Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 23, 2026
Development of a Benchtop Model for Evaluating the Compatibility of Wound Dressing Materials with Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Systems
Published on: May 2, 2025
A comparison of pressure ulcer prevalence: concerted data collection in the Netherlands and Germany
Antje Tannen1, Theo Dassen, Gerrie Bours
1Department of Nursing Science, Humboldt Universität Berlin, Campus Mitte, Schumannstrasse 20/21, 10117, Germany. antje.tannen@charite.de
Objectives:
Because of a lack of epidemiological data of pressure ulcer (PU) among care dependent patients yearly prevalence measurements are held in the Netherlands and in Germany with identical methods. A comparison shows remarkable differences in the PU prevalence so that further analysis is needed to enlighten the reasons.
Design:
With a standardized questionnaire all patients were examined by trained nurses of the participating facilities.
Setting:
In-patients in 42 Dutch and 10 German acute care Hospitals.
Participants:
All patients who handed in their informed consent were included. In the Netherlands n = 8734, and in Germany n = 2832.
Main Outcome Measures:
For calculating the PU prevalence the sample was divided inpatients at risk and not at risk for PU in accordance to the Bradenscale. Comparisons between the Netherlands and Germany refer to population details, quota of patients at risk for PU and PU prevalence. Finally the impact of eight controlled variables on the PU occurrence was calculated in a logistic regression.
Results:
Both samples showed the same sex distribution, the same mean age and the same distribution among the medical specialties. The share of patients at risk for PU is higher in the Netherlands (55%) than in Germany (38%). The frequency of PU is higher in the Dutch population (22%) than in the German one (12%). Regarding only the risk-patients the differences reduce. The prevalence in the Netherlands was 33%, in Germany it was 28%. The highest impact on PU occurrence had the age and the length of stay in hospital. The Country ranges on third position.
Conclusions:
The Dutch sample had a higher share of risk-patients and a higher PU frequency. A standardization appropriate to a risk assessment reduce the differences. For enlightening the remaining differences further research is needed.
