurses 2016;20:78–83.
42
Gökdemir S. The Assessment Of Pressure Ulcers In Adult Intensive Care Unit Patient As A Quality Indicator. Institute of Health Sciences (thesis). Edirne: Trakya University; 2020.
43
Wenzel F, Whitaker IY. Is there a relationship between nutritional goal achievement and pressure injury risk in intensive care unit patients receiving enteral nutrition? Intensive Crit Care Nurs 2021;62:102926.
44
Celik A, Acar S, Güray F, Gelmez M, Ozcan I, The Featuresof Patients who Stayed in Intensive Care Units of University Hospital: The Retrospective Analyses Between 2009 and 2013 Years. Journal of Critical Care Nurses 2016;20:71–7.
45
Kurtuluş Z, Pınar R. Relation between albumin levels and pressure sore in high-risk patients defined with Braden’s Risk Assessment tool. C.U Hemşirelik Y.O Dergisi 2003;7:1-10.
46
Neiva GP, Carnevalli JR, Cataldi RL, Furtado DM, Fabri RL, Silva PS. Hematological change parameters in patients with pressure ulcer at long-term care hospital. Einstein (Sao Paulo) 2014;12:304-9.
47
Lima Serrano M, González Méndez MI, Carrasco Cebollero FM, Lima Rodríguez JS. Risk factors for pressure ulcer development in Intensive Care Units: A systematic review. Med Intensiva 2017;41:339-46.
48
Huang C, Ma Y, Wang C, Jiang M, Yuet Foon L, Lv L, et al. Predictive validity of the braden scale for pressure injury risk assessment in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Nurs Open 2021;8:2194-207.
49
Karahan EL, Çelik S, Uçar Ö. Incidence of Pressure Ulcers in The Patients on Mechanical Ventilation : A Prospective Study. J. Contemp. Med 2020;10:62–9.
50
Gül YG, Köprülü AS, Haspolat A, Uzman S, Toptas M, Kurtulus I. Is Braden Scale Reliable and Sufficient to Evaluate the Risk of Pressure Ulcer Occurrence in Level 3 Intensive Care Unit Patients? J. Acad. Res. Med 2016;6:98–104.
51
Greenwood C, McGinnis E. A retrospective analysis of the findings of pressure ulcer investigations in an acute trust in the UK. J Tissue Viability 2016;25:91-7.
52
Zhang X, Wu Z, Zhao B, Zhang Q, Li Z. Implementing a Pressure Injury Care Bundle in Chinese Intensive Care Units. Risk Manag Healthc Policy 2021;14:2435-42.