Pressure ulcer prevalence and prevention practices: a cross-sectional comparative survey in Norway and Ireland

This study explored whether the risk assessment method, structured versus clinical judgment, influences pressure ulcer (PU) prevalence or prevention strategies.

A cross section survey design was employed with use of a pre-designed data collection instrument. Following ethical approval and consent, data was gathered from two acute care settings, one in Norway (clinical judgment) and one in Ireland (structured risk assessment using the Maelor Score).

Data were obtained from 180 patients, 59 in Norway and 121 in Ireland. Of the patients 48% were male and 49% were female, gender was not recorded for 3%. The most common age bracket was 70-99 years of age, 46% of the study population. PU prevalence was 54% in the Norwegian site with the majority of PUs (69%) being category 1, and 12% in the Irish site with the majority (50%) being category 2. Only 8% of patients in the Norwegian site were risk assessed on admission compared with 85% in the Irish site. No dynamic mattresses and four pressure redistribution cushions were in use in the Norwegian site, whereas, in the Irish site, 27 dynamic mattresses and 11 pressure redistribution cushions were used, the majority (44%) for high-risk individuals. Of those at risk of PU development, 15% in the Norwegian site and 56% in the Irish site had a documented repositioning care plan when in bed, and 0% in the Norwegian site and 13% in the Irish site for when seated on a chair.

There were inconsistencies in approach to PU risk assessment and prevention across the two clinical settings. However, prevalence rates differed, mainly relating to category 1 PU damage. Even though formal risk assessment is well established in the Irish site, this is not necessarily followed up with appropriated PU prevention. Thus, the method of risk assessment does not seem to influence subsequent care planning, questioning the role of formal risk assessment; however, despite this, risk assessment does put a focus on an important clinical problem. In the Norwegian site, a lack of risk assessment and appropriate equipment may be a confounding factor worthy of further exploration.