 |
 |
Colleagues, the following is FYI and does not necessarily reflect my own opinion. I have no further knowledge of the topic. If you do not wish to receive these posts, set your email filter to filter out any messages coming from @nutritionucanlivewith.com and the program will remove anything coming from me. --------------------------------------------------------- From Journal of the American Geriatrics Society For full article: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/514261?src=mp Access is free, but requires a one-time subscription. The National Pressure Ulcer Long-Term Care Study: Outcomes of Pressure Ulcer Treatments in Long-Term Care Posted 10/27/2005 Nancy Bergstrom, PhD, RN; Susan D. Horn, PhD; Randall J. Smout, MS; Stacy A. Bender, MS, RD; Maree L. Ferguson, PhD, RD; George Taler, MD; Abby C. Sauer, MPH, RD; Siohban S. Sharkey, MBA; Anne Coble Voss, PhD, RD Abstract and Introduction Abstract Objectives: To identify resident, wound, and treatment characteristics associated with pressure ulcer (PrU) healing in long-term care residents. Design: Retrospective cohort study with convenience sampling. Setting: Ninety-five long-term care facilities participating in the National Pressure Ulcer Long-Term Care Study throughout the United States. Participants: Eight hundred eighty-two residents, aged 18 and older, with length of stay of 14 days or longer, who had at least one Stage II to IV PrU. Measurements: Data collected for each resident over a 12-week period included resident characteristics, treatment characteristics, and change in PrU area. Data were obtained from medical records, Minimum Data Set, and other records. Results: Two multiple regression models, one for each stage grouping (Stage II, Stage III and IV), were completed. The area of Stage II PrU was reduced more with moist (F = 21.91, P < .001) than with dry (F = 13.41, P < .001) dressings. PrUs cleaned with saline or soap showed less decrease in area (F = 12.34, P < .001) than PrUs cleaned with other cleansers such as antiseptic, antibiotic, or commercial cleansers. Change in area of Stage III and IV PrUs was related to sufficient enteral feeding (F = 5.23, P = .02), enteral feeding without higher acuity levels (F = 3.94, P = .048), size of PrU (very large (F = 120.89, P = .001) and large (F = 27.82, P = .001)), and type of dressing (moist (F = 14.70, P < 001) and dry (F = 5.88, P = .02)). Stage III and IV PrUs increased in area when debrided (F = 5.97, P = .02). The overall models were significant (Stage III and IV, F = 20.30, coefficient of determination (R2) = 0.06, P < 001; Stage II, F = 40.28, R2 = 0.13, P < 001) but explained little of the variation in change in PrU area. Conclusion: In this sample of nursing facility residents, use of moist dressings (Stage II, Stage III and IV) and adequate nutritional support (Stage III and IV) are strong predictors of PrU healing. -- Kathrynne Holden, MS, RD < [log in to unmask] > "Ask the Parkinson Dietitian" http://www.parkinson.org/ "Eat well, stay well with Parkinson's disease" "Parkinson's disease: Guidelines for Medical Nutrition Therapy" http://www.nutritionucanlivewith.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent through the Ageing in Europe mailing list. Please visit the homepage of the ESA Research Network on Ageing in Europe at http://www.ageing-in-europe.de ----------------------------------------------------------------